- Published on
A few friends and I have an ongoing debate over what’s the greatest Science Fiction and Fantasy television series ever produced.
Staunchly, they maintain that Gene Roddenberry’s original Star Trek deserves the crown; and up until that show’s disappointing third season I’m willing to agree with them. However, I’ve often suggested that Chris Carter’s inspired conspiracy yarn The X-Files did much more with far less than the stewards of Starfleet ever did. Plus they had a longer go at it and somehow managed to retain an astonishing degree of integrity throughout 70-80% of it. So by the volume of hours alone, I tend to give the nod to X, though – yes – Captain Kirk and company is often my comfort TV of choice when given the chance.
Not that it matters, I do tend to favor the works of Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully as well because they trampled deep into the heart of so, so, so many conspiracies … and I’ve always loved the good conundrum. Unlike Trek, X has had few authentic imitators; while some lesser attempts have given it a good sailor’s try, nothing has quite come close to capturing the magic, mystery, and mysticism of life itself. Because of The X-Files, I do tend to check out just about any like-minded theatrical projects that enter the realm of possibilities; and, thus, I was thrilled to take a gander at 2022’s Monolith at the request of Well Go USA Entertainment.
In short, the film is imperfect but in one of those mostly entertaining ways. Clocking in at an impressive 104 minutes, there’s truly only meat on them bones, though I’m not entirely certain the cast and crew stuck the landing in such a way as to please the majority of their audience. As of today’s date, it maintains (roughly) a 60 score (out of 100) amongst both critics and casual viewers; and this strongly implies to me that it almost squarely lands in that spot between good and just-above-good. Where (oh, where?) did it go wrong? I have a few ideas myself …
(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:
“A headstrong journalist whose investigative podcast uncovers a strange artifact, an alien conspiracy, and lies at the heart of her own story.”
Must every journey have a destination that’s understood?
Well, film journeys that resonate with mainstream audiences typically do; and I fear a failure to answer questions clearly might very well serve as an anchor to an otherwise interesting departure that is so very much of Monolith. Essentially, it functions very much like a one-woman stage show cleverly adapted theatrically by director Matt Vesely from Lucy Campbell’s ‘nod-and-a-wink’ script. Together, they’ve conceived what looks to be a winning conspiracy but could -- depending upon one’s interpretation – might wind up being little more than a descent into madness all orchestrated by a failed journalist-turned-podcaster (played by Lily Sullivan) who is given no name … a curious choice but one that might align with the project’s preferred ambiguousness.
(Since I don’t have a name for her character, I’m just going to call her Lily.)
On the heels of a major reporting failure, Lily is shuffled from one editorial task to another, being given a chance at redemption with hosting a podcast called ‘Beyond Believable’ in which she’ll spend time exploring and/or debunking breaking stories for an online audience. Podcasts, after all, are all the rage, so why not put her investigative skills to good use in a format less likely to garner litigious inquiries? However, it doesn’t take long for the lady to find herself at the beating heart of what appears to be a global conspiracy: these supernaturally-powered black bricks have been affecting the lives of others around the world, and what does their appearance at this time and place in our history mean for all of mankind?
Well …
Here’s my central issue with all of Monolith, and it really does boil down to something relatively simple: at the outset, Vesely and Campbell establish their story is being told by what’s already been proven as an ‘unreliable narrator.’ Lily – as a journalist – is presented as fully flawed. While we’re not given the particulars involved with what appears to be a pretty horrific scandal resulting from her lack of ethics, there’s little doubt left that she committed a massive screw-up, so much so that she’s been walled off away from others and left to live out her days doing what suffices as ‘investigative reportage’ entirely in isolation. When any tale evolves from unreliable narrators, I’m suspect at each stage in the journey. Frankly, everyone should be. As a consequence, I found myself having a hard time believing the elements strategically lining up the way these did.
Staunchly, they maintain that Gene Roddenberry’s original Star Trek deserves the crown; and up until that show’s disappointing third season I’m willing to agree with them. However, I’ve often suggested that Chris Carter’s inspired conspiracy yarn The X-Files did much more with far less than the stewards of Starfleet ever did. Plus they had a longer go at it and somehow managed to retain an astonishing degree of integrity throughout 70-80% of it. So by the volume of hours alone, I tend to give the nod to X, though – yes – Captain Kirk and company is often my comfort TV of choice when given the chance.
Not that it matters, I do tend to favor the works of Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully as well because they trampled deep into the heart of so, so, so many conspiracies … and I’ve always loved the good conundrum. Unlike Trek, X has had few authentic imitators; while some lesser attempts have given it a good sailor’s try, nothing has quite come close to capturing the magic, mystery, and mysticism of life itself. Because of The X-Files, I do tend to check out just about any like-minded theatrical projects that enter the realm of possibilities; and, thus, I was thrilled to take a gander at 2022’s Monolith at the request of Well Go USA Entertainment.
In short, the film is imperfect but in one of those mostly entertaining ways. Clocking in at an impressive 104 minutes, there’s truly only meat on them bones, though I’m not entirely certain the cast and crew stuck the landing in such a way as to please the majority of their audience. As of today’s date, it maintains (roughly) a 60 score (out of 100) amongst both critics and casual viewers; and this strongly implies to me that it almost squarely lands in that spot between good and just-above-good. Where (oh, where?) did it go wrong? I have a few ideas myself …
(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:
“A headstrong journalist whose investigative podcast uncovers a strange artifact, an alien conspiracy, and lies at the heart of her own story.”
Must every journey have a destination that’s understood?
Well, film journeys that resonate with mainstream audiences typically do; and I fear a failure to answer questions clearly might very well serve as an anchor to an otherwise interesting departure that is so very much of Monolith. Essentially, it functions very much like a one-woman stage show cleverly adapted theatrically by director Matt Vesely from Lucy Campbell’s ‘nod-and-a-wink’ script. Together, they’ve conceived what looks to be a winning conspiracy but could -- depending upon one’s interpretation – might wind up being little more than a descent into madness all orchestrated by a failed journalist-turned-podcaster (played by Lily Sullivan) who is given no name … a curious choice but one that might align with the project’s preferred ambiguousness.
(Since I don’t have a name for her character, I’m just going to call her Lily.)
On the heels of a major reporting failure, Lily is shuffled from one editorial task to another, being given a chance at redemption with hosting a podcast called ‘Beyond Believable’ in which she’ll spend time exploring and/or debunking breaking stories for an online audience. Podcasts, after all, are all the rage, so why not put her investigative skills to good use in a format less likely to garner litigious inquiries? However, it doesn’t take long for the lady to find herself at the beating heart of what appears to be a global conspiracy: these supernaturally-powered black bricks have been affecting the lives of others around the world, and what does their appearance at this time and place in our history mean for all of mankind?
Well …
Here’s my central issue with all of Monolith, and it really does boil down to something relatively simple: at the outset, Vesely and Campbell establish their story is being told by what’s already been proven as an ‘unreliable narrator.’ Lily – as a journalist – is presented as fully flawed. While we’re not given the particulars involved with what appears to be a pretty horrific scandal resulting from her lack of ethics, there’s little doubt left that she committed a massive screw-up, so much so that she’s been walled off away from others and left to live out her days doing what suffices as ‘investigative reportage’ entirely in isolation. When any tale evolves from unreliable narrators, I’m suspect at each stage in the journey. Frankly, everyone should be. As a consequence, I found myself having a hard time believing the elements strategically lining up the way these did.
Still, Monolith perseveres despite revolving around a flawed character. Mind you: as the story gets deeper and deeper as Vesely and Campbell keep layering on the possibilities, there are even vastly more significant reasons to doubt Lily’s veracity. It becomes very clear in the second half that, as a reporter, she might have the worst memory of record of any journalist – given her decidedly close association to everything that sets this ball in motion – and it’s a pretty hefty oversight used to basically pull the wool over the eyes of the viewing audience. Some might feel cheated or lied to – is that Lily’s previous sin? – but the story does find a way to keep moving forward even when it appears even those behind-the-camera were invested in such trickery.
Sadly, there’s just no effective resolution to the story as plotted out … and – make no mistake – all of this was clearly plotted out to lead us to the final destination.
There’s an irrepressible nebulousness to the film’s MacGuffin: we never learn the truth behind these black bricks. They’re the whole reason we’re sticking with Lily’s perspective; and – depending upon one’s perspective – a theory could be proposed that they aren’t even real, the end result of some macabre kind of mass hysteria. While the visuals do harken back to the ideas and themes that may’ve elevated 1956’s stellar Invasion Of The Body Snatchers into our collective consciousness, Monolith’s finale plays out more like a fever dream wherein our chief crackpot finally lost all her marbles. Without a bit more, I can’t say more … and I do feel a bit let down with where this one left me.
I thought I was getting The X-Files.
Instead, it was a case file from the looney bin.
Lastly and to the feature’s credit, Monolith earned an extra bit of love from screenings on the film festival circuit. I don’t find that much of a surprise, frankly, as this aesthetically feels like the kind of project that might resonate a bit more strongly with fans of the avant-garde. It’s been my experience that they’re generally willing to overlook a bit of narrative deficiency only if their fancies are still tickled; and it’s very likely those audiences helped lift the project’s favorability score and viral potential in ways that paid off critically and commercially in the long run.
Success – after all – is a marathon as opposed to a sprint.
Monolith (2022) was produced by Black Cat White Rabbit Productions, The South Australian Film Corporation, and the Adelaide Film Festival. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the flick’s sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish: director Vesely makes fabulous use of what’s basically a single-set location shoot, always finding small ways to keep the production visually distinct. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, there’s a brief making-of that feels more like a bloated commercial, but otherwise you’re left in the dark … perhaps in more ways than one.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
If I’m being perfectly honest with myself and my readership, I don’t like stories that leave me either hanging or guessing … but, sadly, Monolith (2022) does both. While it’s packaged and performed quite well, director Vesely and scribe Campbell leave audiences with a fade-to-black and an almost ‘you figure it out’ mentality that suggests perhaps they collectively raised more questions than they intended to answer or weren’t entirely certain themselves, so they cut-and-ran before the credits rolled. Those seeking specificity are likely going to love the build-up but be underwhelmed with the finale, though I’m guessing there won’t be any follow-up.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Monolith (2022) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Sadly, there’s just no effective resolution to the story as plotted out … and – make no mistake – all of this was clearly plotted out to lead us to the final destination.
There’s an irrepressible nebulousness to the film’s MacGuffin: we never learn the truth behind these black bricks. They’re the whole reason we’re sticking with Lily’s perspective; and – depending upon one’s perspective – a theory could be proposed that they aren’t even real, the end result of some macabre kind of mass hysteria. While the visuals do harken back to the ideas and themes that may’ve elevated 1956’s stellar Invasion Of The Body Snatchers into our collective consciousness, Monolith’s finale plays out more like a fever dream wherein our chief crackpot finally lost all her marbles. Without a bit more, I can’t say more … and I do feel a bit let down with where this one left me.
I thought I was getting The X-Files.
Instead, it was a case file from the looney bin.
Lastly and to the feature’s credit, Monolith earned an extra bit of love from screenings on the film festival circuit. I don’t find that much of a surprise, frankly, as this aesthetically feels like the kind of project that might resonate a bit more strongly with fans of the avant-garde. It’s been my experience that they’re generally willing to overlook a bit of narrative deficiency only if their fancies are still tickled; and it’s very likely those audiences helped lift the project’s favorability score and viral potential in ways that paid off critically and commercially in the long run.
Success – after all – is a marathon as opposed to a sprint.
Monolith (2022) was produced by Black Cat White Rabbit Productions, The South Australian Film Corporation, and the Adelaide Film Festival. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the flick’s sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish: director Vesely makes fabulous use of what’s basically a single-set location shoot, always finding small ways to keep the production visually distinct. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, there’s a brief making-of that feels more like a bloated commercial, but otherwise you’re left in the dark … perhaps in more ways than one.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
If I’m being perfectly honest with myself and my readership, I don’t like stories that leave me either hanging or guessing … but, sadly, Monolith (2022) does both. While it’s packaged and performed quite well, director Vesely and scribe Campbell leave audiences with a fade-to-black and an almost ‘you figure it out’ mentality that suggests perhaps they collectively raised more questions than they intended to answer or weren’t entirely certain themselves, so they cut-and-ran before the credits rolled. Those seeking specificity are likely going to love the build-up but be underwhelmed with the finale, though I’m guessing there won’t be any follow-up.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Monolith (2022) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
According to the latest published statistics on Google.com, a surprisingly low percentage of the population is affected by arachnophobia … or the fear of spiders.
Seriously? No greater than seven percent?
Now, I expressed my genuine surprise because – in all honesty – yes, I consider myself among the seven percent afflicted. While my fear is far from debilitating on any level, I can appreciate what those who do experience full-blown fright must endure when faced with the sight of any creepily crawling critter. A move to Arizona several decades back introduced me to an even greater fear – that of scorpions – which I’ve read does fall under the same category of phobias; and, of course, I’ve had to face it with the grim determination like any Arizonan could, would, and should. Spiders? I’ve read that they have their time and place in the global kingdom, but, frankly, I could do without them.
So … it should go without saying that I approached a complimentary screening of a little something-something called Infested (2023) with more than modest trepidation. I’ve seen spider-specific-themed Horror flicks before; and because I’ve had little trouble with them, I decided to give this one a go. The advertising looked very good; and I do love a good fright. While this one let me down just a bit (I’ll explain more below), it still earns high marks for being what I’ve often called an ‘old school chiller.’ It doesn’t seek to be anything greater than a momentary distraction from the trials and tribulations of life. It doesn’t hint of any deeper meaning than to just give you a good case of the willies. And there isn’t the promise of a sequel anywhere in sight.
I respect that level of efficiency … and this one pays off nicely.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re a 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:
“Residents of a rundown French apartment building battle against an army of deadly, rapidly reproducing spiders.”
Look. It may not be all that manly of me to admit that, yes, like so many I’m frightened appropriately of bees, bugs, and whatnot. Having been either stung or bitten far more times than I care to recall, I’ve learned that it isn’t so much emasculating as it is just damn prudent policy. If it crawls and it has teeth or a stinger or a pincher or whatever, then it deserves to be killed. That’s just good diplomacy in my book.
So, yes, I found it a bit hard to identify with Kaleb (played by Théo Christine), a young French entrepreneur who wants to springboard his fascination with insects into a professional career dealing in bugs. (There is such a thing? Good Lord!) So when one of his illicit suppliers suddenly comes up with a ‘hot’ new species of spider brought in from what appears to be some God forsaken desert in the Middle East, Kaleb can’t help himself and purchases the single specimen outright. Not a lot is known about the arachnid, but his dealer assures him that he should exercise extreme caution with keeping it indoors.
As Fate would have it, this particular breed of spider is somehow magically endowed with Darwinian-level powers: apparently, it reproduces at a rate required for it to physically match in size and scale whatever threat its environment poses. Once it has been removed from the desert and placed in proximity to, say, human beings? Well, you guessed it! This arthropod ignores the bookish requirements of hundreds if not thousands of years of evolutionary development and, instead, morphs into the size of domestic dogs and cats literally overnight! And speaking of dogs and cats? Well, guess what it apparently has a hankerin’ for?
Seriously? No greater than seven percent?
Now, I expressed my genuine surprise because – in all honesty – yes, I consider myself among the seven percent afflicted. While my fear is far from debilitating on any level, I can appreciate what those who do experience full-blown fright must endure when faced with the sight of any creepily crawling critter. A move to Arizona several decades back introduced me to an even greater fear – that of scorpions – which I’ve read does fall under the same category of phobias; and, of course, I’ve had to face it with the grim determination like any Arizonan could, would, and should. Spiders? I’ve read that they have their time and place in the global kingdom, but, frankly, I could do without them.
So … it should go without saying that I approached a complimentary screening of a little something-something called Infested (2023) with more than modest trepidation. I’ve seen spider-specific-themed Horror flicks before; and because I’ve had little trouble with them, I decided to give this one a go. The advertising looked very good; and I do love a good fright. While this one let me down just a bit (I’ll explain more below), it still earns high marks for being what I’ve often called an ‘old school chiller.’ It doesn’t seek to be anything greater than a momentary distraction from the trials and tribulations of life. It doesn’t hint of any deeper meaning than to just give you a good case of the willies. And there isn’t the promise of a sequel anywhere in sight.
I respect that level of efficiency … and this one pays off nicely.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re a 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:
“Residents of a rundown French apartment building battle against an army of deadly, rapidly reproducing spiders.”
Look. It may not be all that manly of me to admit that, yes, like so many I’m frightened appropriately of bees, bugs, and whatnot. Having been either stung or bitten far more times than I care to recall, I’ve learned that it isn’t so much emasculating as it is just damn prudent policy. If it crawls and it has teeth or a stinger or a pincher or whatever, then it deserves to be killed. That’s just good diplomacy in my book.
So, yes, I found it a bit hard to identify with Kaleb (played by Théo Christine), a young French entrepreneur who wants to springboard his fascination with insects into a professional career dealing in bugs. (There is such a thing? Good Lord!) So when one of his illicit suppliers suddenly comes up with a ‘hot’ new species of spider brought in from what appears to be some God forsaken desert in the Middle East, Kaleb can’t help himself and purchases the single specimen outright. Not a lot is known about the arachnid, but his dealer assures him that he should exercise extreme caution with keeping it indoors.
As Fate would have it, this particular breed of spider is somehow magically endowed with Darwinian-level powers: apparently, it reproduces at a rate required for it to physically match in size and scale whatever threat its environment poses. Once it has been removed from the desert and placed in proximity to, say, human beings? Well, you guessed it! This arthropod ignores the bookish requirements of hundreds if not thousands of years of evolutionary development and, instead, morphs into the size of domestic dogs and cats literally overnight! And speaking of dogs and cats? Well, guess what it apparently has a hankerin’ for?
Given this massively improbably scientific development, I did find it pretty difficult to take Infested seriously only as a dramatic vehicle. Essentially, it’s little more than a monster movie – one powered by its own innate ‘spider sense’ (to borrow a phrase) – and in that estimation only it works wonders. Like any good carnival thrill ride, this one pits its likeable and young cast – all of them just trying to get by and make the proper choices in their respective lives despite the usual angst of the age group – against a horde of crawling predators that will stop at nothing … not even a can of Raid. Once the original specimen gets loose, it goes into a hyper state of reproduction, overrunning the apartment complex entirely within a matter of hours.
Again … realism be damned … Infested works despite its narrative and/or scientific weaknesses. When it wants to chill you to the bone, it spins a web that’ll keep you trapped in its dire embrace for the duration of your stay … just don’t expect for all of it to make perfect sense in the big climax.
Written (in part) and directed for the screen by Sébastien Vanicek, Infested manages to deliver thrills and spills, though it does take a respectable amount of time to set up this world and its young cast. Structurally, it flows similar to 2007’s fabulous Zombie/Horror flick REC in which residents of a tenement-style structure find themselves quarantined within once the killer virus has begun infecting one resident after another. In the same fashion, Kaleb, his sister, and their friends endure a analogous nightmare scenario when French authorities suspect some kind of biological outbreak might be in progress; and they seal off the building, leaving the survivors to fend entirely for themselves. Though the project follows the formula a bit too closely if not predictably, there’s still a cool efficiency to its forward progress that makes for a grim procedural.
Note to those afraid of spiders: yes, they’re in here. In spades. However, as the film spools on and they grow larger and larger (for theatrical purposes, mostly), it does get marginally easier to watch them do what they do. But … for those who suffer from the highest levels of arachnophobia? You might wanna stick with something simpler.
Infested (2023) was produced by My Box Productions, Tandem, Netflix, and a few other participants. (For a full accounting, please check out IMDB.com.) According to quick Google.com search, the film is available presently for streaming via Amazon.com’s Prime Video and Shudder. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish. There are several sequences that take place in extremely low lighting that could’ve been improved, but methinks they were going for that look in order to preserve the horrific atmosphere. Lastly, as I viewed this production via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
I did go into Infested (2023) thinking I would have greater difficulty with the overall experience. I’m not ashamed to admit to being concerned about spiders and snakes, and I would caution those who have serious serious serious issues with them to perhaps seek entertainment solace elsewhere. But if you want to experience an effective and efficient thrill ride, then this is about as good as anything I’ve had the good fortune to stumble across as of late. It is French language – meaning it’s subtitled – so perhaps reading some of the dialogue also softened the Horror tropes to the point wherein they weren’t as visually powerful as they could’ve been otherwise.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Infested (2023) 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
Again … realism be damned … Infested works despite its narrative and/or scientific weaknesses. When it wants to chill you to the bone, it spins a web that’ll keep you trapped in its dire embrace for the duration of your stay … just don’t expect for all of it to make perfect sense in the big climax.
Written (in part) and directed for the screen by Sébastien Vanicek, Infested manages to deliver thrills and spills, though it does take a respectable amount of time to set up this world and its young cast. Structurally, it flows similar to 2007’s fabulous Zombie/Horror flick REC in which residents of a tenement-style structure find themselves quarantined within once the killer virus has begun infecting one resident after another. In the same fashion, Kaleb, his sister, and their friends endure a analogous nightmare scenario when French authorities suspect some kind of biological outbreak might be in progress; and they seal off the building, leaving the survivors to fend entirely for themselves. Though the project follows the formula a bit too closely if not predictably, there’s still a cool efficiency to its forward progress that makes for a grim procedural.
Note to those afraid of spiders: yes, they’re in here. In spades. However, as the film spools on and they grow larger and larger (for theatrical purposes, mostly), it does get marginally easier to watch them do what they do. But … for those who suffer from the highest levels of arachnophobia? You might wanna stick with something simpler.
Infested (2023) was produced by My Box Productions, Tandem, Netflix, and a few other participants. (For a full accounting, please check out IMDB.com.) According to quick Google.com search, the film is available presently for streaming via Amazon.com’s Prime Video and Shudder. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish. There are several sequences that take place in extremely low lighting that could’ve been improved, but methinks they were going for that look in order to preserve the horrific atmosphere. Lastly, as I viewed this production via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
I did go into Infested (2023) thinking I would have greater difficulty with the overall experience. I’m not ashamed to admit to being concerned about spiders and snakes, and I would caution those who have serious serious serious issues with them to perhaps seek entertainment solace elsewhere. But if you want to experience an effective and efficient thrill ride, then this is about as good as anything I’ve had the good fortune to stumble across as of late. It is French language – meaning it’s subtitled – so perhaps reading some of the dialogue also softened the Horror tropes to the point wherein they weren’t as visually powerful as they could’ve been otherwise.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Infested (2023) 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
Occasionally, I find it necessary to remind readers about my philosophy on reviewing films here at SciFiHistory.Net.
First off, every release that I take on – large or small – is because I choose to do it. Yes, as some in the growing readership have pointed out, I gravitate toward older and/or smaller releases; and this is mostly because I’ve learned over the years that I simply have more fun tackling something fewer internet voices are even considering. When everyone is sounding off about the latest blockbuster that’s playing on a zillion screens, it ain’t always easy being heard; and it’s even easier to find yourself lost in the pursuit of clicks. Instead, I talk about film. I talk about stories. I talk about talent. Those things matter to me; and if smaller and older films aren’t getting the attention I feel they deserve, then I seek to fill that void.
Second, every release that I take on deserves to have something said about it. I don’t review anything simply for the sake of reviewing it; and I work with distributors, producers, and other outlets that genuinely appreciate both the modest promotion their projects receive as well as what I might have to say about it. This isn’t so much about sharing feedback as it is about feeling part of a process wherein a story and its talent get an authentic examination – a sum total of its parts – to confirm whether or not it speaks to me. I go to great lengths with some flicks to offer up my own perspective, and I hope the storytellers and their cast and crews can benefit from the reaction.
So … yes, this means that (cough cough) even the features of days gone by that have been understandably lampooned by the likes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 might say something about the world we live in or even offer up a cautionary lesson for those who still watch for those kinds of things. 1960’s Tormented is one such property – yes, it was given the MST3K treatment (brilliantly so) in 1992, and that episode is even included as an ‘extra’ on this release from Film Masters – and I can’t help but think some of what might’ve made the film compelling got brushed over in the attempt to lambast it. My setting the record straight isn’t meant in any way to undo any obvious blemishes; rather, it’s to demonstrate even a curious second rate production still has something of merit to offer.
(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 …)
First off, every release that I take on – large or small – is because I choose to do it. Yes, as some in the growing readership have pointed out, I gravitate toward older and/or smaller releases; and this is mostly because I’ve learned over the years that I simply have more fun tackling something fewer internet voices are even considering. When everyone is sounding off about the latest blockbuster that’s playing on a zillion screens, it ain’t always easy being heard; and it’s even easier to find yourself lost in the pursuit of clicks. Instead, I talk about film. I talk about stories. I talk about talent. Those things matter to me; and if smaller and older films aren’t getting the attention I feel they deserve, then I seek to fill that void.
Second, every release that I take on deserves to have something said about it. I don’t review anything simply for the sake of reviewing it; and I work with distributors, producers, and other outlets that genuinely appreciate both the modest promotion their projects receive as well as what I might have to say about it. This isn’t so much about sharing feedback as it is about feeling part of a process wherein a story and its talent get an authentic examination – a sum total of its parts – to confirm whether or not it speaks to me. I go to great lengths with some flicks to offer up my own perspective, and I hope the storytellers and their cast and crews can benefit from the reaction.
So … yes, this means that (cough cough) even the features of days gone by that have been understandably lampooned by the likes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 might say something about the world we live in or even offer up a cautionary lesson for those who still watch for those kinds of things. 1960’s Tormented is one such property – yes, it was given the MST3K treatment (brilliantly so) in 1992, and that episode is even included as an ‘extra’ on this release from Film Masters – and I can’t help but think some of what might’ve made the film compelling got brushed over in the attempt to lambast it. My setting the record straight isn’t meant in any way to undo any obvious blemishes; rather, it’s to demonstrate even a curious second rate production still has something of merit to offer.
(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:
“A man lets a former flame fall to her death rather than let her interfere with his new relationship, but her ghost returns to disrupt his impending nuptials.”
Sporadically, I find myself in debates with like-minded folks about the nature of film criticism.
The explosion of the Information Superhighway has brought an incredible number of voices to pop culture, and a great number of them like to sound off on film. While I’m all in support of having more views as opposed to less, one significant drawback I experience when scrolling through any number of blogs and vlogs is that I find far too many of them saying the same thing … and, generally speaking, it would seem as if fandom loves to ‘pile on’ when they see a failure. Now, if everyone is saying the same thing, then (sadly) how much authentic criticism is taking place? Don’t get me wrong: a bad film is a bad film is a bad film … but my point has often been that even bad films might have something worth paying particular attention to … and such is the case with legendary filmmaker Bert I. Gordon’s Tormented.
Given the fact that this little yarn came to life right at the time that franchise like The Twilight Zone were first coming to prominence, I can’t help but point out how Tormented feels like it could’ve been a bloated episode in that universe. At 74 minutes, it arguably would’ve been too long for much of the Rod Serling venue; but both aesthetically and textually Tormented draws from the same well of inspiration, that being that our universe might be bigger, broader, and more complex that we could ever imagine at first blush. While the presentation of such ideas might be flawed here and there, it still feels very much like a product of that age.
Tom Stewart (played by Richard Carlson) is a jazz pianist who finds himself torn between two lovers: while Vi Mason (the voluptuous Juli Reding) embodies the kinda/sorta freewheeling and dangerous lifestyle he’s enjoyed as a part of the music industry, Meg (Lugene Sanders) is the kind of wholesome and well-bred debutante that just might give him the chance at stability and recognition he hasn’t found in his career. But like a good jazz tune might twist and morph into something other than intended, Vi isn’t willing to go quietly into the night; when she threatens to spoil Tom’s engagement by revealing his illicit affairs, the man realizes that he’s trapped with no way out. Before she can make good on the threats, she’s pledged to him that night on the lighthouse deck, Vi accidentally plunges to her death on the rocks below … even though Tom had the chance to save her and refused.
“A man lets a former flame fall to her death rather than let her interfere with his new relationship, but her ghost returns to disrupt his impending nuptials.”
Sporadically, I find myself in debates with like-minded folks about the nature of film criticism.
The explosion of the Information Superhighway has brought an incredible number of voices to pop culture, and a great number of them like to sound off on film. While I’m all in support of having more views as opposed to less, one significant drawback I experience when scrolling through any number of blogs and vlogs is that I find far too many of them saying the same thing … and, generally speaking, it would seem as if fandom loves to ‘pile on’ when they see a failure. Now, if everyone is saying the same thing, then (sadly) how much authentic criticism is taking place? Don’t get me wrong: a bad film is a bad film is a bad film … but my point has often been that even bad films might have something worth paying particular attention to … and such is the case with legendary filmmaker Bert I. Gordon’s Tormented.
Given the fact that this little yarn came to life right at the time that franchise like The Twilight Zone were first coming to prominence, I can’t help but point out how Tormented feels like it could’ve been a bloated episode in that universe. At 74 minutes, it arguably would’ve been too long for much of the Rod Serling venue; but both aesthetically and textually Tormented draws from the same well of inspiration, that being that our universe might be bigger, broader, and more complex that we could ever imagine at first blush. While the presentation of such ideas might be flawed here and there, it still feels very much like a product of that age.
Tom Stewart (played by Richard Carlson) is a jazz pianist who finds himself torn between two lovers: while Vi Mason (the voluptuous Juli Reding) embodies the kinda/sorta freewheeling and dangerous lifestyle he’s enjoyed as a part of the music industry, Meg (Lugene Sanders) is the kind of wholesome and well-bred debutante that just might give him the chance at stability and recognition he hasn’t found in his career. But like a good jazz tune might twist and morph into something other than intended, Vi isn’t willing to go quietly into the night; when she threatens to spoil Tom’s engagement by revealing his illicit affairs, the man realizes that he’s trapped with no way out. Before she can make good on the threats, she’s pledged to him that night on the lighthouse deck, Vi accidentally plunges to her death on the rocks below … even though Tom had the chance to save her and refused.
Anyone who’s been around even a small handful of ghost stories knows full well that the pianist’s rejection of doing the right thing is going to result in a curse; and before you know it Tom is being followed around and haunted by the scheming shrew. Not even death is going to stand in the way of this woman standing by her man; and her continued encroachment from the spectral realm begins to fray the man’s already frazzled nerves. (It ain’t easy being a jazz pianist, it would seem.) Before all is said and done, Vi will ultimately land the man of her dreams, even if that means she’ll have to coax him to join her in the Afterlife against his wishes in the final reel.
Yes: love conquers all … whether we like it or not!
IMDB.com indicates that director Gordon and George Worthing Yates collaborated on the script; and – in doing so – they actually got a great deal of mileage out of their shared ideas. With some clever yet dated effects work, we’re given indications that Tom is most definitely not alone. Footprints appear alongside his when he’s strolling along the beach with his wealthy fiancé in tow; before Meg can see them, the tide washes them conveniently away. Vi appears as a transparent shadow in several sequences, either calling out or threatening Tom from the ‘other side.’ Where the film does falter in significant ways is Gordon finds himself obsessing over ‘body horror,’ having just Vi’s hand show up in one spot or giving life to just her disembodied head in another. As special effects trickery, the techniques work … they’re just a bit half-baked in terms of what it textually represents at this point in time.
Still, Gordon was a bit of a master at getting the most out at minimum expense; and – whether you can stifle a laugh or not – Tormented works on several layers.
The auteur clearly put some time, effort, and thought (not a lot of money, though) into the construct, clearly giving audiences a look at Tom’s kinda/sorta tortured existence both personally and professionally. We’re given a glance behind the curtain – a life with Vi may’ve been sexually fulfilling whereas his potential future with Meg appears to be little more than a piano-playing fixture at some gala affair where she’s the center of attention – and it ain’t the tomorrow it’s all cracked up to be. By the second half, even extortion has entered in from a seedy afterlife, leaving our ‘hero’ with few alternatives and even a dire predicament suggesting he must murder Meg’s younger sister Sandy (Susan Gordon) if he’s ever to have a moment’s peace any longer.
Yes: love conquers all … whether we like it or not!
IMDB.com indicates that director Gordon and George Worthing Yates collaborated on the script; and – in doing so – they actually got a great deal of mileage out of their shared ideas. With some clever yet dated effects work, we’re given indications that Tom is most definitely not alone. Footprints appear alongside his when he’s strolling along the beach with his wealthy fiancé in tow; before Meg can see them, the tide washes them conveniently away. Vi appears as a transparent shadow in several sequences, either calling out or threatening Tom from the ‘other side.’ Where the film does falter in significant ways is Gordon finds himself obsessing over ‘body horror,’ having just Vi’s hand show up in one spot or giving life to just her disembodied head in another. As special effects trickery, the techniques work … they’re just a bit half-baked in terms of what it textually represents at this point in time.
Still, Gordon was a bit of a master at getting the most out at minimum expense; and – whether you can stifle a laugh or not – Tormented works on several layers.
The auteur clearly put some time, effort, and thought (not a lot of money, though) into the construct, clearly giving audiences a look at Tom’s kinda/sorta tortured existence both personally and professionally. We’re given a glance behind the curtain – a life with Vi may’ve been sexually fulfilling whereas his potential future with Meg appears to be little more than a piano-playing fixture at some gala affair where she’s the center of attention – and it ain’t the tomorrow it’s all cracked up to be. By the second half, even extortion has entered in from a seedy afterlife, leaving our ‘hero’ with few alternatives and even a dire predicament suggesting he must murder Meg’s younger sister Sandy (Susan Gordon) if he’s ever to have a moment’s peace any longer.
This is what I mean when I suggest that film criticism should strive to say something about a film similarly to a film having something to say about its presented circumstances. Admitting that a particular feature is proficient doesn’t even remotely suggest that it’s good (much less great or even inferior) on any conceivable level; rather, it underscores what about the project makes it worth a view. While admittedly Tormented is poorer or maybe silly in ways easily counted on one hand, I could still suggest it’s textbook filmmaking for a time when effects work was only beginning, leaving their obvious limitations easy to identify. But … none of that diminishes the ideas that went into the whole affair; and – on that front – I had a good time with its ghostly pursuit. Ultimately, Tom got what he deserved, being wrapped in the arms of a beautiful woman, both of them lying on a picturesque beach … even if they were both dead.
Tormented (1960) was produced by Cheviot Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Film Masters. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s been advertised as a new 4K restoration from 35mm archival elements to be very respectable; I’m betting any and all shortcomings are owed to issues with the source material, and – yes – there are a few bits and pieces underwhelming. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then buckle up! As well as this being an all-new restoration, you have waiting in store for your discovery:
Recommended.
The films of Bert I. Gordon can be a mixed bag, but Tormented (1960) achieves exactly what it set out to do. It delivers an old-fashioned ghost story – one with a bit of deception and intrigue – and it even flirts with visual trickery in ways that served the story just good enough. Thematically, it’s very similar to what Rod Serling was doing – albeit on less of a budget – or perhaps even what M. Night Shyamalan is still doing together – albeit on a vastly greater budget. Yes, you might laugh at it a bit here and there; and, yes, MST3K lampooned this one for good measure. Yet, it still works … and that says something.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual and Film Masters provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Tormented (1960) 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
Tormented (1960) was produced by Cheviot Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Film Masters. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s been advertised as a new 4K restoration from 35mm archival elements to be very respectable; I’m betting any and all shortcomings are owed to issues with the source material, and – yes – there are a few bits and pieces underwhelming. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then buckle up! As well as this being an all-new restoration, you have waiting in store for your discovery:
- The aforementioned MST3K version of Tormented;
- A good but all-too-brief interview with director Gordon;
- A stellar documentary featuring C. Courtney Joyner examining the director’s career;
- A visual essay by the Flying Maciste Brothers discussing the film;
- 1961 footage from an unaired TV pilot that sought to use Tormented as an episode;
- Audio commentary from Gary Rhodes and Larry Blamire;
- Theatrical trailers; and
- A collector’s booklet featuring essays from Tom Weaver and John Wooley.
Recommended.
The films of Bert I. Gordon can be a mixed bag, but Tormented (1960) achieves exactly what it set out to do. It delivers an old-fashioned ghost story – one with a bit of deception and intrigue – and it even flirts with visual trickery in ways that served the story just good enough. Thematically, it’s very similar to what Rod Serling was doing – albeit on less of a budget – or perhaps even what M. Night Shyamalan is still doing together – albeit on a vastly greater budget. Yes, you might laugh at it a bit here and there; and, yes, MST3K lampooned this one for good measure. Yet, it still works … and that says something.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual and Film Masters provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Tormented (1960) 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
Stardate 04.22.2024.A: The Daily Grindhouse - Happy Monday With 69 Genre Trivia Citations To Behold!
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror History' for Monday, April 22, 2024!
How's your Monday shaping up, eh?
I know, I know, I know ... apologies, my friends, for not having a post on the MainPage for a few days. I got sidetracked with the Business of Life, and I was away from the blog for a short while. Don't fret, you knuckleheads, it was nothing dire. I just -- in all honesty -- had an awful lot going on over the last few days, most of it social stuff like theater outings and whatnot, so I didn't exactly have the level of free time I normally do. It happens to us all from time-to-time, and, yeppers, that's all this was. Just busy. Very busy. But I'm back at it, and it should be a very exciting week as I have a few flicks I'll be reviewing and maybe even a small(ish) announcement or two. I'm presently hammering out some new prospects with a new distributor, so I might be receiving even a few more releases to watch. So -- as I'm always warning -- keep your eyes peeled. Busy guy. Busy guy.
But ... on to more important matters? How was your weekend? Here's hoping it brought you all the merriment and joy that mine did. Saturdays and Sundays can be great opportunities to refresh oneself against the corrosion of the work week, and I sincerely hope your 'days off' were all that they could be and more. I know I cherish mine, and I can only imagine each of you cherish yours equally.
How's your Monday shaping up, eh?
I know, I know, I know ... apologies, my friends, for not having a post on the MainPage for a few days. I got sidetracked with the Business of Life, and I was away from the blog for a short while. Don't fret, you knuckleheads, it was nothing dire. I just -- in all honesty -- had an awful lot going on over the last few days, most of it social stuff like theater outings and whatnot, so I didn't exactly have the level of free time I normally do. It happens to us all from time-to-time, and, yeppers, that's all this was. Just busy. Very busy. But I'm back at it, and it should be a very exciting week as I have a few flicks I'll be reviewing and maybe even a small(ish) announcement or two. I'm presently hammering out some new prospects with a new distributor, so I might be receiving even a few more releases to watch. So -- as I'm always warning -- keep your eyes peeled. Busy guy. Busy guy.
But ... on to more important matters? How was your weekend? Here's hoping it brought you all the merriment and joy that mine did. Saturdays and Sundays can be great opportunities to refresh oneself against the corrosion of the work week, and I sincerely hope your 'days off' were all that they could be and more. I know I cherish mine, and I can only imagine each of you cherish yours equally.
Now, you young skulls aren't nearly old enough to appreciate what I'm about to write, but I'll encourage you to pay attention all the same. This may not be wisdom I'm trying to impart, yet it could be considered a message worth hearing all the same.
Those of us who are a bit 'long in the tooth' and grew up in the 1980's? Well, there are a collection of faces that kinda/sorta take us back to those seminal years. We may not see these actors and actresses all that frequently today -- for whatever reason -- but a welcome expression such as that belonging to the forever lovely Catherine Mary Stewart still has the power to pick us up and transport back to the 1980's when she was a Screen Queen (not a Scream Queen, but you get the idea). The talented actress was a part of a good number of flicks that were required viewing from those bygone days, making a good many men and (cough cough) women of a certain persuasion perhaps fall in love with her wholesome goodness. Yes, I'm pretty sure that 1984's The Last Starfighter was my first time discovering her grace and beauty on the silver screen; and that positive experience means that she'll be forever etched into my brain, signifying a kinder and gentler era for yours truly.
Even though the lady still acts to this day, I think that she'll forever be trapped in the 80's, most of that sentiment owed to her popularity in Starfighter and the Cult/SciFi flick Night Of The Comet (not a fan, personally, but it was great to see she could deliver such an effective one-two punch in genre). So join me in wishing her a 'Happy Birthday' on this, her special day!
Those of us who are a bit 'long in the tooth' and grew up in the 1980's? Well, there are a collection of faces that kinda/sorta take us back to those seminal years. We may not see these actors and actresses all that frequently today -- for whatever reason -- but a welcome expression such as that belonging to the forever lovely Catherine Mary Stewart still has the power to pick us up and transport back to the 1980's when she was a Screen Queen (not a Scream Queen, but you get the idea). The talented actress was a part of a good number of flicks that were required viewing from those bygone days, making a good many men and (cough cough) women of a certain persuasion perhaps fall in love with her wholesome goodness. Yes, I'm pretty sure that 1984's The Last Starfighter was my first time discovering her grace and beauty on the silver screen; and that positive experience means that she'll be forever etched into my brain, signifying a kinder and gentler era for yours truly.
Even though the lady still acts to this day, I think that she'll forever be trapped in the 80's, most of that sentiment owed to her popularity in Starfighter and the Cult/SciFi flick Night Of The Comet (not a fan, personally, but it was great to see she could deliver such an effective one-two punch in genre). So join me in wishing her a 'Happy Birthday' on this, her special day!
Sometimes, I find it incredible how one actor or actress kinda/sorta appears to come out of nowhere and rise to the level of being considered an authentic genre phenomenon ... and -- all the while -- the guy or the gal were right there making a solid mark all along the way ... almost as if no one ever saw them before this one moment in time.
That's the way I think about Jeffrey Morgan Dean.
This is an actor with an incredible roster of projects -- at each opportunity the guy delivered solid if not incredible work -- and yet it seems as if it took so very long for his 'overnight success' to finally find him. For what it's worth, I thought his early stuff was just as great as the work he's finding today; and I'm at a loss to explain why audiences didn't perhaps embrace him sooner -- much sooner -- as it makes me wonder what roles he missed out on because he kinda/sorta simmered just under everyone's attention for so long.
But ... hey ... stints in such properties as Supernatural, Extant, Magic City, and The Walking Dead finally served the talent up on a silver platter for those paying attention; and isn't it grand when that happens? He definitely put in his time and earned his place in genre circles, and here's hoping the man has a long life filled with exactly the kind of work we love to see leading men occupy. He's a force to watch, even if it's at the business end of a barb-wire laced baseball bat.
Happy birthday, Mr. Morgan!
That's the way I think about Jeffrey Morgan Dean.
This is an actor with an incredible roster of projects -- at each opportunity the guy delivered solid if not incredible work -- and yet it seems as if it took so very long for his 'overnight success' to finally find him. For what it's worth, I thought his early stuff was just as great as the work he's finding today; and I'm at a loss to explain why audiences didn't perhaps embrace him sooner -- much sooner -- as it makes me wonder what roles he missed out on because he kinda/sorta simmered just under everyone's attention for so long.
But ... hey ... stints in such properties as Supernatural, Extant, Magic City, and The Walking Dead finally served the talent up on a silver platter for those paying attention; and isn't it grand when that happens? He definitely put in his time and earned his place in genre circles, and here's hoping the man has a long life filled with exactly the kind of work we love to see leading men occupy. He's a force to watch, even if it's at the business end of a barb-wire laced baseball bat.
Happy birthday, Mr. Morgan!
My, my, my ...
You kids with your long-form storytelling definitely owe a debt to David Lynch and Mark Frost that you'll never ever repay as the 1990's were phenomenal when a little something-something called Twin Peaks became 'all the rage.' This was before the internet -- I know very few of you can appreciate those dark ages -- and that meant that if you wanted to actually do a deep dive on what goodness the show delivered you actually had to go to the watercooler at work and congregate around REAL PEOPLE. And, yes, that we did congregate, and, yes, that we did talk about Twin Peaks, what it showed us, and what it all may've meant. Let's just say that we got it wrong more often than we got it right, but that's the genius that worked beneath the surface of the long-form tale. Heck, Lynch and his willing co-conspirators even took a few decades off before starting the story up with an all-new angle on Showtime (pay cable); while it may not have been as genius or as fresh as it was back in the 1990's, it still made for quality entertainment.
And there's no talking about Twin Peaks without breeching the subject of what really happened to the late Laura Palmer -- the franchise's central victim -- and there's no breeching the subject of Laura Palmer without naming the actress who brought her to life (and death): the fabulous Sheryl Lee.
The actress has continued to work since those fateful days, but -- in my humble estimation -- nothing has truly come close to the narrative punch that Peaks peaked in her career. While it's always great to see her in no matter the genre, I think she'll always be linked with that role ... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You kids with your long-form storytelling definitely owe a debt to David Lynch and Mark Frost that you'll never ever repay as the 1990's were phenomenal when a little something-something called Twin Peaks became 'all the rage.' This was before the internet -- I know very few of you can appreciate those dark ages -- and that meant that if you wanted to actually do a deep dive on what goodness the show delivered you actually had to go to the watercooler at work and congregate around REAL PEOPLE. And, yes, that we did congregate, and, yes, that we did talk about Twin Peaks, what it showed us, and what it all may've meant. Let's just say that we got it wrong more often than we got it right, but that's the genius that worked beneath the surface of the long-form tale. Heck, Lynch and his willing co-conspirators even took a few decades off before starting the story up with an all-new angle on Showtime (pay cable); while it may not have been as genius or as fresh as it was back in the 1990's, it still made for quality entertainment.
And there's no talking about Twin Peaks without breeching the subject of what really happened to the late Laura Palmer -- the franchise's central victim -- and there's no breeching the subject of Laura Palmer without naming the actress who brought her to life (and death): the fabulous Sheryl Lee.
The actress has continued to work since those fateful days, but -- in my humble estimation -- nothing has truly come close to the narrative punch that Peaks peaked in her career. While it's always great to see her in no matter the genre, I think she'll always be linked with that role ... and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Just like that, we've once again reached that point in our daily program wherein I remind you that there's more -- and much more -- over on the Daily Citation Page for April 22nd ... and it's at this point wherein I challenge each and every one of you to head on over there, check it out, and perform your own deep dive. April 22nd hosts a number of big birthdays, but I'll leave those others to you for your own discovery and edification as I'm sure there's something there for each of you. All one need do is click ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Readers, I’ve mentioned before that I have a fondness for noirish Thrillers, many of which lean toward some hard-boiled storytelling sensibilities.
Without getting too much into the weeds, I grew up in a small Midwestern town that was surprisingly revered for its violence. Much of this stemmed from the fact that it kinda/sorta had some bad blood controlling local businesses in the early half of the 20th century, and a great deal of gambling and general lawlessness (or a lack of respect for the legal system) stayed in practice throughout the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. This little town in the middle of nowhere even had a reputation amongst the neighboring bergs for being a place you didn’t want to get caught in after dark; and, yes, such repute did make for some interesting high school experiences when I’d travel to other cities for competition. Suffice it to say, we didn’t get ‘messed with’ all that much, even though we really weren’t all that much to look at.
Though I’ve never had it verified, there was even a bit of a local legend involving our townies having a bit of a scuffle with some of Al Capone’s men back in the 1920’s. Even though I’ve no way of knowing whether or not it was entirely accurate, this commonly accepted ‘myth’ was what initially propelled my interest in learning more about the most notorious name associated to crime and the great experiment that was American Prohibition. I rarely, if ever, miss out on the latest non-fiction book releases exploring the life of the gangster; and, yes, my interest has even evolved over the years to consider films and television series wherein ‘Snorky’ may have played into the affairs.
So … I’ve seen The Scarface Mob (1959) before … long before, in fact. I couldn’t say where or when – it most likely was a home video release, though it could’ve been a pay-cable airing or Turner Classic Movies – but I still jumped at the chance to inspect Arrow Films’ upcoming DVD re-release of this great story. While my personal knowledge of Capone and Prohibition makes me a bit weary with a few elements of the production, I still find it an entertaining account of Eliot Ness and his Untouchables squad as they fought the good fight against a criminal overlord and managed to ‘get out alive’ when so few who went up against the mob did.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Story of how a group of incorruptible federal lawmen helped put 1920s’ Chicago gangster Al Capone in prison.”
Sometimes, it’s important to understand where a project came from in order to underscore why it deserves to be appreciated.
Without getting too much into the weeds, I grew up in a small Midwestern town that was surprisingly revered for its violence. Much of this stemmed from the fact that it kinda/sorta had some bad blood controlling local businesses in the early half of the 20th century, and a great deal of gambling and general lawlessness (or a lack of respect for the legal system) stayed in practice throughout the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. This little town in the middle of nowhere even had a reputation amongst the neighboring bergs for being a place you didn’t want to get caught in after dark; and, yes, such repute did make for some interesting high school experiences when I’d travel to other cities for competition. Suffice it to say, we didn’t get ‘messed with’ all that much, even though we really weren’t all that much to look at.
Though I’ve never had it verified, there was even a bit of a local legend involving our townies having a bit of a scuffle with some of Al Capone’s men back in the 1920’s. Even though I’ve no way of knowing whether or not it was entirely accurate, this commonly accepted ‘myth’ was what initially propelled my interest in learning more about the most notorious name associated to crime and the great experiment that was American Prohibition. I rarely, if ever, miss out on the latest non-fiction book releases exploring the life of the gangster; and, yes, my interest has even evolved over the years to consider films and television series wherein ‘Snorky’ may have played into the affairs.
So … I’ve seen The Scarface Mob (1959) before … long before, in fact. I couldn’t say where or when – it most likely was a home video release, though it could’ve been a pay-cable airing or Turner Classic Movies – but I still jumped at the chance to inspect Arrow Films’ upcoming DVD re-release of this great story. While my personal knowledge of Capone and Prohibition makes me a bit weary with a few elements of the production, I still find it an entertaining account of Eliot Ness and his Untouchables squad as they fought the good fight against a criminal overlord and managed to ‘get out alive’ when so few who went up against the mob did.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Story of how a group of incorruptible federal lawmen helped put 1920s’ Chicago gangster Al Capone in prison.”
Sometimes, it’s important to understand where a project came from in order to underscore why it deserves to be appreciated.
For those unaware, The Scarface Mob is the pilot telefilm for TV’s reasonably long-running and popular crime procedural The Untouchables (1959-1963) starring Robert Stack as the seminal lawman hunting down those who would traffic in beer and booze in Chicago during American Prohibition (1920-1933). As I understand it, Mob was initially a two-part production when it was first screened for television as part of the Westinghouse Desilu Playhouse line-up for April 20th and April 27th, 1959. Based on its popularity and the quality of its assembly, Desilu saw these parts edited together and released theatrically outside the United States; and then, a bit later, even awarded the film a domestic screening in 1962. While this practice has grown increasingly common as of late, such a development was exceptionally rare back in those days, and I’d suggest that this stresses how well both the original telefilm and the subsequent series were embraced by a viewing public. (In fact, Wikipedia.org cites that another two-parter of The Untouchables – “The Big Train” – also received similar theatrical treatment.)
So … it kinda/sorta begs the question about how a program about crimefighting Eliot Ness grew popular in the first place?
It wasn’t as if the reviews for Mob were incendiary (in a good way), though there were some who praised its no-nonsense approach to storytelling and its depiction of the federal government versus the criminal underworld. Furthermore, the television landscape wasn’t exactly empty of crime dramas at the time as studios were finding them a bit easier to produce than were Westerns which had ruled the roost for quite some time. The answer to such a question probably has several educated answers – the gist of which I’ll ignore – but I’ve always thought it tied in with the public’s romanticism with, simply, ‘The Mafia,’ an entity’s existence that had finally been breached and exposed by the U.S. government’s Kefauver Commission in the early 1950’s.
In 1957, author Oscar Fraley released his autobiographical memoir with Ness’s cooperation; and The Untouchables was born as its own phenomenon. It was soon optioned by Desilu for production; and, thus, the series came to pass.
As a founding installment, Mob works well on many levels, though it’s also safe to advise that it’s a slow-moving set-up. Ness (as played by Robert Stack) is a bit stiff in places, some of which is likely owed to what he and director Phil Karlson thought would be sufficient characterization for a tried-and-true lawman who cannot be ‘touched’ by bribes and corruption. Once he recruits a squad of like-minded professionals to, essentially, have his back, the script from Paul Monash truly becomes something special: audiences are given an almost behind-the-scenes look at how these learned officers of the law both acted and behaved above reproach, and there’s a modest sense of camaraderie developed as a consequence of their close quarters. Of course, it’s also necessary to point out that it isn’t until the famed big guy himself – Al Capone (Neville Brand) – appears that The Untouchables truly rises to its occasion. (Capone was incarcerated when the show began, but he shows up once released from prison.) Then it becomes clear just how diametrically opposed these two figures were, and undoubtedly audiences were hungry for the moments that they’d share the screen together.
So … it kinda/sorta begs the question about how a program about crimefighting Eliot Ness grew popular in the first place?
It wasn’t as if the reviews for Mob were incendiary (in a good way), though there were some who praised its no-nonsense approach to storytelling and its depiction of the federal government versus the criminal underworld. Furthermore, the television landscape wasn’t exactly empty of crime dramas at the time as studios were finding them a bit easier to produce than were Westerns which had ruled the roost for quite some time. The answer to such a question probably has several educated answers – the gist of which I’ll ignore – but I’ve always thought it tied in with the public’s romanticism with, simply, ‘The Mafia,’ an entity’s existence that had finally been breached and exposed by the U.S. government’s Kefauver Commission in the early 1950’s.
In 1957, author Oscar Fraley released his autobiographical memoir with Ness’s cooperation; and The Untouchables was born as its own phenomenon. It was soon optioned by Desilu for production; and, thus, the series came to pass.
As a founding installment, Mob works well on many levels, though it’s also safe to advise that it’s a slow-moving set-up. Ness (as played by Robert Stack) is a bit stiff in places, some of which is likely owed to what he and director Phil Karlson thought would be sufficient characterization for a tried-and-true lawman who cannot be ‘touched’ by bribes and corruption. Once he recruits a squad of like-minded professionals to, essentially, have his back, the script from Paul Monash truly becomes something special: audiences are given an almost behind-the-scenes look at how these learned officers of the law both acted and behaved above reproach, and there’s a modest sense of camaraderie developed as a consequence of their close quarters. Of course, it’s also necessary to point out that it isn’t until the famed big guy himself – Al Capone (Neville Brand) – appears that The Untouchables truly rises to its occasion. (Capone was incarcerated when the show began, but he shows up once released from prison.) Then it becomes clear just how diametrically opposed these two figures were, and undoubtedly audiences were hungry for the moments that they’d share the screen together.
Well … the unfortunate truth there is that Capone and Ness rarely if ever (depending upon the reading of history) saw one another. I won’t go into those matters mostly because they really don’t have anything to do with Mob directly; and, yet, I will encourage those who want to know authentic details on Ness and Capone’s respective lives to continue their education by consulting biographies. What you see in movies and television is generally only based on history and not drawn directly from it; and the truth is that the gangster likely couldn’t have picked out the treasury agent in a police line-up if his life depended on it.
Surprisingly, Mob doesn’t quite celebrate Capone’s notoriety as much as later projects would. Sure, he’s a menace here, and Brand’s portrayal – though a bit culturally dated – might be seen as far too stereotypical to be accurate. (I’ve also read that Italian-Americans weren’t exactly thrilled with the show and how it depicted their people, but I’ll leave that, too, to historians.) What matters to me is the undercurrent vibrating through the 100+ minute run-time; and – on that front – the production succeeds. In fact, the second half of Mob is surprisingly violent for the day and time when it aired; and this commitment to realism is likely what kept the resulting series a favorite amongst audiences of the era.
The Scarface Mob (1959) was produced by Desilu Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this high-definition presentation to be exceptional from start-to-finish: there’s a bit of rather obvious grain in several of the ‘nighttime sequences’ that is a bit unfortunate, but it isn’t as distracting as I’ve seen elsewhere. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I’m only provided a copy of the disc – so I can’t speak to the particulars of many print extras that are listed on the item’s press materials – but there are a few video essays that, frankly, don’t much cover this production so much as they give biographical and/or historical details about Prohibition, Ness, and Capone. Honestly, I wanted more about this project … not a history lesson. Disappointing.
Recommended.
If you’re familiar with TV’s The Untouchables (1959-1963) even casually, then you owe it to yourself to see how it all began with this pilot telefilm, The Scarface Mob (1959). Having seen only a handful of episodes of the program, I think I’ll admit that I appreciated the telefilm a bit more because it is a self-contained story that deals directly with the Ness/Capone kinda/sorta showdown factually, ignoring the usual Hollywood sentiment to jazz it up with either unnecessary or inaccurate dramatics. Yes, certain creative liberties are taken, but this is still a bare bones procedural that effectively uses history as a backdrop to tell a solid story. It’s definitely worth a view.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of The Scarface Mob (1959) 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
Surprisingly, Mob doesn’t quite celebrate Capone’s notoriety as much as later projects would. Sure, he’s a menace here, and Brand’s portrayal – though a bit culturally dated – might be seen as far too stereotypical to be accurate. (I’ve also read that Italian-Americans weren’t exactly thrilled with the show and how it depicted their people, but I’ll leave that, too, to historians.) What matters to me is the undercurrent vibrating through the 100+ minute run-time; and – on that front – the production succeeds. In fact, the second half of Mob is surprisingly violent for the day and time when it aired; and this commitment to realism is likely what kept the resulting series a favorite amongst audiences of the era.
The Scarface Mob (1959) was produced by Desilu Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this high-definition presentation to be exceptional from start-to-finish: there’s a bit of rather obvious grain in several of the ‘nighttime sequences’ that is a bit unfortunate, but it isn’t as distracting as I’ve seen elsewhere. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I’m only provided a copy of the disc – so I can’t speak to the particulars of many print extras that are listed on the item’s press materials – but there are a few video essays that, frankly, don’t much cover this production so much as they give biographical and/or historical details about Prohibition, Ness, and Capone. Honestly, I wanted more about this project … not a history lesson. Disappointing.
Recommended.
If you’re familiar with TV’s The Untouchables (1959-1963) even casually, then you owe it to yourself to see how it all began with this pilot telefilm, The Scarface Mob (1959). Having seen only a handful of episodes of the program, I think I’ll admit that I appreciated the telefilm a bit more because it is a self-contained story that deals directly with the Ness/Capone kinda/sorta showdown factually, ignoring the usual Hollywood sentiment to jazz it up with either unnecessary or inaccurate dramatics. Yes, certain creative liberties are taken, but this is still a bare bones procedural that effectively uses history as a backdrop to tell a solid story. It’s definitely worth a view.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of The Scarface Mob (1959) 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
A quick search on Google.com indicates that 1896’s Le Manoir du Diable (aka The Haunted Castle) from director Georges Méliès is credited with being the very first motion picture made that is, authentically, considered Horror. At nothing more than three minutes in length, the short film was first screened for audiences in France on December 24, 1896, thus giving birth – cinematically, at least – to one of the screen’s most enduring and profitable genres ever.
Depending upon one’s perspective, it wasn’t until perhaps the 1920’s and 1930’s that Horror found its first ‘faces.’ It was with the release of such groundbreaking entries as 1931’s Dracula that Bela Lugosi became one to watch. That same year, Universal Pictures delivered Frankenstein – based on the novel by Mary Shelley – to theaters; and – with it – the great Boris Karloff made his ascent into our collective consciousness. Watching the two of them work their screen magic, audiences were horrified – by design, mind you – with the machinations of evil creeping their way into one project after another. Horror’s popularity would dip to a small degree in the late 30’s and well into the 1940’s – what with our world being at war, Horrors were real enough on the front pages of newspapers everywhere – but it would make a resurgence in big ways in the near future.
This second wave of Horror stars were debatably a little less about creature comforts and a bit grander on the theatrical scale. Names like Christopher Lee – a man who could deliver screen menace with even a casual glance – or Peter Cushing – perhaps better known for taking the fight to more villains than he ever played one – became commonplace. And … Vincent Price? Though he may’ve taken the long road to find out just how well he played characters who could chew scenery like no other, not even age diminished the man’s ability to imbue each and every role he took with his signature vocals and an almost deadpan, understated approach to antics serious or comic. As I said, Horror came back … and it came back bigger than life with these highly regarded talents.
Hollywood knows a good thing when it sees it, so producers naturally paired up these respective legends across several handfuls of projects … and, yet, it was only twice that saw all three Thespians collaborating under the same cinematic roof. The first was 1970’s Scream And Scream Again, a criminal procedural with a Horror backdrop that came to distribution by way of Amicus Productions. While I’ve not seen it, I’ve heard that it’s only true distinction is the fact that it brings these men together in a single story. The second, however, was probably a bit more to a Horror audiences’ liking: 1983’s House Of The Long Shadows cast the Horror royalty as ghosts descended from the same family all haunting an old estate being used by a vacationing American writer to pen his next novel in silence. Producers also enlisted the revered John Carradine into the cast (as just one more ghost, if only one were needed), and it seemed that nothing could go wrong.
Well …
Depending upon one’s perspective, it wasn’t until perhaps the 1920’s and 1930’s that Horror found its first ‘faces.’ It was with the release of such groundbreaking entries as 1931’s Dracula that Bela Lugosi became one to watch. That same year, Universal Pictures delivered Frankenstein – based on the novel by Mary Shelley – to theaters; and – with it – the great Boris Karloff made his ascent into our collective consciousness. Watching the two of them work their screen magic, audiences were horrified – by design, mind you – with the machinations of evil creeping their way into one project after another. Horror’s popularity would dip to a small degree in the late 30’s and well into the 1940’s – what with our world being at war, Horrors were real enough on the front pages of newspapers everywhere – but it would make a resurgence in big ways in the near future.
This second wave of Horror stars were debatably a little less about creature comforts and a bit grander on the theatrical scale. Names like Christopher Lee – a man who could deliver screen menace with even a casual glance – or Peter Cushing – perhaps better known for taking the fight to more villains than he ever played one – became commonplace. And … Vincent Price? Though he may’ve taken the long road to find out just how well he played characters who could chew scenery like no other, not even age diminished the man’s ability to imbue each and every role he took with his signature vocals and an almost deadpan, understated approach to antics serious or comic. As I said, Horror came back … and it came back bigger than life with these highly regarded talents.
Hollywood knows a good thing when it sees it, so producers naturally paired up these respective legends across several handfuls of projects … and, yet, it was only twice that saw all three Thespians collaborating under the same cinematic roof. The first was 1970’s Scream And Scream Again, a criminal procedural with a Horror backdrop that came to distribution by way of Amicus Productions. While I’ve not seen it, I’ve heard that it’s only true distinction is the fact that it brings these men together in a single story. The second, however, was probably a bit more to a Horror audiences’ liking: 1983’s House Of The Long Shadows cast the Horror royalty as ghosts descended from the same family all haunting an old estate being used by a vacationing American writer to pen his next novel in silence. Producers also enlisted the revered John Carradine into the cast (as just one more ghost, if only one were needed), and it seemed that nothing could go wrong.
Well …
I’ve read some reportage that suggests there were (ahem) “issues” between the stars and Cannon Films (the production company). Much of the breakdown was apparently owed to the fact that the story and advertising didn’t quite synch with one another. For those unaware, Shadows was, in fact, meant to be a parody of the kinds of films these legendary actors had made long before; but advertisements allegedly played up the Horror aspects so much so that viewers and critics alike struggled to find anything to appreciate once seeing the finished product. There are some suggestions in articles online that attempts were made to salvage the project by correcting the advertising, but, alas, Shadows ultimately disappeared at the box office, never igniting the interest it perhaps could have under different circumstances.
Having now seen it myself for the first time, I can see why.
(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:
“An American author finds a dilapidated Welsh manor perfect for writing until the residents host a bizarre family reunion.”
When is a Horror not really a Horror?
Simply, this would be when the Horror was actually conceived, made, and intended to be a Comedy, as was the case with House Of The Long Shadows. Directed by Pete Walker from a story by Michael Armstrong, Earl Derr Biggers, and George M. Cohan, the flick unspools very much like it was loosely lampooning the haunted house pictures of an early era, perhaps even the kinds of projects previously made famous by its cadre of Horror Royalty … John Carradine, Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing. There isn’t a hand with enough fingers big enough to count the number of scary entries this cavalry saved from obscurity by their efforts alone; and it’s pretty obvious that their presence alone was intended to give this project the fortitude required to, perchance, make box office history.
And yet their storied careers had little to no effect on Shadows’ lack of success, probably owed more to a lackluster and poorly executed idea than it did any clout they singly or collectively mustered.
Having now seen it myself for the first time, I can see why.
(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:
“An American author finds a dilapidated Welsh manor perfect for writing until the residents host a bizarre family reunion.”
When is a Horror not really a Horror?
Simply, this would be when the Horror was actually conceived, made, and intended to be a Comedy, as was the case with House Of The Long Shadows. Directed by Pete Walker from a story by Michael Armstrong, Earl Derr Biggers, and George M. Cohan, the flick unspools very much like it was loosely lampooning the haunted house pictures of an early era, perhaps even the kinds of projects previously made famous by its cadre of Horror Royalty … John Carradine, Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, and Peter Cushing. There isn’t a hand with enough fingers big enough to count the number of scary entries this cavalry saved from obscurity by their efforts alone; and it’s pretty obvious that their presence alone was intended to give this project the fortitude required to, perchance, make box office history.
And yet their storied careers had little to no effect on Shadows’ lack of success, probably owed more to a lackluster and poorly executed idea than it did any clout they singly or collectively mustered.
In short, Shadows is a haunted house story revolving around a bet between popular American bestselling author Kenneth Magee (played by Desi Arnaz Jr.) and his publisher Sam Allyson (Richard Todd). Essentially, Magee – full of the traditional ‘piss and vinegar’ fueling so many successful writers – insists he can craft another publishing hit within 24 hours; and Allyson – with dollar signs in his eyes – bets the young man $20,000 that it cannot be done. The publisher even offers up a property he owns – a presumably deserted Welsh manor – for the author’s use; and, thus, the game is afoot.
However, once he arrives at Baldpate Manor the young man is surprised to find it anything but empty. The caretakers are presently preparing the expansive estate for a dinner of the Grisbane family – its original owners – who are gathering one last time on the eve of a rather sordid past anniversary. Before the night is over, the Grisbanes are hoping to put a lingering curse well behind them, but all Magee wants to do is finish his novel and maybe even squeeze in a bit of loving with Allyson’s professional assistant Mary (Julie Peasgood) who is also along for the festivities. It doesn’t take long before the curse is in effect once more, and the bodies start piling up.
While the premise sounds like a decent foundation around which to spin any yarn, Shadows central failure is that none of the screen talent seems to be taking any of it very seriously. Oh, the learned talent has definitely forgotten more about chewing scenery than most in the acting business ever learn, and all involved hit their marks as required for their respective scenes; but there’s never any true sense of danger, mostly because it kinda/sorta starts to less like dire straits and more like loose comedy. At heart, Shadows evolves more into a weird caper – if you think things are not as they appear, then you’ve won half the battle – and its resolution even appears a bit rushed given the lengths to which the shenanigans stretch.
At the risk of spoiling it, Shadows is a ruse, both on its American lead as well as the viewing audience. Events happen even when the author isn’t present; and – if this was all meant to confuse him over a bet – we’re not supposed to question why we’re being shown something that he’s not. It’s convenience for the sake of convenience, and not everything in here ‘adds up.’ By the last reel, we learn that a great deal of the script was, in fact, little more than artifice … all made up to apparently ‘make a point’ to Magee about what is and isn’t possible or some such nonsense. (You’ll have to trust me when I say it just isn’t very clear.) Now, the lengths to which Allyson and his paid staff would have gone in order to make this whole charade possible is M-A-S-S-I-V-E, so massive that I suspect it couldn’t have been pulled off … except for in the movies. Sadly, movies don’t require that everything make perfect sense; so if you can accept that the wool was not so much pulled over Magee’s eyes as it was yours, then you might forgive this one’s obvious deception.
However, once he arrives at Baldpate Manor the young man is surprised to find it anything but empty. The caretakers are presently preparing the expansive estate for a dinner of the Grisbane family – its original owners – who are gathering one last time on the eve of a rather sordid past anniversary. Before the night is over, the Grisbanes are hoping to put a lingering curse well behind them, but all Magee wants to do is finish his novel and maybe even squeeze in a bit of loving with Allyson’s professional assistant Mary (Julie Peasgood) who is also along for the festivities. It doesn’t take long before the curse is in effect once more, and the bodies start piling up.
While the premise sounds like a decent foundation around which to spin any yarn, Shadows central failure is that none of the screen talent seems to be taking any of it very seriously. Oh, the learned talent has definitely forgotten more about chewing scenery than most in the acting business ever learn, and all involved hit their marks as required for their respective scenes; but there’s never any true sense of danger, mostly because it kinda/sorta starts to less like dire straits and more like loose comedy. At heart, Shadows evolves more into a weird caper – if you think things are not as they appear, then you’ve won half the battle – and its resolution even appears a bit rushed given the lengths to which the shenanigans stretch.
At the risk of spoiling it, Shadows is a ruse, both on its American lead as well as the viewing audience. Events happen even when the author isn’t present; and – if this was all meant to confuse him over a bet – we’re not supposed to question why we’re being shown something that he’s not. It’s convenience for the sake of convenience, and not everything in here ‘adds up.’ By the last reel, we learn that a great deal of the script was, in fact, little more than artifice … all made up to apparently ‘make a point’ to Magee about what is and isn’t possible or some such nonsense. (You’ll have to trust me when I say it just isn’t very clear.) Now, the lengths to which Allyson and his paid staff would have gone in order to make this whole charade possible is M-A-S-S-I-V-E, so massive that I suspect it couldn’t have been pulled off … except for in the movies. Sadly, movies don’t require that everything make perfect sense; so if you can accept that the wool was not so much pulled over Magee’s eyes as it was yours, then you might forgive this one’s obvious deception.
To the film’s credit, Shadows ratcheted up a bit of extra interest from screenings on the film festival circuit, and why wouldn’t it? A Horror film showcasing the talents of several true originals is exactly the kind of thing festival audiences were made for. This isn’t to diminish the achievement; it’s merely to point out that some spectators are a bit more ‘informed’ than are others, making the pairing of this production to those venues a match made in Heaven … or is that Hell?!?!
(cue maniacal and devilish laughter)
House Of The Long Shadows (1983) was produced by London-Cannon Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to the presentation to be exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts not one but two audio commentaries along with a feature-length documentary (a bit tedious in a few spots) that revisits the production with surviving members of the cast and crew. There’s also an interview with the director and (the usual) theatrical trailer to enjoy.
Recommended, but … only for diehard fans of Classic Horror cinema as newbies and/or contemporaries might find very little to enjoy in this somber paced “chiller” (their words, not mine).
Readers, there is the germ of a very, very, very good idea at the heart of House Of The Long Shadows (1983); and – given the fact that it’s so reasonably well-made and hosts what should be regarded as a cast of ‘Horror royalty’ – I suspect a great deal of viewers will forgive director Walker and his cast and crew out of respect for its epic attempt. My problem – one I suffer frequently, it would seem – is that Shadows is the kind of the story that the more one thinks about it the less it makes sense; so I’ll dispense with the goodwill and, instead, just agree that, yes, it sure was grand seeing some of cinema’s biggest names in genre brought together for one last hurrah. They deserved better … as did we.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of House Of The Long Shadows (1983) 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
(cue maniacal and devilish laughter)
House Of The Long Shadows (1983) was produced by London-Cannon Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to the presentation to be exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts not one but two audio commentaries along with a feature-length documentary (a bit tedious in a few spots) that revisits the production with surviving members of the cast and crew. There’s also an interview with the director and (the usual) theatrical trailer to enjoy.
Recommended, but … only for diehard fans of Classic Horror cinema as newbies and/or contemporaries might find very little to enjoy in this somber paced “chiller” (their words, not mine).
Readers, there is the germ of a very, very, very good idea at the heart of House Of The Long Shadows (1983); and – given the fact that it’s so reasonably well-made and hosts what should be regarded as a cast of ‘Horror royalty’ – I suspect a great deal of viewers will forgive director Walker and his cast and crew out of respect for its epic attempt. My problem – one I suffer frequently, it would seem – is that Shadows is the kind of the story that the more one thinks about it the less it makes sense; so I’ll dispense with the goodwill and, instead, just agree that, yes, it sure was grand seeing some of cinema’s biggest names in genre brought together for one last hurrah. They deserved better … as did we.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of House Of The Long Shadows (1983) 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:
“A frustrated thriller writer wants accurate crimes for his next book, so he hypnotizes his assistant to make him commit the required crimes.”
Why, it was just the other day – when I was penning a piece about what typically draws my attention to older films as opposed to new ones – that I made an observation about narrative. It’s been my experience that older – not necessarily “classic” – productions went to great lengths with less material. They didn’t have as many bells and whistles with which to ‘shock and awe’ an audience – certainly not as much as we have today – and, thus, a talented cast and crew put in the extra effort to give their project greater substance. This doesn’t mean that it all made perfect sense; but, rather, it does imply that all involved tried to produce some end results worth greater than the price of admission.
As I pointed out, however, this doesn’t mean that those end results were designed to stand the test of time; and to a degree this is what holds 1959’s Horrors Of The Black Museum back from being anything greater than the sum of its parts. For its day, it probably worked just fine, cultivating enough interest with both its whodunnit perspective and its light theatrical trickery to generate some gasps and sighs amongst the audience. But by today’s standards? Well, this one doesn’t quite go the distance.
A city with as rich a bloody history with murders as London won’t settle on accepting bloodshed so routine, and the latest spate of killings has been growing more gruesome with each passing body. Superintendent Graham (played by Geoffrey Keen) in on-the-case for Scotland Yard, but evidence and motive seems to be more elusive than usual. That and the fact that local columnist Edmond Bancroft (Michael Gough) keeps sensationalizing the bloodshed for the delight of the city’s readership, and the police have grown weary with the writer’s constant chides about how he alone could solve the matter with his vastly superior intellect. Still, before all is said and done, Bancroft’s motivations might be called into question as it appears he might be closer to the crimes being committed than he has ever been!
Well, if you haven’t guessed at who the guilty culprit might be, then I won’t spoil it for you – let’s just say, this one really isn’t all that difficult to predict – as Horrors Of The Black Museum pretty much descends rather quickly into little more than a melodramatic potboiler given a bit of distinction by the macabre manners in which our villain dispatches the various victims. From what I’ve read (as well as from observations heard on the disc’s commentary tracks), all of these killings were inspired by actual crimes committed by items collected and stored in Scotland Yard’s Black Museum, an assortment of murder weapons perhaps as nefarious as the nasty folks who used them for nefarious ends. Indeed, the script – by Herman Cohen and Aben Kandel – portrays Bancroft as maintaining his own private compilation of knives, axes, and whatnot – he’s enchanted with slaughter, you know, as it’s his day job – and by all appearances it’s this fascination that ultimately puts him kinda/sorta in the slaying business.
As novel an inspiration as that may’ve been in the late 1950’s when director Arthur Crabtree brought this story to the screen, I’d still argue it’s a bit … well … intellectually lazy.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A frustrated thriller writer wants accurate crimes for his next book, so he hypnotizes his assistant to make him commit the required crimes.”
Why, it was just the other day – when I was penning a piece about what typically draws my attention to older films as opposed to new ones – that I made an observation about narrative. It’s been my experience that older – not necessarily “classic” – productions went to great lengths with less material. They didn’t have as many bells and whistles with which to ‘shock and awe’ an audience – certainly not as much as we have today – and, thus, a talented cast and crew put in the extra effort to give their project greater substance. This doesn’t mean that it all made perfect sense; but, rather, it does imply that all involved tried to produce some end results worth greater than the price of admission.
As I pointed out, however, this doesn’t mean that those end results were designed to stand the test of time; and to a degree this is what holds 1959’s Horrors Of The Black Museum back from being anything greater than the sum of its parts. For its day, it probably worked just fine, cultivating enough interest with both its whodunnit perspective and its light theatrical trickery to generate some gasps and sighs amongst the audience. But by today’s standards? Well, this one doesn’t quite go the distance.
A city with as rich a bloody history with murders as London won’t settle on accepting bloodshed so routine, and the latest spate of killings has been growing more gruesome with each passing body. Superintendent Graham (played by Geoffrey Keen) in on-the-case for Scotland Yard, but evidence and motive seems to be more elusive than usual. That and the fact that local columnist Edmond Bancroft (Michael Gough) keeps sensationalizing the bloodshed for the delight of the city’s readership, and the police have grown weary with the writer’s constant chides about how he alone could solve the matter with his vastly superior intellect. Still, before all is said and done, Bancroft’s motivations might be called into question as it appears he might be closer to the crimes being committed than he has ever been!
Well, if you haven’t guessed at who the guilty culprit might be, then I won’t spoil it for you – let’s just say, this one really isn’t all that difficult to predict – as Horrors Of The Black Museum pretty much descends rather quickly into little more than a melodramatic potboiler given a bit of distinction by the macabre manners in which our villain dispatches the various victims. From what I’ve read (as well as from observations heard on the disc’s commentary tracks), all of these killings were inspired by actual crimes committed by items collected and stored in Scotland Yard’s Black Museum, an assortment of murder weapons perhaps as nefarious as the nasty folks who used them for nefarious ends. Indeed, the script – by Herman Cohen and Aben Kandel – portrays Bancroft as maintaining his own private compilation of knives, axes, and whatnot – he’s enchanted with slaughter, you know, as it’s his day job – and by all appearances it’s this fascination that ultimately puts him kinda/sorta in the slaying business.
As novel an inspiration as that may’ve been in the late 1950’s when director Arthur Crabtree brought this story to the screen, I’d still argue it’s a bit … well … intellectually lazy.
If one takes that idea as a foundation with nothing further (no inciting incident, no psychological development, etc.), then it becomes easy to suggest fans of just about anything capable of rather easily suppressing years of upbringing or a basic moral compunction for human decency in favor of murdering one’s fellow man without remorse. Say you like stories involving serial killers; why, filmmakers would have you believe that you’re merely a stone’s throw away from amassing your own pile of cadavers! Say you’re interested in fire; why, don’t you know that rather than becoming a firefighter to study it more you’re far more inclined to practice arson at the drop of a hat! While I had no problem accepting that Bancroft both had and maintained some dark hobbies, I think the film really owed it to audiences to have a better catalyst that would’ve greater explained why the man turned from ‘expert’ to ‘practitioner’ so easily.
For those who think that perhaps I’ve spoiled too much, let me assure you that there is a bit more to the story than what meets the eye in my above observations. Thankfully, Black Museum earns points by adding one more layer involving Bancroft’s young protégé Rick (Graham Curnow) in an interesting subplot that fleshes out just how far our learned expert has taken his interest in homicide and how one might achieve certain ends while still keeping one’s hands clean. Still, it’s a bit more magical than it is purely scientific, and I’m not convinced it won any more fans to the picture back then than it will in today’s cynical audiences.
What Black Museum is missing – again, in my estimation – is that there’s no authentic foil to Bancroft’s villainousness.
Early scenes in the picture suggest that perhaps such an intellectual counterpart – a Sherlock Holmes to Bancroft’s rather obvious Moriarity – was intended: sequences featuring Graham and the writer debating facts and figures emerging from the crime streak play nicely as two opponents trying to match one another’s grounding of facts as well as their command of police detection. They spar wonderfully when given the chance, and I suggest that a stronger script could’ve emerged wherein this dynamic could’ve served as the centerpiece for the whole affair. In some ways, it may’ve been like what audiences were inevitably treated to with David Fincher’s vastly darker Seven (1995) where investigators Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and Mills (Brad Pitt) squared off mentally against John Doe (Kevin Spacey). Given that Black Museum was filmed in the late 1950’s, it wouldn’t have had nearly the level of gore that Seven so effectively employed, but that adversarial tete e tete between the forces of good and bad would’ve given Gough and Keen’s screen time added dimension.
As it stands, Black Museum isn’t bad. It’s simply flat. You get what you expect – and then some – though there’s still enough creepiness that will likely please those who discover its charms from a bygone era.
Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) was produced by Carmel Productions and Merton Park Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this new 4K restoration to be exceptionally good; all of it both looks and sounds vibrant, probably better than it ever has before. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc includes a few interviews along with two commentaries (one archival and one new), making this a worthy addition to any cineaste’s collection if interested.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
As a fan of older features, I’m honestly surprised I didn’t like Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) a bit better than I did. Production details are good, and performances are interesting, but I still found it missing a stronger core in the character of Edmond Bancroft. When the villain isn’t fleshed out enough to make him as compelling as are his dark deeds, then I struggle to understand what motivated him – beyond personal success – to take the path less traveled. It got really close to being something truly special but slipped before hitting the mark.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) 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
For those who think that perhaps I’ve spoiled too much, let me assure you that there is a bit more to the story than what meets the eye in my above observations. Thankfully, Black Museum earns points by adding one more layer involving Bancroft’s young protégé Rick (Graham Curnow) in an interesting subplot that fleshes out just how far our learned expert has taken his interest in homicide and how one might achieve certain ends while still keeping one’s hands clean. Still, it’s a bit more magical than it is purely scientific, and I’m not convinced it won any more fans to the picture back then than it will in today’s cynical audiences.
What Black Museum is missing – again, in my estimation – is that there’s no authentic foil to Bancroft’s villainousness.
Early scenes in the picture suggest that perhaps such an intellectual counterpart – a Sherlock Holmes to Bancroft’s rather obvious Moriarity – was intended: sequences featuring Graham and the writer debating facts and figures emerging from the crime streak play nicely as two opponents trying to match one another’s grounding of facts as well as their command of police detection. They spar wonderfully when given the chance, and I suggest that a stronger script could’ve emerged wherein this dynamic could’ve served as the centerpiece for the whole affair. In some ways, it may’ve been like what audiences were inevitably treated to with David Fincher’s vastly darker Seven (1995) where investigators Somerset (Morgan Freeman) and Mills (Brad Pitt) squared off mentally against John Doe (Kevin Spacey). Given that Black Museum was filmed in the late 1950’s, it wouldn’t have had nearly the level of gore that Seven so effectively employed, but that adversarial tete e tete between the forces of good and bad would’ve given Gough and Keen’s screen time added dimension.
As it stands, Black Museum isn’t bad. It’s simply flat. You get what you expect – and then some – though there’s still enough creepiness that will likely please those who discover its charms from a bygone era.
Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) was produced by Carmel Productions and Merton Park Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this new 4K restoration to be exceptionally good; all of it both looks and sounds vibrant, probably better than it ever has before. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc includes a few interviews along with two commentaries (one archival and one new), making this a worthy addition to any cineaste’s collection if interested.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
As a fan of older features, I’m honestly surprised I didn’t like Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) a bit better than I did. Production details are good, and performances are interesting, but I still found it missing a stronger core in the character of Edmond Bancroft. When the villain isn’t fleshed out enough to make him as compelling as are his dark deeds, then I struggle to understand what motivated him – beyond personal success – to take the path less traveled. It got really close to being something truly special but slipped before hitting the mark.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Horrors Of The Black Museum (1959) 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
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to Monday, April 15th, 2024 ... the start of another whole new week ... and here's your 'On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History' for this great day!
Well, well, well ... how was everyone's weekend?
Mine was a little wacky. I was on the tail end of another sinus bug or something. Just kinda/sorta knocked me for a loop. Affects my energy level, mostly, but I'm well on-the-mend as of this morning. A bit scratchy in the throat, and it's drippy, too ... but well over the hump and on the road to wellness once more.
So it was a reasonably low-key weekend, as a result. We did manage to squeeze in a viewing of 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me at the local bargain theater. They're in the midst of a James Bond series, showing a few of the older ones. I think next up in Goldeneye -- which we'll likely also take in -- but I believe that's the last one. They're also alternating them with (ugh) the Austin Powers flicks for some reason. I only cared for the first one of those, so I'll not likely be seeing any of them on the silver screen again. Just not my stuff.
We also had the good fortune of discovering an all-new craft-style store in our area. It's one of those big spaces that's set-up for individual vendors to display their various wares; and -- wowza -- it's pretty amazing. So many folks these days have so many great talents that it's honestly just fabulous to kinda/sorta walk and look at what they can do. Granted -- and I don't mean this to sound sexist at all, folks -- a good deal of what's up there on display is far more for the ladies (or self-identifying ladies); and yet every now and then some merchant realizes that the men in their lives also need a bit of pampering. I did come across some interesting Star Wars items -- clearly not authorized, as these are c-r-a-f-t-s, like I said -- but they look just incredible, all the same.
Well, well, well ... how was everyone's weekend?
Mine was a little wacky. I was on the tail end of another sinus bug or something. Just kinda/sorta knocked me for a loop. Affects my energy level, mostly, but I'm well on-the-mend as of this morning. A bit scratchy in the throat, and it's drippy, too ... but well over the hump and on the road to wellness once more.
So it was a reasonably low-key weekend, as a result. We did manage to squeeze in a viewing of 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me at the local bargain theater. They're in the midst of a James Bond series, showing a few of the older ones. I think next up in Goldeneye -- which we'll likely also take in -- but I believe that's the last one. They're also alternating them with (ugh) the Austin Powers flicks for some reason. I only cared for the first one of those, so I'll not likely be seeing any of them on the silver screen again. Just not my stuff.
We also had the good fortune of discovering an all-new craft-style store in our area. It's one of those big spaces that's set-up for individual vendors to display their various wares; and -- wowza -- it's pretty amazing. So many folks these days have so many great talents that it's honestly just fabulous to kinda/sorta walk and look at what they can do. Granted -- and I don't mean this to sound sexist at all, folks -- a good deal of what's up there on display is far more for the ladies (or self-identifying ladies); and yet every now and then some merchant realizes that the men in their lives also need a bit of pampering. I did come across some interesting Star Wars items -- clearly not authorized, as these are c-r-a-f-t-s, like I said -- but they look just incredible, all the same.
Both are -- obviously -- very, very cool artwork inspired by the classic space saga. They're carved on slate. The R2D2 is essentially a coaster, but the other one is reasonably larger, and it's definitely meant as an item more to be displayed (like artwork). Again, these were damn lovely; and who knows? Maybe I'll pick one or both up at some point now that the store is open for business. It is fairly rare to stumbled across stuff like this made for genre fans such as myself, so I do love to call a bit of attention to it when I see it as it just tickles my fancy.
But let's get down to business, shall we? Let's take a look at a few of the highlights involving genre history today, and maybe this will inspire each of us to engage in our own little craftwork, eh?
But let's get down to business, shall we? Let's take a look at a few of the highlights involving genre history today, and maybe this will inspire each of us to engage in our own little craftwork, eh?
I've always been a big fan of Science Fiction and Fantasy shows that spend time exploring what life on our world could be like following an invasion or conflict of some sort, and on this day back in 2013 an all-new one tried to give that whole idea a different spin. Defiance lasted for three seasons; and -- if I'm being honest -- I only stuck with it through its first season as it just didn't do much for me.
I loved setting it in kinda/sorta middle America -- a place that doesn't get a whole lot of coverage in genre works -- and it definitely had a good cast ... but like so many shows I think this one settled a bit too soon into plotlines a tad wee too domestic to really challenge folks to hang along with it. I've heard from some that it developed a bit more in seasons two and three, and that's great to hear. But time is precious, and if you don't hook me pretty much right out of the gate then I'm inclined to begin shifting my attentions elsewhere. Though I thought it had solid promise (as I said, I did give it a whole season), it just didn't look like it was going to to anything fresh ... so I tuned out.
Still, kudos for it being around. Fans might wanna look this one up and invest some time in it as a streaming/binging choice. I have found that the episodic nature of some programs don't serve it well -- we have to wait seven days between helpings, and sometimes that delay works against the momentum -- and who knows? Maybe being able to digest multiple hours in a single sitting might do wonders for it.
I loved setting it in kinda/sorta middle America -- a place that doesn't get a whole lot of coverage in genre works -- and it definitely had a good cast ... but like so many shows I think this one settled a bit too soon into plotlines a tad wee too domestic to really challenge folks to hang along with it. I've heard from some that it developed a bit more in seasons two and three, and that's great to hear. But time is precious, and if you don't hook me pretty much right out of the gate then I'm inclined to begin shifting my attentions elsewhere. Though I thought it had solid promise (as I said, I did give it a whole season), it just didn't look like it was going to to anything fresh ... so I tuned out.
Still, kudos for it being around. Fans might wanna look this one up and invest some time in it as a streaming/binging choice. I have found that the episodic nature of some programs don't serve it well -- we have to wait seven days between helpings, and sometimes that delay works against the momentum -- and who knows? Maybe being able to digest multiple hours in a single sitting might do wonders for it.
Back in the days when you could seriously count on genre programming to have some quality guest stars, Michael Ansara was definitely one to watch.
Like so many of his generation, the guy seemed like a work-horse: he'd show up for whatever project he booked, and he'd pretty much chew scenery the way a true talent could no matter how much screen time he was given. Some discerning viewers might dismiss such an approach as cheap and/or superficial, but there's something to the skills of morphing into an authoritative bad-ass 'on the fly' (as so many had to do years before), and Ansara was one of the small screen's great villains, especially in Science Fiction and Fantasy.
Thankfully, he was around long enough to dabble in multiple incarnations of Star Trek, and his was a face I noticed in other properties whenever he turned in. His is the kind of work audiences used to rely on, but -- alas -- Hollywood's need to push 'beta males' to the forefront means we might not see his likes again ... or, at least, any time soon.
Though he's no longer with us, Ansara was born on this day in 1922.
Like so many of his generation, the guy seemed like a work-horse: he'd show up for whatever project he booked, and he'd pretty much chew scenery the way a true talent could no matter how much screen time he was given. Some discerning viewers might dismiss such an approach as cheap and/or superficial, but there's something to the skills of morphing into an authoritative bad-ass 'on the fly' (as so many had to do years before), and Ansara was one of the small screen's great villains, especially in Science Fiction and Fantasy.
Thankfully, he was around long enough to dabble in multiple incarnations of Star Trek, and his was a face I noticed in other properties whenever he turned in. His is the kind of work audiences used to rely on, but -- alas -- Hollywood's need to push 'beta males' to the forefront means we might not see his likes again ... or, at least, any time soon.
Though he's no longer with us, Ansara was born on this day in 1922.
Folks as always, there's more ... and with a mind-blowing 82 different genre trivia citations for this day alone I suspect that there's something there for everyone. This is the point wherein I enourage all of you to head on over and begin your own deep dive into the realms of the Fantastic because adventure awaits ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
According to the Los Angeles Film School, Horror – as a genre of filmmaking – consists of ten unique sub-types: Demonic, Paranormal, Monster, Slasher, Zombie, Gore, Witchcraft, Vampire, Psychological, and Comedic.
Now … who am I – your lowly, lowly web-based critic – to argue with an institution as august as the Los Angeles Film School? While I may not quite agree with precisely how they’ve splintered up Horror into these sub-headings, I do agree that – for the most part – there’s a good degree of crossover from one group to another, meaning that rarely if ever do, say, Demonic or Paranormal flicks ignore incorporating a good deal of Gore and/or Psychological elements in crafting their particular yarns. Plus, Comedy entries rarely stand entirely on their own, relying on any number of related influences with which to exploit such subject matter for the desired level of insanity. So even if they and I may disagree on giving Vampire projects their own classification separate from other Monsters (same thing could be said of Zombies, too), I’m still willing to agree that these filters likely establish a solid foundation around which any number of fans, critics, and/or academics can debate the good, the bad, and the ugly of enterprises that exist almost entirely on ‘going bump in the night.’
Where I do tend to segregate myself off from the wider population of cineastes is that I see Slasher films generally as the laziest and least interesting stories to deliver. Yes, it goes without saying that some of made much better than others are; and still I’ve seen far too many of them rather quickly start to resemble far more conventional features with the added buckets of blood meant to distract viewers from noticing that there really isn’t anything special to their characters, places, and events. When rather tame killing is all a film offers, then what’s the big deal? Any picture can do that; so if you aren’t willing to pony up anything further – signature kills, stylistic cinematography, unanticipated plot twists, etc. – then what’s to keep the audience from going elsewhere? If you can’t, at least, make it a special occasion, then what more can you offer me for the investment?
Therein lies my central issue with Cutting Class (1989), a recent home video release that was part of the MVD Rewind Collection, those releases from the bygone era that might’ve been either overlooked or created a stir all of their own back in those days. While the setting of a high school killing ground definitely taps into one of Horror’s most popular Slasher tropes, there’s just very little else to this rather mundane attempt with the exception that it looks to be one of Hollywood heavyweight Brad Pitt’s first starring roles. That fact alone might interest either the ladies or (cough cough) the gentlemen of a certain persuasion; but when that’s all you’ve got then this might end up being a 90-minute slog for the rest of us.
(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 …)
Now … who am I – your lowly, lowly web-based critic – to argue with an institution as august as the Los Angeles Film School? While I may not quite agree with precisely how they’ve splintered up Horror into these sub-headings, I do agree that – for the most part – there’s a good degree of crossover from one group to another, meaning that rarely if ever do, say, Demonic or Paranormal flicks ignore incorporating a good deal of Gore and/or Psychological elements in crafting their particular yarns. Plus, Comedy entries rarely stand entirely on their own, relying on any number of related influences with which to exploit such subject matter for the desired level of insanity. So even if they and I may disagree on giving Vampire projects their own classification separate from other Monsters (same thing could be said of Zombies, too), I’m still willing to agree that these filters likely establish a solid foundation around which any number of fans, critics, and/or academics can debate the good, the bad, and the ugly of enterprises that exist almost entirely on ‘going bump in the night.’
Where I do tend to segregate myself off from the wider population of cineastes is that I see Slasher films generally as the laziest and least interesting stories to deliver. Yes, it goes without saying that some of made much better than others are; and still I’ve seen far too many of them rather quickly start to resemble far more conventional features with the added buckets of blood meant to distract viewers from noticing that there really isn’t anything special to their characters, places, and events. When rather tame killing is all a film offers, then what’s the big deal? Any picture can do that; so if you aren’t willing to pony up anything further – signature kills, stylistic cinematography, unanticipated plot twists, etc. – then what’s to keep the audience from going elsewhere? If you can’t, at least, make it a special occasion, then what more can you offer me for the investment?
Therein lies my central issue with Cutting Class (1989), a recent home video release that was part of the MVD Rewind Collection, those releases from the bygone era that might’ve been either overlooked or created a stir all of their own back in those days. While the setting of a high school killing ground definitely taps into one of Horror’s most popular Slasher tropes, there’s just very little else to this rather mundane attempt with the exception that it looks to be one of Hollywood heavyweight Brad Pitt’s first starring roles. That fact alone might interest either the ladies or (cough cough) the gentlemen of a certain persuasion; but when that’s all you’ve got then this might end up being a 90-minute slog for the rest of us.
(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:
“High school student Paula Carson’s affections are being sought after by two of her classmates: Dwight, the ‘bad guy,’ and Brian, a disturbed young man who has just been released from a mental hospital where he was committed following the suspicious death of his father. Soon after being released, more murders start happening. Is Brian back to his old tricks, or is Dwight just trying to eliminate the competition?”
Regular readers to SciFiHistory.Net understand I’m typically no fan of the formulaic Slasher picture. My entertainment diet is meaty enough that I take one in occasionally – mostly because, hey, it’s kinda/sorta my job to sound-off on any number of new releases that come my way via distributors – but these projects are still what I’d call ‘hard sells.’ Frankly, if they offer nothing new by way of their look, feel, and cast, then I find them rather tedious … and Cutting Class – 1989’s weak attempt to curiously blend Comedy with Slasherdom – is exactly what I mean. It’s too ‘plain Jane’ for it’s own good, and it delivers little by way of inspiration with its relatively low body count and its much-too-safe performances.
Fresh-faced Paula Carson (played by Jill Schoelen) finds herself home alone for the week when dear ol’ dad and local District Attorney William Carson III (Martin Mull) heads off into the great outdoors for his regular hunting excursion. Despite assuring her father that there will be no boys at the house, Paula can’t quite resist the temptation to monopolize on some modest cuddle time with her latest boytoy Dwight Ingalls (Brad Pitt), a paramour she’s been able to keep on a leash with the promise of sex only once he gets his grades up. But – lo and behold – their old friend Brian Woods (Donovan Leitch) is back in school, not all that long after being ‘incarcerated’ in a mental institution for what authorities believed was a descent into madness that resulted in the boy’s father’s death. Well, wouldn’t you know it that Brian’s return to school brings with it the disappearance and/or demise of classmates along with a teacher or two, so it’s only natural that suspicions fall smack on the shoulders of the former patient.
Now … those tidbits alone demonstrate that the script from Steve Slavkin wasn’t really breaking new ground. As a writer, Slavkin was really just getting started (IMDB.com indicates that this was only his second professional gig); and his career didn’t exactly break ceilings or burn barns after this affair. He’d follow this up with work in the realms of Extreme Ghostbusters and two different Power Rangers series, so we’re not talking about narrative trailblazing by any stretch of the imagination. As of 2004, it would appear that he’s all but disappeared from the entertainment business, but let’s agree to never-say-never when it comes to any talent making a career comeback.
Compounding that particular level of malaise, director Rospo Pallenberg was apparently also new to the career choice. Again, IMDB.com indicates that he may’ve earned some uncredited directing experience with the poorly received Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), but he’s also mentioned as adapting the story of Excalibur (1981) for John Boorman. Given his naiveté behind-the-camera, however, I can’t help but wonder how much doom was saddled around this project’s ankles right off the bat. Clearly, far too much of Cutting Class meanders around its premise – resembling much the visual arc of Mull’s character who is shot in the early scenes but spends the bulk of the film simply wandering (albeit severely) wounded back in the direction of civilization. That’s definitely a metaphor for my time spent with this Class.
Sadly, it didn’t have to be this way.
“High school student Paula Carson’s affections are being sought after by two of her classmates: Dwight, the ‘bad guy,’ and Brian, a disturbed young man who has just been released from a mental hospital where he was committed following the suspicious death of his father. Soon after being released, more murders start happening. Is Brian back to his old tricks, or is Dwight just trying to eliminate the competition?”
Regular readers to SciFiHistory.Net understand I’m typically no fan of the formulaic Slasher picture. My entertainment diet is meaty enough that I take one in occasionally – mostly because, hey, it’s kinda/sorta my job to sound-off on any number of new releases that come my way via distributors – but these projects are still what I’d call ‘hard sells.’ Frankly, if they offer nothing new by way of their look, feel, and cast, then I find them rather tedious … and Cutting Class – 1989’s weak attempt to curiously blend Comedy with Slasherdom – is exactly what I mean. It’s too ‘plain Jane’ for it’s own good, and it delivers little by way of inspiration with its relatively low body count and its much-too-safe performances.
Fresh-faced Paula Carson (played by Jill Schoelen) finds herself home alone for the week when dear ol’ dad and local District Attorney William Carson III (Martin Mull) heads off into the great outdoors for his regular hunting excursion. Despite assuring her father that there will be no boys at the house, Paula can’t quite resist the temptation to monopolize on some modest cuddle time with her latest boytoy Dwight Ingalls (Brad Pitt), a paramour she’s been able to keep on a leash with the promise of sex only once he gets his grades up. But – lo and behold – their old friend Brian Woods (Donovan Leitch) is back in school, not all that long after being ‘incarcerated’ in a mental institution for what authorities believed was a descent into madness that resulted in the boy’s father’s death. Well, wouldn’t you know it that Brian’s return to school brings with it the disappearance and/or demise of classmates along with a teacher or two, so it’s only natural that suspicions fall smack on the shoulders of the former patient.
Now … those tidbits alone demonstrate that the script from Steve Slavkin wasn’t really breaking new ground. As a writer, Slavkin was really just getting started (IMDB.com indicates that this was only his second professional gig); and his career didn’t exactly break ceilings or burn barns after this affair. He’d follow this up with work in the realms of Extreme Ghostbusters and two different Power Rangers series, so we’re not talking about narrative trailblazing by any stretch of the imagination. As of 2004, it would appear that he’s all but disappeared from the entertainment business, but let’s agree to never-say-never when it comes to any talent making a career comeback.
Compounding that particular level of malaise, director Rospo Pallenberg was apparently also new to the career choice. Again, IMDB.com indicates that he may’ve earned some uncredited directing experience with the poorly received Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), but he’s also mentioned as adapting the story of Excalibur (1981) for John Boorman. Given his naiveté behind-the-camera, however, I can’t help but wonder how much doom was saddled around this project’s ankles right off the bat. Clearly, far too much of Cutting Class meanders around its premise – resembling much the visual arc of Mull’s character who is shot in the early scenes but spends the bulk of the film simply wandering (albeit severely) wounded back in the direction of civilization. That’s definitely a metaphor for my time spent with this Class.
Sadly, it didn’t have to be this way.
Schoelen may not have been well established at the time (the 1980’s had a great number of like-minded talents that delivered an equally great number of sleeper hits), but her time as Class’s scream queen indicates gifts strong enough to keep audiences on the edge of their seats. Screen legend Roddy McDowall also turns in a curiously creepy performance as the sexually repressed high school principal with a panty fetish, and his work hints that perhaps director Pallenberg wants this entire adventure to be a bit zanier than it feels. Pitt and Leitch make for respectable teen adversaries; the two of them were given ample opportunity in here to suggest the true identity of the central slasher might not be who you think it is at first blush. But, sadly, none of it ever really builds the necessary steam to make this one more than a little engine that sputtered in a few characteristic places.
And that truly is Class’s reason for failing to make the grade: it sputters more than it makes sense.
Slavkin’s script never smartly builds a strong enough case for viewers to truly accept there could be more to Leitch’s damaged goods. Is he patently evil – as is hinted at visually and textually – or is that just creative misdirection? When it’s this clear early on who the baddie is, the audiences isn’t much encouraged to either consider or suspect something else could be working behind-the-scenes in a way that would authenticate any plot twist. The degree of casualness invoked in every moment cheapens even what few potboiler moments the ensemble musters, so much so that I suspect few will stay in their seats to see the last reel except by using that fast-forward button to get there much more quickly.
Cutting Class (1989) was produced by April Productions and Gower Street Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights-and-sounds to this 4K restoration (from the 35mm original camera negative) to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, there are a handful of interviews along with a few extras for your investment, but honestly I didn’t find them anything particularly special. I guess it’s a solid collection for fans with lowered expectations, and that’s all I really have to say about that.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
As I’ve tried to be clear, I’m not the biggest fan of Slasher films to begin with but Cutting Class (1989) never quite makes a good cut. Its narrative vacillates lazily between Horror and Comedy so frequently that I had trouble figuring out if I were supposed to be aghast or just tickled; and that’s never a good place to find oneself critically. Fans of Pitt might find this one interesting – his performance is good, though I think a stronger script could’ve even given him more to sink his teeth into at this age – but it’s an otherwise easily forgettable affair … the kind of project that, ultimately, caused this sub-genre to lose the prominence it once had in the world of home video.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary 4K Blu-ray copy of Cutting Class (as part of their 4K LaserVision 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
And that truly is Class’s reason for failing to make the grade: it sputters more than it makes sense.
Slavkin’s script never smartly builds a strong enough case for viewers to truly accept there could be more to Leitch’s damaged goods. Is he patently evil – as is hinted at visually and textually – or is that just creative misdirection? When it’s this clear early on who the baddie is, the audiences isn’t much encouraged to either consider or suspect something else could be working behind-the-scenes in a way that would authenticate any plot twist. The degree of casualness invoked in every moment cheapens even what few potboiler moments the ensemble musters, so much so that I suspect few will stay in their seats to see the last reel except by using that fast-forward button to get there much more quickly.
Cutting Class (1989) was produced by April Productions and Gower Street Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights-and-sounds to this 4K restoration (from the 35mm original camera negative) to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, there are a handful of interviews along with a few extras for your investment, but honestly I didn’t find them anything particularly special. I guess it’s a solid collection for fans with lowered expectations, and that’s all I really have to say about that.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
As I’ve tried to be clear, I’m not the biggest fan of Slasher films to begin with but Cutting Class (1989) never quite makes a good cut. Its narrative vacillates lazily between Horror and Comedy so frequently that I had trouble figuring out if I were supposed to be aghast or just tickled; and that’s never a good place to find oneself critically. Fans of Pitt might find this one interesting – his performance is good, though I think a stronger script could’ve even given him more to sink his teeth into at this age – but it’s an otherwise easily forgettable affair … the kind of project that, ultimately, caused this sub-genre to lose the prominence it once had in the world of home video.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary 4K Blu-ray copy of Cutting Class (as part of their 4K LaserVision 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
The immeasurable beauty of the Apocalypse is that, functionally, it can take a myriad of forms.
As an example, audiences have been treated to any number of ways in which our planet – with or without mankind’s existence – has turned a bitter corner and sped down the path toward a ghastly end. We’ve been shown the dangers of nuclear annihilation. We’ve been castrated by hundreds upon hundreds of alien invasions. Christ has returned – or a suitable Devilish facsimile – and civilization itself has been thrown into chaos. There’s also been plagues, celestial collisions, viral contagions, zombie uprisings, environmental catastrophes, global warming, robot revolutions, rips in the space/time continuum, monsters unleashed, and just about any other variation on a theme that can be imagined, spun up, and presented as cautionary tales to the masses-at-large.
Yes, I think it’s safe to suggest that mankind – or, at least, those of us who partake in entertainment – has a collective fascination with our impending doom.
In fact, End Times’ scenarios have become so commonplace in fiction – both in literature and screens big and small – that storytellers have been able to access a kind of narrative shorthand: consumers don’t require as much set-up as perhaps they have in the past, and they’re both equipped and willing to step into these various upheavals with even a bare bones structure. Twenty or thirty years ago, a little something-something like Arcadian (2024) might’ve been shrugged off by viewers as they abandoned it for vehicles with greater specificity. This isn’t to say that the picture as directed by Benjamin Brewer and starring Hollywood heavyweight Nicolas Cage is perfect because that’s pretty far from the truth; still, the tale moves effectively on its own economy, never sacrificing its rural setting in favor of the glitz, décor, and spectacle one used to require of mankind’s downfall.
As Apocalypses go, this one is downright picturesque … albeit in a dreary sort of way.
(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:
“A father and his twin teenage sons fight to survive in a remote farmhouse at the end of the end of the world.”
When it comes to creature features, I’ll admit that I’m a huge, huge, huge fan.
Where I struggle with them – especially ones made in the modern era, let’s say about anything post-2000 – is that the scripts tend to lack a good deal of specificity.
As an example, audiences have been treated to any number of ways in which our planet – with or without mankind’s existence – has turned a bitter corner and sped down the path toward a ghastly end. We’ve been shown the dangers of nuclear annihilation. We’ve been castrated by hundreds upon hundreds of alien invasions. Christ has returned – or a suitable Devilish facsimile – and civilization itself has been thrown into chaos. There’s also been plagues, celestial collisions, viral contagions, zombie uprisings, environmental catastrophes, global warming, robot revolutions, rips in the space/time continuum, monsters unleashed, and just about any other variation on a theme that can be imagined, spun up, and presented as cautionary tales to the masses-at-large.
Yes, I think it’s safe to suggest that mankind – or, at least, those of us who partake in entertainment – has a collective fascination with our impending doom.
In fact, End Times’ scenarios have become so commonplace in fiction – both in literature and screens big and small – that storytellers have been able to access a kind of narrative shorthand: consumers don’t require as much set-up as perhaps they have in the past, and they’re both equipped and willing to step into these various upheavals with even a bare bones structure. Twenty or thirty years ago, a little something-something like Arcadian (2024) might’ve been shrugged off by viewers as they abandoned it for vehicles with greater specificity. This isn’t to say that the picture as directed by Benjamin Brewer and starring Hollywood heavyweight Nicolas Cage is perfect because that’s pretty far from the truth; still, the tale moves effectively on its own economy, never sacrificing its rural setting in favor of the glitz, décor, and spectacle one used to require of mankind’s downfall.
As Apocalypses go, this one is downright picturesque … albeit in a dreary sort of way.
(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:
“A father and his twin teenage sons fight to survive in a remote farmhouse at the end of the end of the world.”
When it comes to creature features, I’ll admit that I’m a huge, huge, huge fan.
Where I struggle with them – especially ones made in the modern era, let’s say about anything post-2000 – is that the scripts tend to lack a good deal of specificity.
Rarely are we definitely let in on the secret of just where these things come from. I suspect that a great deal of contemporary writers have decided that such details like ‘planet of origin’ or ‘cause of evolution’ or ‘means of mutation’ are ultimately unimportant to the yarn they’ve seeking to weave; and – as a consequence – little to no time gets expended on those particulars. TV’s entertaining zombie saga – The Walking Dead – never even let audiences know precisely where this zombie-virus thing came from – I only recall there being a suggestion that it had always been here in an early installment – and if ratings are any indication, then perhaps most folks were perfectly fine with such a glaring omission. Well, this won’t be the first time I’ve been called ‘old-fashioned,’ but it is what it is.
Feeling somewhat similar to A Quiet Place (2018) and even a bit like A Quiet Place: Part 2 (2020), Arcadian completely ignores the bright lights and the big cities of our world in favor of a remote farm somewhere I believe in the Irish or English countryside. (Again, I’m not entirely certain it was spelled out, so I’m going with what little info Mike Nilon’s script saw fit to put onscreen.) Suffice it to say, there’s not a lot to look at except for Paul (played by Nicolas Cage) and his two sons, Thomas (Maxwell Jenkins) and Joseph (Jaeden Martell), but the story somehow manages to soldier on quite nicely without a cast of thousands. Perhaps Hillary Clinton had it wrong, and a village is not nearly as necessary as Liberals insist!
After a flashback-style set-up that shows the young father escaping a growing urban Hellscape punctuated by chaos and destruction, the film jumps fifteen years later. The former infants are grown into teenagers, and they’re behaving much the way boys do, fueled by hormones, hissy fits, and hobbies. While Thomas has become somewhat enamored with Charlotte (Sadie Soverall) – the daughter of a neighboring farming community that has also survived against the odds – Joseph whiles away his spare time fascinated with science and strategy. Under Paul’s watchful eyes, the two have grown into two bickering teenage archetypes (the ‘brainy’ one versus the ‘brawny’ one); and it’s pretty clear that a little bit of both will be needed collaboratively before this tale is done and finished.
What distinguishes Arcadian from like-minded pictures is the fact that it really does spend more time in the domesticity of surviving in the age of collapse. Time is spent on some of the more mundane tasks required to make life possible – maintaining the house and its defenses, scavenging for supplies, etc. – so it isn’t until the second half when a few bad choices cause a somewhat stable existence to go awry. While our species is kinda/sorta depicted as being ‘stuck in our ways,’ our theatrical adversary here has been gifted with a hive mind that apparently evolves; otherwise, I’m left wondering why it’s taken these monsters so long (fifteen years) to figure out a way around something as simple as a lock and a door.
This shorthand does make Arcadian an occasionally difficult story to follow. Neither director Brewer nor screenwriter Nolin felt it was necessary to tell us exactly how and why civilization fell nor what role specifically these rather gruesome critters may’ve played in it. Yes, there are hints and suggestions dropped here and there; but when and if those tasked with filling in all of the blanks necessary for this to make perfect sense opt not to, then some in the audience (myself included) can be easily distracted with trying to come up with answers all of our own. Thankfully, they instead focus in on distracting us with action instead of thought; and – on that level alone – the film makes for a better-than-average thrill ride.
However, said shorthand also extended to the project’s visual styling, and I’m just not a fan of cinematography so dark and underlit. Call me a stickler if you will, but I like to see clearly what’s going on – especially if I’m being expected to suspend my disbelief so prevalently – and a great deal of these night-time series are hard to discern. While I can understand any filmmaker’s desire to not overexpose the seminal creature – thus preserving its mystery – I don’t think viewers are properly served if darkness and shadows become the norm. Sadly, there’s a bit too much of that in here for my tastes.
Feeling somewhat similar to A Quiet Place (2018) and even a bit like A Quiet Place: Part 2 (2020), Arcadian completely ignores the bright lights and the big cities of our world in favor of a remote farm somewhere I believe in the Irish or English countryside. (Again, I’m not entirely certain it was spelled out, so I’m going with what little info Mike Nilon’s script saw fit to put onscreen.) Suffice it to say, there’s not a lot to look at except for Paul (played by Nicolas Cage) and his two sons, Thomas (Maxwell Jenkins) and Joseph (Jaeden Martell), but the story somehow manages to soldier on quite nicely without a cast of thousands. Perhaps Hillary Clinton had it wrong, and a village is not nearly as necessary as Liberals insist!
After a flashback-style set-up that shows the young father escaping a growing urban Hellscape punctuated by chaos and destruction, the film jumps fifteen years later. The former infants are grown into teenagers, and they’re behaving much the way boys do, fueled by hormones, hissy fits, and hobbies. While Thomas has become somewhat enamored with Charlotte (Sadie Soverall) – the daughter of a neighboring farming community that has also survived against the odds – Joseph whiles away his spare time fascinated with science and strategy. Under Paul’s watchful eyes, the two have grown into two bickering teenage archetypes (the ‘brainy’ one versus the ‘brawny’ one); and it’s pretty clear that a little bit of both will be needed collaboratively before this tale is done and finished.
What distinguishes Arcadian from like-minded pictures is the fact that it really does spend more time in the domesticity of surviving in the age of collapse. Time is spent on some of the more mundane tasks required to make life possible – maintaining the house and its defenses, scavenging for supplies, etc. – so it isn’t until the second half when a few bad choices cause a somewhat stable existence to go awry. While our species is kinda/sorta depicted as being ‘stuck in our ways,’ our theatrical adversary here has been gifted with a hive mind that apparently evolves; otherwise, I’m left wondering why it’s taken these monsters so long (fifteen years) to figure out a way around something as simple as a lock and a door.
This shorthand does make Arcadian an occasionally difficult story to follow. Neither director Brewer nor screenwriter Nolin felt it was necessary to tell us exactly how and why civilization fell nor what role specifically these rather gruesome critters may’ve played in it. Yes, there are hints and suggestions dropped here and there; but when and if those tasked with filling in all of the blanks necessary for this to make perfect sense opt not to, then some in the audience (myself included) can be easily distracted with trying to come up with answers all of our own. Thankfully, they instead focus in on distracting us with action instead of thought; and – on that level alone – the film makes for a better-than-average thrill ride.
However, said shorthand also extended to the project’s visual styling, and I’m just not a fan of cinematography so dark and underlit. Call me a stickler if you will, but I like to see clearly what’s going on – especially if I’m being expected to suspend my disbelief so prevalently – and a great deal of these night-time series are hard to discern. While I can understand any filmmaker’s desire to not overexpose the seminal creature – thus preserving its mystery – I don’t think viewers are properly served if darkness and shadows become the norm. Sadly, there’s a bit too much of that in here for my tastes.
Also … about not showing us the monster in a light wherein we can fully grasp just what it is and how it operates?
Arcadian has a great long sequence wherein young Joseph is acting on his desire to capture one of them so that he can study it, to understand it, to identify what it is and just how it ticks. (Again, that’s how audiences are wired, so why shouldn’t someone fulfill that task?) While the scene works rather effectively despite some curious computer-generated imagery, it also presents a critter with some curious skills and attributes that we’ve yet to see before (in this story) and, sadly, never come up again in its 90-minutes. Well … why? And why not? If you’re going to give a monster the ability to kinda/sorta elongate itself into such a shape, then why do you ignore the same capacity on multiple occasions wherein it obviously could’ve been put to even better use?
The answer is likely because it would’ve thrown a monkey wrench into the scene as written, and that’s a shame … because I – and monsters – expect and deserve better.
Arcadian (2024) was produced by Aperture Media Partners, Highland Film Group, Redline Entertainment, and Saturn Films. According to IMDB.com, the film is presently screening theatrically in such places as Canada, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit to not being entirely thrilled with all of the picture’s cinematography: there’s a great deal of this photographed in little-to-no-light (a significant portion of the events occur overnight), and several sequences are very difficult to discern (likely by design). Still, it works more often than it fails. Lastly, as I’m viewing this one during its present theatrical run, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
Because I’m a fan of monster movies, I was able to forgive some of the faults here and there within Arcadian (2024) in appreciation of being entertained. Despite some weaknesses here and there, the project remains a reasonably efficient thriller set well after civilization’s ruin with no return-to-prominence anywhere in sight. Who knew raising a family during the Apocalypse could be as grim as it is gratifying, and thank goodness that Nicolas Cage was there to give the whole shebang the gravitas it, ultimately, needed.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at IFC Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Arcadian (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
Arcadian has a great long sequence wherein young Joseph is acting on his desire to capture one of them so that he can study it, to understand it, to identify what it is and just how it ticks. (Again, that’s how audiences are wired, so why shouldn’t someone fulfill that task?) While the scene works rather effectively despite some curious computer-generated imagery, it also presents a critter with some curious skills and attributes that we’ve yet to see before (in this story) and, sadly, never come up again in its 90-minutes. Well … why? And why not? If you’re going to give a monster the ability to kinda/sorta elongate itself into such a shape, then why do you ignore the same capacity on multiple occasions wherein it obviously could’ve been put to even better use?
The answer is likely because it would’ve thrown a monkey wrench into the scene as written, and that’s a shame … because I – and monsters – expect and deserve better.
Arcadian (2024) was produced by Aperture Media Partners, Highland Film Group, Redline Entertainment, and Saturn Films. According to IMDB.com, the film is presently screening theatrically in such places as Canada, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit to not being entirely thrilled with all of the picture’s cinematography: there’s a great deal of this photographed in little-to-no-light (a significant portion of the events occur overnight), and several sequences are very difficult to discern (likely by design). Still, it works more often than it fails. Lastly, as I’m viewing this one during its present theatrical run, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
Because I’m a fan of monster movies, I was able to forgive some of the faults here and there within Arcadian (2024) in appreciation of being entertained. Despite some weaknesses here and there, the project remains a reasonably efficient thriller set well after civilization’s ruin with no return-to-prominence anywhere in sight. Who knew raising a family during the Apocalypse could be as grim as it is gratifying, and thank goodness that Nicolas Cage was there to give the whole shebang the gravitas it, ultimately, needed.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at IFC Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Arcadian (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