- Published on
Folks, news reached the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk late yesterday regarding the passing of actor Kenneth Mitchell (1974-2024) from ALS.
While the actor may not be as well known for his work in genre as are others, I do recall him first coming onto my radar with his work aboard CBS's pretty interesting Apocalypse/Drama Jericho (2006-2008). For those of you who missed it (and, based on ratings alone, that may've been a good many of you), Jericho featured the residents of a small town in the heartland of America surviving against what appears to have been a near extinction-level event. When society begins to tatter and fray, these folks banded together to protect one another from the lawlessness and chaos. It lasted for thirty episodes -- it may've even had some life beyond the screen in a book or graphic novel format, though I'm unsure on that point -- and Mitchell was one of the talented players amongst the cast.
Thankfully, the man had other adventures in the realms of the Fantastic. His IMDB.com profile lists such projects as Odyssey 5, Meteor, Ghost Whisperer, Grimm, Tasmanian Devils (2013), Haven, Minority Report, Frequency, Captain Marvel (2019), Star Trek: Lower Decks, and Star Trek: Discovery amongst his resume ... and that's a very impressive run.
Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Kenneth Mitchell. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
While the actor may not be as well known for his work in genre as are others, I do recall him first coming onto my radar with his work aboard CBS's pretty interesting Apocalypse/Drama Jericho (2006-2008). For those of you who missed it (and, based on ratings alone, that may've been a good many of you), Jericho featured the residents of a small town in the heartland of America surviving against what appears to have been a near extinction-level event. When society begins to tatter and fray, these folks banded together to protect one another from the lawlessness and chaos. It lasted for thirty episodes -- it may've even had some life beyond the screen in a book or graphic novel format, though I'm unsure on that point -- and Mitchell was one of the talented players amongst the cast.
Thankfully, the man had other adventures in the realms of the Fantastic. His IMDB.com profile lists such projects as Odyssey 5, Meteor, Ghost Whisperer, Grimm, Tasmanian Devils (2013), Haven, Minority Report, Frequency, Captain Marvel (2019), Star Trek: Lower Decks, and Star Trek: Discovery amongst his resume ... and that's a very impressive run.
Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Kenneth Mitchell. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
The real trick to successfully achieving escape velocity – that being the speed necessary to break the bonds of gravity holding one to the Earth’s surface – is the technically precise task of weight management.
To put it simply, once your rocket engines ignite you need to be assured that you’ve loaded aboard only that which you need to both make the journey as well as the return voyage. There can be nothing extra. There should be no excess baggage. To risk taking something extra along – something just go for the ride – will practically guarantee failure for the thrust to achieve the maximum velocity necessary to propel you into orbit and beyond.
Now … the same could be said for hit movie scripts.
The screenwriter only wants to pack the adventure with exactly what it needs. There should be no room for extra characters who don’t fully serve the narrative. Scenes or footage gratuitous to this particular story are found extraneous, and they should be excised to give only the core requisites the best chance of survival against the elements. Space within this unique capsule is at a minimum, so anything that could siphon off the energy required to reach forward momentum must be sacrificed. The goal here is to soar, not to come crashing back to Earth in a fiery husk.
This lack of delicate balance is what mostly keeps The Moon (2023) from going boldly where some have gone before but make no mistake: writer/director Yong-hwa Kim tried very, very, very hard to keep the film reaching for stakes higher and higher when – in reality – it could’ve easily trimmed a bit of surplus and landed in theaters to wider acclaim. As it is, it’s a capable diversion, but it’s also one that can’t escape its own weaknesses long enough to accomplish more than a single orbit.
(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 is left in space due to an unfortunate accident while another man on Earth struggles to bring him back safely.”
In all seriousness, whoever crafted that synopsis for IMDB.com should probably be jettisoned as garbage as it doesn’t even get close to conveying the depth (and bloat) of story within Yong-hwa Kim’s serviceable space thriller. But having watching the film, I can also accept that trimming down the narrative from its fat might have seemed as daunting a challenge as putting a man on the moon … so there.
The Moon’s chief problem – despite having one of the blandest titles ever – is the fact that it’s presented heavily as a docudrama – similar to Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995) – despite the fact that none of it has ever happened. Set in the near future, The Moon recounts the near-tragedy (that also never happened … yet) when astronaut Sergeant Hwang Seon-woo (played by K-pop sensation Do Kyung-soo) finds himself stranded in space after his teammates are killed in an accident whilst attempting to repair their fragile capsule. In a gesture of national pride since this is Korea’s first solo attempt to reach the moon (also something that never happened … yet), Hwang decides to complete the mission solo, defying the wishes of the Korean space agency.
To put it simply, once your rocket engines ignite you need to be assured that you’ve loaded aboard only that which you need to both make the journey as well as the return voyage. There can be nothing extra. There should be no excess baggage. To risk taking something extra along – something just go for the ride – will practically guarantee failure for the thrust to achieve the maximum velocity necessary to propel you into orbit and beyond.
Now … the same could be said for hit movie scripts.
The screenwriter only wants to pack the adventure with exactly what it needs. There should be no room for extra characters who don’t fully serve the narrative. Scenes or footage gratuitous to this particular story are found extraneous, and they should be excised to give only the core requisites the best chance of survival against the elements. Space within this unique capsule is at a minimum, so anything that could siphon off the energy required to reach forward momentum must be sacrificed. The goal here is to soar, not to come crashing back to Earth in a fiery husk.
This lack of delicate balance is what mostly keeps The Moon (2023) from going boldly where some have gone before but make no mistake: writer/director Yong-hwa Kim tried very, very, very hard to keep the film reaching for stakes higher and higher when – in reality – it could’ve easily trimmed a bit of surplus and landed in theaters to wider acclaim. As it is, it’s a capable diversion, but it’s also one that can’t escape its own weaknesses long enough to accomplish more than a single orbit.
(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 is left in space due to an unfortunate accident while another man on Earth struggles to bring him back safely.”
In all seriousness, whoever crafted that synopsis for IMDB.com should probably be jettisoned as garbage as it doesn’t even get close to conveying the depth (and bloat) of story within Yong-hwa Kim’s serviceable space thriller. But having watching the film, I can also accept that trimming down the narrative from its fat might have seemed as daunting a challenge as putting a man on the moon … so there.
The Moon’s chief problem – despite having one of the blandest titles ever – is the fact that it’s presented heavily as a docudrama – similar to Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995) – despite the fact that none of it has ever happened. Set in the near future, The Moon recounts the near-tragedy (that also never happened … yet) when astronaut Sergeant Hwang Seon-woo (played by K-pop sensation Do Kyung-soo) finds himself stranded in space after his teammates are killed in an accident whilst attempting to repair their fragile capsule. In a gesture of national pride since this is Korea’s first solo attempt to reach the moon (also something that never happened … yet), Hwang decides to complete the mission solo, defying the wishes of the Korean space agency.
But for reasons that I’ll not pretend to understand, storyteller Kim chooses to set-up all of these particulars in documentary-style approach, a tactic that implies that the film is entirely factual (which it isn’t). I’ve seen this done elsewhere (National Geographic participated in a fictional Mars adventure that lasted two seasons, I believe), and – quite frankly – I hated it there as well because the imagined events were predicated largely on expert opinions and didn’t always feel authentic to the lives these characters led or what they experienced in an obviously made-up story. Remember: biographies aren’t always interesting because they tend to get lost in psychological minutiae attempting to explain a person’s motivations. Giving The Moon such ‘expert set-up’ by fictitious characters is, tonally, just plain weird, so much so that I feel the flick would have a vastly better cut removing that baggage from the entire flight.
Further complicating matters is the fact that The Moon’s script incorporates a heavy amount of personal melodrama with its many overlapping relationships – a disgraced former mission commander, his ex-wife who just happens to be the head of NASA only a few years later, a young female sidekick who serves no narrative purpose other than to be a young female sidekick, a team of American NASA administrators who look and act more like heavies from any Korean crime thriller, etc. There’s so much that gets introduced into the main plotline that there’s very little room left over for any authentic subplots to find their own legroom in this delicate capsule, and the preponderance of useless or unnecessary distraction kills the picture’s forward progress at every opportunity. I don’t doubt that Kim felt these tributaries were helpful; and I wish someone in the editing booth would’ve assured him otherwise.
In ways, it’s almost like Korean cinema felt it had to produce something on par with 2015’s The Martian or 2019’s Ad Astra, both respectable human dramas set against the backdrop of space exploration. To a degree, Kim’s The Moon stands toe-to-toe with them – at least, so far as I’m concerned – because it incorporates the same disadvantages – a wealth of bloat all held together by good performances, movie science, and some truly awe-inspiring special effects – so I guess I can say, “Well done.” Going beyond has never looked better, but stories like this shouldn’t feel so ephemeral and vacuous, either. It diminishes real achievements for the sake of bolstering faux space heroes into the lexicon, and – dare I say? – some of us still find that a bit cheap.
The Moon (2023) was produced by CJ ENM Co., CJ Entertainment, and Vlad Studio. 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 thought that the sights-and-sounds to this big screen extravaganza looked pretty damn spiffy all along the way. Mind you, there are some special effects sequences that look just a bit better than what you get in most big budget game franchises these days, but I suppose that’s to be expected. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? There’s a brief behind-the-scenes bit along with the theatrical trailer to keep you happy.
Recommended.
Because I have an obvious affection for All Things Science Fiction, I’m perfectly comfortable with saying that, sure, The Moon (2023) is worth a view … but honestly? That’s about it. Sadly, it has no rewatchability as its story is tonally kinda/sorta all over the place, and it falls rather quickly into the same-old-same-old sink-then-swim formula whenever a new obstacle presents itself. If it hadn’t descended into predictability so lazily, then it might be the kind of picture worth experiencing again and again – the benchmark to the best SciFi has to offer. As is? Well, it’s just too long with far too much contrivance to make this ‘star trek’ one for the cinema ages.
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 The Moon (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
Further complicating matters is the fact that The Moon’s script incorporates a heavy amount of personal melodrama with its many overlapping relationships – a disgraced former mission commander, his ex-wife who just happens to be the head of NASA only a few years later, a young female sidekick who serves no narrative purpose other than to be a young female sidekick, a team of American NASA administrators who look and act more like heavies from any Korean crime thriller, etc. There’s so much that gets introduced into the main plotline that there’s very little room left over for any authentic subplots to find their own legroom in this delicate capsule, and the preponderance of useless or unnecessary distraction kills the picture’s forward progress at every opportunity. I don’t doubt that Kim felt these tributaries were helpful; and I wish someone in the editing booth would’ve assured him otherwise.
In ways, it’s almost like Korean cinema felt it had to produce something on par with 2015’s The Martian or 2019’s Ad Astra, both respectable human dramas set against the backdrop of space exploration. To a degree, Kim’s The Moon stands toe-to-toe with them – at least, so far as I’m concerned – because it incorporates the same disadvantages – a wealth of bloat all held together by good performances, movie science, and some truly awe-inspiring special effects – so I guess I can say, “Well done.” Going beyond has never looked better, but stories like this shouldn’t feel so ephemeral and vacuous, either. It diminishes real achievements for the sake of bolstering faux space heroes into the lexicon, and – dare I say? – some of us still find that a bit cheap.
The Moon (2023) was produced by CJ ENM Co., CJ Entertainment, and Vlad Studio. 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 thought that the sights-and-sounds to this big screen extravaganza looked pretty damn spiffy all along the way. Mind you, there are some special effects sequences that look just a bit better than what you get in most big budget game franchises these days, but I suppose that’s to be expected. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? There’s a brief behind-the-scenes bit along with the theatrical trailer to keep you happy.
Recommended.
Because I have an obvious affection for All Things Science Fiction, I’m perfectly comfortable with saying that, sure, The Moon (2023) is worth a view … but honestly? That’s about it. Sadly, it has no rewatchability as its story is tonally kinda/sorta all over the place, and it falls rather quickly into the same-old-same-old sink-then-swim formula whenever a new obstacle presents itself. If it hadn’t descended into predictability so lazily, then it might be the kind of picture worth experiencing again and again – the benchmark to the best SciFi has to offer. As is? Well, it’s just too long with far too much contrivance to make this ‘star trek’ one for the cinema ages.
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 The Moon (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
Apologies, folks, to drop in here this afternoon with a late breaking announcement, but word has just reached the World Wide Web on the passing of actor Chris Gauthier.
As can happen in the entertainment world, some light shines less brightly on some than it does other, but Gauthier -- despite not being one of the biggest names I've run across -- was definitely one who enjoyed a great run in the realms of Science Fiction and Fantasy. In fact, a quick run down on his work listed on IMDB.com shows that he enjoyed over 100 different screen roles in properties very near and dear to many of us.
For posterity's sake, let me name a few? Since launching his career in entertainment, he booked time aboard such delightful enterprises as Dark Angel, Freddy Vs. Jason (2003), Earthsea, Stargate: Atlantis, Kyle XY, The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006), Bionic Woman, Reaper, Supernatural, Watchmen (2009), Sanctuary, Smallville, Continuum, Eureka, and much, much more. His was a career that was definitely diverse, and no doubt many will remember him from some screen gig here or there.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Gauthier. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
As can happen in the entertainment world, some light shines less brightly on some than it does other, but Gauthier -- despite not being one of the biggest names I've run across -- was definitely one who enjoyed a great run in the realms of Science Fiction and Fantasy. In fact, a quick run down on his work listed on IMDB.com shows that he enjoyed over 100 different screen roles in properties very near and dear to many of us.
For posterity's sake, let me name a few? Since launching his career in entertainment, he booked time aboard such delightful enterprises as Dark Angel, Freddy Vs. Jason (2003), Earthsea, Stargate: Atlantis, Kyle XY, The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006), Bionic Woman, Reaper, Supernatural, Watchmen (2009), Sanctuary, Smallville, Continuum, Eureka, and much, much more. His was a career that was definitely diverse, and no doubt many will remember him from some screen gig here or there.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Gauthier. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome me back from a brief respite from the daily responsibilities that are the maintenance of SciFiHistory.Net!
Did you miss me?
Did you even notice I was gone?
Ahhhh. The trials and tribulations of a daily blogger. I know, I know, I know ... "If you were a vlogger, we would've noticed, but you old school types who still insist on slinging words just don't get all the glory ..." I know. Such is the case. But I had a medical test this week that wiped me out (nothing serious, so don't fret), and then I had a lot of volunteer stuff that tied me up on Friday. This is the first I'm actually even getting to the blog in about two days, but I'm thrilled to be back in the saddle, as they say. I've missed it.
Nothing all that much to report from the last few days, though, that's true. I haven't had the time to even check into The Archives to see if I had anything of substance I needed to add for today, so this post is going out there onto the Information Superhighway exactly as I type it right now. So lemme take a quick gander and see what ruckus I was muster.
Did you miss me?
Did you even notice I was gone?
Ahhhh. The trials and tribulations of a daily blogger. I know, I know, I know ... "If you were a vlogger, we would've noticed, but you old school types who still insist on slinging words just don't get all the glory ..." I know. Such is the case. But I had a medical test this week that wiped me out (nothing serious, so don't fret), and then I had a lot of volunteer stuff that tied me up on Friday. This is the first I'm actually even getting to the blog in about two days, but I'm thrilled to be back in the saddle, as they say. I've missed it.
Nothing all that much to report from the last few days, though, that's true. I haven't had the time to even check into The Archives to see if I had anything of substance I needed to add for today, so this post is going out there onto the Information Superhighway exactly as I type it right now. So lemme take a quick gander and see what ruckus I was muster.
The name of Ray Liotta isn't one that's even remotely associated with the worlds of Science Fiction and Fantasy, but for those of who not following quite so closely as I am the talented actor did step into its confines: on this day back in 1994 -- an astonishing thirty years ago today -- he graced the silver screen in a little something-something called No Escape.
Now, I'm not sure how much of a wide release this film got. It seems to me that it, largely, was a small feature that came and went pretty quickly. It didn't muster up a whole lot of fanfare. I suppose there are multiple reasons for such a fate, but -- for my two cents -- it's the kind of thing that SciFi and Fantasy does over and over again. Basically, it's a yarn about the descent of civilization into chaos -- all given a largely Apocalyptic backdrop -- and sometimes it's hard to even get the most ardent fans riled up to see more of the same. I know that I didn't get the chance to see this one in theaters, and I hadn't seen it in its entirety until I received a complimentary new release of it back in 2022. Once I had, I was very glad to have seen it, as it's honestly the kind of thing that -- despite having enduring such circumstances before -- I honestly almost always enjoy.
Having Ray Liotta in it?
Well, the actor did very well in it. I don't think it was much of a stretch for him, exactly, but he still showed up, hit his marks, and made the picture better for being in it.
But, yes, I think it's safe to suggest that genre -- from time-to-time -- overdoes it, repeats an awful lot of the same ideas and stories -- so a bit of, say, Apocalypse fatigue probably sets in on occasion and hurts the forward progress of a smaller feature.
If you haven't seen this one, then you're still encouraged to check it out.
Now, I'm not sure how much of a wide release this film got. It seems to me that it, largely, was a small feature that came and went pretty quickly. It didn't muster up a whole lot of fanfare. I suppose there are multiple reasons for such a fate, but -- for my two cents -- it's the kind of thing that SciFi and Fantasy does over and over again. Basically, it's a yarn about the descent of civilization into chaos -- all given a largely Apocalyptic backdrop -- and sometimes it's hard to even get the most ardent fans riled up to see more of the same. I know that I didn't get the chance to see this one in theaters, and I hadn't seen it in its entirety until I received a complimentary new release of it back in 2022. Once I had, I was very glad to have seen it, as it's honestly the kind of thing that -- despite having enduring such circumstances before -- I honestly almost always enjoy.
Having Ray Liotta in it?
Well, the actor did very well in it. I don't think it was much of a stretch for him, exactly, but he still showed up, hit his marks, and made the picture better for being in it.
But, yes, I think it's safe to suggest that genre -- from time-to-time -- overdoes it, repeats an awful lot of the same ideas and stories -- so a bit of, say, Apocalypse fatigue probably sets in on occasion and hurts the forward progress of a smaller feature.
If you haven't seen this one, then you're still encouraged to check it out.
One other significant reason for genre fans to celebrate February 24th is that the day is the birthday of Edward James Olmos, who appeared aboard Ridley Scott's Blade Runner and pretty much was one of the big headliners for the Syfy-produced re-imagination of the classic Battlestar Galactica.
Olmos as Adama was a great casting choice. While I've admitted time and time again that I wasn't a big fan of this particular reincarnation (I didn't hate it, it just didn't do as much for me as did the original), I've always thought that it had, arguably, one of the best casts in TV SciFi/Dramas of record, and that's saying something considering the wealth of talent that comes our way. Olmos had this measure of gravitas that blessed the production with the level of respectability I think it deserved, and, yes, it was great to see what he could do with some pretty dynamic material.
And don't hate me because I'm an old dog, kiddies, just like Olmos was in this show: I happen to prefer the younger version -- the one who had far more nuance in Blade Runner -- to the elder. Not putting him down in any respect. As I said above, the newfangled BSG just went a bit too obviously political in ways I didn't think really advanced any of its core ideas, but I'm going to leave it at that.
Happy birthday, Mr. Olmos!
Olmos as Adama was a great casting choice. While I've admitted time and time again that I wasn't a big fan of this particular reincarnation (I didn't hate it, it just didn't do as much for me as did the original), I've always thought that it had, arguably, one of the best casts in TV SciFi/Dramas of record, and that's saying something considering the wealth of talent that comes our way. Olmos had this measure of gravitas that blessed the production with the level of respectability I think it deserved, and, yes, it was great to see what he could do with some pretty dynamic material.
And don't hate me because I'm an old dog, kiddies, just like Olmos was in this show: I happen to prefer the younger version -- the one who had far more nuance in Blade Runner -- to the elder. Not putting him down in any respect. As I said above, the newfangled BSG just went a bit too obviously political in ways I didn't think really advanced any of its core ideas, but I'm going to leave it at that.
Happy birthday, Mr. Olmos!
As always, there's more ... in fact, there's a lot more ... over on the Daily Citation Page for February 24th, 2024, and this is the point wherein I encourage everyone to go and check it out ... but I'm always going to take this small opportunity to encourage readers to help me out ... if you know of any other event (birthdays, movie releases, TV airings, etc.) that could be added to this space, don't ever hesitate to drop me a line, eh? I bring this up because someone did so recently but did so rather ... erm ... quietly ... unsure of whether or not he felt it was the right thing to do. Folks, I'm always on the lookout for stuff to add to the space, but mine are only two eyes. If you see something or you know something or even if you're an actor, director, producer, whatever, etc., and would like to see something added to the appropriate page, then I'm always listening. Never hesitate to drop me a line. It never hurts to ask, no matter the topic.
Lastly ... as always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
In all seriousness, I hold classic films in very high regard.
I’ve always been fascinated by what storytellers have been able to accomplish in cinema, and it’s even more captivating to see how the tricks of their trade have evolved over time. In most respects, new technologies help to make stories more and more complex, but when you go back and take a peek at something like H.G. Wells’ Things To Come (1936), one realizes that, largely, the technology has always been there even if only to a certain degree. Sure, it may be more refined today, and there may be more ways to fool viewers; but effects have been a part of the motion picture since they began.
Perhaps there’s no better proof of that that the final third of this highly regarded film.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my 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:
“The story of a century: a decades-long second World War leaves plague and anarchy, then a rational state rebuilds civilization and attempts space travel.”
Over the course of a century, the residents of Everytown, U.S.A. experiences the highs and lows of a tumultuous civilization. When a world war promises to wipe out an entire generation, their fair city is almost entirely reduced to rubble. Decades later, a plague threatens to decimate even more. But in the distant future, the town elders rise up to deliver a message of hope for the future. Will the people embrace their destiny once more, or will they bring the promise of ‘things to come’ crashing back to Earth?
Much ado has been made over the years about Things To Come. The film adaptation was made possible only by very close collaboration between renowned science fiction author H.G. Wells and the sharpest minds of a major motion picture studio, including director William Cameron Menzies. Like Wells’ fiction, it grasps mostly at ideas that transcend the routine, trying to plot out the course mankind finds itself on while balancing the storyteller’s desire to make a definitive statement about the fragility of our world. Having read a handful of his books, I can certainly see the master’s mind at work … but – so far as this humble critic is concerned – that’s as much a weakness here as it is a strength.
I’ve always been fascinated by what storytellers have been able to accomplish in cinema, and it’s even more captivating to see how the tricks of their trade have evolved over time. In most respects, new technologies help to make stories more and more complex, but when you go back and take a peek at something like H.G. Wells’ Things To Come (1936), one realizes that, largely, the technology has always been there even if only to a certain degree. Sure, it may be more refined today, and there may be more ways to fool viewers; but effects have been a part of the motion picture since they began.
Perhaps there’s no better proof of that that the final third of this highly regarded film.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my 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:
“The story of a century: a decades-long second World War leaves plague and anarchy, then a rational state rebuilds civilization and attempts space travel.”
Over the course of a century, the residents of Everytown, U.S.A. experiences the highs and lows of a tumultuous civilization. When a world war promises to wipe out an entire generation, their fair city is almost entirely reduced to rubble. Decades later, a plague threatens to decimate even more. But in the distant future, the town elders rise up to deliver a message of hope for the future. Will the people embrace their destiny once more, or will they bring the promise of ‘things to come’ crashing back to Earth?
Much ado has been made over the years about Things To Come. The film adaptation was made possible only by very close collaboration between renowned science fiction author H.G. Wells and the sharpest minds of a major motion picture studio, including director William Cameron Menzies. Like Wells’ fiction, it grasps mostly at ideas that transcend the routine, trying to plot out the course mankind finds itself on while balancing the storyteller’s desire to make a definitive statement about the fragility of our world. Having read a handful of his books, I can certainly see the master’s mind at work … but – so far as this humble critic is concerned – that’s as much a weakness here as it is a strength.
Wells spent much of his writing trying to surround his fiction with internal discussions of culture, of war, of man’s inability to see his own fallibility for what it is. Progress never arrives without consequence, but I didn’t find that consequences were ever explored without some even greater cost to the world-at-large. As a result, some of his books can be slow-going. His predilection for everything to have greater significance practically grinds Things To Come to a halt all too often. Instead of allowing sequences to blend seamlessly one to the next, the film gets heavy-handed very quickly and never relents, weighing down an already cumbersome narrative with endless montages that keep making the same narrative point: every step forward may invariably require two steps back. Or three steps. Maybe four. We’ll let you know when all is said and done.
Relying on too many didactic scenes, the film never legitimately posits any characters an audience can relate to other than perhaps giving each one simple trait, which hardly seems authentic. When the people don’t seem real – when they appear to be nothing more than constructs serving the plot – then the viewers are put in the untenable position of not investing any real emotion in their fates (individual or collective), and I’ll admit that it wasn’t until the film’s final section – Everytown’s future – in which I felt some attachment. That’s an awful long time to sit waiting for all of this to ‘feel’ like it isn’t preaching to me about mankind’s arrogance, warning me against mankind’s failure to rise above it all – sentiments most cynics like me already knew before the lights went dim.
However, Things To Come remains a film that’s definitely worth seeing.
Yes, it might be painful. Yes, it might feel at times like a visit to the dentist. But the film’s structure alone is admirable. The artwork and art direction is phenomenal. Go in realizing that this story is very slow paced, and you’ll probably enjoy it a bit more than I did.
Things To Come (1936) is produced by London Film Productions. DVD distribution for this release has been handled by the good people at the Criterion Collection. As for the technical specifications, this film looks and sounds very solid with some interesting cinematography to help push the sluggish plot forward. If it’s special features you’re interested in, then this Criterion release is pretty special: there’s an audio commentary from film historian David Kalat; an interview regarding the film’s design work; a visual essay on the film’s score; some unused special effects footage; an audio recording involving “the wandering sickness” (trust me, it’s in the film); and a terrific booklet with photos and an essay from Geoffrey O’Brien.
Mildly recommended.
Others far more learned than I have said it before, but methinks it bears repeating: the only overwhelming reason to watch Things To Come (1936) is to study the film’s art direction. At 97 minutes, the first hour is a bit of a slog with several sequences going on vastly longer than they need to in order to make a relatively simple (if not predictable) point. Once the film progresses into the story’s distant future, it’s clear just how ambitious the costumers, set designers, craftspeople, and special effects folk had to work to bring this to life the way the way they did in 1936. Otherwise, I just found so very little memorable from the entire experience. A disappointment but visually interesting.
-- EZ
Relying on too many didactic scenes, the film never legitimately posits any characters an audience can relate to other than perhaps giving each one simple trait, which hardly seems authentic. When the people don’t seem real – when they appear to be nothing more than constructs serving the plot – then the viewers are put in the untenable position of not investing any real emotion in their fates (individual or collective), and I’ll admit that it wasn’t until the film’s final section – Everytown’s future – in which I felt some attachment. That’s an awful long time to sit waiting for all of this to ‘feel’ like it isn’t preaching to me about mankind’s arrogance, warning me against mankind’s failure to rise above it all – sentiments most cynics like me already knew before the lights went dim.
However, Things To Come remains a film that’s definitely worth seeing.
Yes, it might be painful. Yes, it might feel at times like a visit to the dentist. But the film’s structure alone is admirable. The artwork and art direction is phenomenal. Go in realizing that this story is very slow paced, and you’ll probably enjoy it a bit more than I did.
Things To Come (1936) is produced by London Film Productions. DVD distribution for this release has been handled by the good people at the Criterion Collection. As for the technical specifications, this film looks and sounds very solid with some interesting cinematography to help push the sluggish plot forward. If it’s special features you’re interested in, then this Criterion release is pretty special: there’s an audio commentary from film historian David Kalat; an interview regarding the film’s design work; a visual essay on the film’s score; some unused special effects footage; an audio recording involving “the wandering sickness” (trust me, it’s in the film); and a terrific booklet with photos and an essay from Geoffrey O’Brien.
Mildly recommended.
Others far more learned than I have said it before, but methinks it bears repeating: the only overwhelming reason to watch Things To Come (1936) is to study the film’s art direction. At 97 minutes, the first hour is a bit of a slog with several sequences going on vastly longer than they need to in order to make a relatively simple (if not predictable) point. Once the film progresses into the story’s distant future, it’s clear just how ambitious the costumers, set designers, craftspeople, and special effects folk had to work to bring this to life the way the way they did in 1936. Otherwise, I just found so very little memorable from the entire experience. A disappointment but visually interesting.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 21, 2024.
How's the day shaping up for you thus far?
Yes, yes, and yes: I, of course, realize that it's very early, and I don't want to jinx the day, as they say. I'm simply asking how it's going thus far with the sincere hopes that you'll find it going swimmingly. I truly wish for nothing best from my readers here at SciFiHistory.Net, and that's why I do what I do each and every day, hoping that some little nugget in this space brings you even the smallest bit of joy. It's these shared remembrances that unite fandom around the world, and I'm glad you're chosen to be as much a part of it as I have ... well, frankly, I am doing a bit more than you folks are -- what with building and maintaining this whole space, you know -- but that's by choice. I'll never hold that against you.
In a quick review of the day this morning, I realized that I'd watched and reviewed 1936's Things To Come -- the theatrical adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel -- so I went searching and found it in my personal archives. I did a quick once-over on the piece, cleaned it up a bit, and now it's available for a quick read on the site. It's one of those pieces that I had penned for my gig as an Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewer (but Bezos and his ilk removed once they changed their rules), and I wanted to preserve it for the ages in my own space. It's up, and you can find it with a look on the MainPage. Check it out, if you're so inclined.
Because I do like to 'mix things up a bit' from time-to-time, I think that's where I'll leave you this morning. I don't feel it's always necessary to highlight something extra in this daily blurb: in all honesty, some days do blend together just a bit, and I'm never convinced that what I see as a highlight is something that you'd all agree with. In those cases, I'll simply show up, present the link, and leave you to the business of performing your own deep dive into the cornucopia of delight that is the Daily Citation Page for February 21.
So without further ado, here's the link ...
How's the day shaping up for you thus far?
Yes, yes, and yes: I, of course, realize that it's very early, and I don't want to jinx the day, as they say. I'm simply asking how it's going thus far with the sincere hopes that you'll find it going swimmingly. I truly wish for nothing best from my readers here at SciFiHistory.Net, and that's why I do what I do each and every day, hoping that some little nugget in this space brings you even the smallest bit of joy. It's these shared remembrances that unite fandom around the world, and I'm glad you're chosen to be as much a part of it as I have ... well, frankly, I am doing a bit more than you folks are -- what with building and maintaining this whole space, you know -- but that's by choice. I'll never hold that against you.
In a quick review of the day this morning, I realized that I'd watched and reviewed 1936's Things To Come -- the theatrical adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel -- so I went searching and found it in my personal archives. I did a quick once-over on the piece, cleaned it up a bit, and now it's available for a quick read on the site. It's one of those pieces that I had penned for my gig as an Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewer (but Bezos and his ilk removed once they changed their rules), and I wanted to preserve it for the ages in my own space. It's up, and you can find it with a look on the MainPage. Check it out, if you're so inclined.
Because I do like to 'mix things up a bit' from time-to-time, I think that's where I'll leave you this morning. I don't feel it's always necessary to highlight something extra in this daily blurb: in all honesty, some days do blend together just a bit, and I'm never convinced that what I see as a highlight is something that you'd all agree with. In those cases, I'll simply show up, present the link, and leave you to the business of performing your own deep dive into the cornucopia of delight that is the Daily Citation Page for February 21.
So without further ado, here's the link ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 20, 2024! It's a great day -- as it is every day -- to be a fan of genre entertainment!
Not a whole lot to report for this morning as I'm pretty much just puttering away on the Daily Citation Page, cleaning up a bit of this and that here and there to make it vastly more newsworthy and presentable to the viewing/reading audience. I did manage to get up a few fresh reviews yesterday for those of you keeping score, and -- who knows? -- I might even dust off some prose for a new review this afternoon. Hard to tell at this point, as I do have a few errands I need to get to today in preparation for a little "procedure" I'm having on Thursday. So take that as a Public Service Announcement that there will most likely be very little new content on Thursday. I have something that'll definitely keep me away from the blog.
To those of you reaching out to me regarding Dune: Part 2? Alas, no, I'm no media diva, so I've no means to get in an advance preview. The blog isn't large enough (yet) to warrant me being inducted into the cultural bigwigs club. (I will persevere, regardless.) Yes, I'm excited to see it on the big screen, though I will admit I'm a bit miffed that it's a Part 2 and there's more to come without Part 3 even being written and/or greenlit. Despite what each of us might believe, I'm not so sure Part 3 is a foregone conclusion. Part 1 wasn't exactly a barn-burner -- if you know what I mean -- and I'm not so sure that there's as much hype of Part 2 as the studio would hope. Mind you when I simply point that out online I get inundated with folks who dub me a 'hater.' (Sigh.) As I've often admitted, Dune isn't exactly a personal favorite of mine, but I'm far from a hater. It just doesn't mean as much to me personally as it does to others ... and I'm gonna leave it at that. No sense stirring the pot.
But -- again -- yes, I'm as exciting as are all of you to see it on the big screen. Once I do, I'll most likely be giving it a review. Until then? Well, I really have nada to say about that.
Not a whole lot to report for this morning as I'm pretty much just puttering away on the Daily Citation Page, cleaning up a bit of this and that here and there to make it vastly more newsworthy and presentable to the viewing/reading audience. I did manage to get up a few fresh reviews yesterday for those of you keeping score, and -- who knows? -- I might even dust off some prose for a new review this afternoon. Hard to tell at this point, as I do have a few errands I need to get to today in preparation for a little "procedure" I'm having on Thursday. So take that as a Public Service Announcement that there will most likely be very little new content on Thursday. I have something that'll definitely keep me away from the blog.
To those of you reaching out to me regarding Dune: Part 2? Alas, no, I'm no media diva, so I've no means to get in an advance preview. The blog isn't large enough (yet) to warrant me being inducted into the cultural bigwigs club. (I will persevere, regardless.) Yes, I'm excited to see it on the big screen, though I will admit I'm a bit miffed that it's a Part 2 and there's more to come without Part 3 even being written and/or greenlit. Despite what each of us might believe, I'm not so sure Part 3 is a foregone conclusion. Part 1 wasn't exactly a barn-burner -- if you know what I mean -- and I'm not so sure that there's as much hype of Part 2 as the studio would hope. Mind you when I simply point that out online I get inundated with folks who dub me a 'hater.' (Sigh.) As I've often admitted, Dune isn't exactly a personal favorite of mine, but I'm far from a hater. It just doesn't mean as much to me personally as it does to others ... and I'm gonna leave it at that. No sense stirring the pot.
But -- again -- yes, I'm as exciting as are all of you to see it on the big screen. Once I do, I'll most likely be giving it a review. Until then? Well, I really have nada to say about that.
The older I get, the sadder I get when I come across names that seem to have all but been forgotten in certain quarters, and -- damn straight -- that sentiment applies to the late, great Richard Matheson.
In all seriousness, this guy's resume is the stuff of L-E-G-E-N-D, and the fact that he really isn't nor never quite was a household name is a crime. Granted, Science Fiction and Fantasy are not to everyone's liking, but Matheson tinkered heavily in that in-between area -- those gray spots -- between Fantasy and Drama, and he's responsible for penning a veritable library of stuff with solid crossover appeal for those who truly wish to check it out. In fact, many fans have told me that his output was vastly closer to classic Horror than it was Science Fiction and Fantasy; and I'd never argue with that. My point is that he crafted stories that broadly represented first great yarns with great characters: however they'd wind up getting 'classified' (by genre) is chump change when it comes to parsing a legacy. His is work that should be read and enjoyed, and I think everyone would agree with that.
So, please, if you do anything today as a consequence of checking out this space, take a gander at the works of Richard Matheson. Born on this day all the way back in 1926, his works still resonate the way good things do, and he gets my highest recommendation possible, especially so on his birthday.
In all seriousness, this guy's resume is the stuff of L-E-G-E-N-D, and the fact that he really isn't nor never quite was a household name is a crime. Granted, Science Fiction and Fantasy are not to everyone's liking, but Matheson tinkered heavily in that in-between area -- those gray spots -- between Fantasy and Drama, and he's responsible for penning a veritable library of stuff with solid crossover appeal for those who truly wish to check it out. In fact, many fans have told me that his output was vastly closer to classic Horror than it was Science Fiction and Fantasy; and I'd never argue with that. My point is that he crafted stories that broadly represented first great yarns with great characters: however they'd wind up getting 'classified' (by genre) is chump change when it comes to parsing a legacy. His is work that should be read and enjoyed, and I think everyone would agree with that.
So, please, if you do anything today as a consequence of checking out this space, take a gander at the works of Richard Matheson. Born on this day all the way back in 1926, his works still resonate the way good things do, and he gets my highest recommendation possible, especially so on his birthday.
Those who know me well know that I had my issues with Star Trek: Voyager. No, no, and no: I've no desire to relive all of those points, but I will say that I didn't much agree with the direction of the show, nor did I care for a great many of its main characters. Given that the program began under the pretense of, truly, going where no one had gone before, I was vastly disappointed with just how quickly it turns into an adventure we'd pretty much already seen in Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation. This was unexplored space? Why not authentically show us something different?
Meh. You get my point.
But ... the series still had some fabulous yarns worthy of extra mention, and one of the earliest of record was 1995's first season outing, "Eye Of The Needle."
The idea was that the Voyager and her crew found a failing wormhole back to the Alpha Quadrant that seemingly was going to allow them a unique opportunity to return. (Granted, this was very early in the show's run, and I don't believe anyone seriously thought it'd be over so few episodes in, but you go with what you got.) The wormhole's degradation meant that the only authentic means of using it as a conduit would be by transporting the crew back home, and this would mean leaving the ship (and its holographic doctor) far behind.
Suffice it to say, these trips were, ultimately, improbably -- won't spoil it in case you want to check it out via streaming -- and the hour rather poignantly presented the drama and the dilemma in a way that tugged at one's heart. In fact, I liked it so much I toyed with the idea of crafting my own fanfic exploring a few dangling threads left in place; and it would've been fun to see someone officially invest some time in examining a few Alpha Quadrant characters introduced (or "suggested") in the script. It could've made for some very compelling fiction.
The episode first aired on this day back in 1995.
Meh. You get my point.
But ... the series still had some fabulous yarns worthy of extra mention, and one of the earliest of record was 1995's first season outing, "Eye Of The Needle."
The idea was that the Voyager and her crew found a failing wormhole back to the Alpha Quadrant that seemingly was going to allow them a unique opportunity to return. (Granted, this was very early in the show's run, and I don't believe anyone seriously thought it'd be over so few episodes in, but you go with what you got.) The wormhole's degradation meant that the only authentic means of using it as a conduit would be by transporting the crew back home, and this would mean leaving the ship (and its holographic doctor) far behind.
Suffice it to say, these trips were, ultimately, improbably -- won't spoil it in case you want to check it out via streaming -- and the hour rather poignantly presented the drama and the dilemma in a way that tugged at one's heart. In fact, I liked it so much I toyed with the idea of crafting my own fanfic exploring a few dangling threads left in place; and it would've been fun to see someone officially invest some time in examining a few Alpha Quadrant characters introduced (or "suggested") in the script. It could've made for some very compelling fiction.
The episode first aired on this day back in 1995.
Those of you who come here faithfully each morning know the drill. There's more. In fact, there's a great deal more. This is the part wherein I encourage each of you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for February 20, 2024, and do you own investigative work. Find something in that space that tickles your fancy. Discover some nugget of information that makes your heart go pitty-pat. I give you my word that it'll be worth the time.
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to the start of a whole new week!
And by the way ... how was that weekend of yours?
Mine? Ahhh. It was ... okay. Nothing all that elaborate, just a whole lot of little things. The wifey and I caught a Saturday afternoon matinee of 1974's Young Frankenstein -- arguably one of the funniest Horror/Comedies ever made -- and then ran a few errands. Sunday was pretty much more of the same, but we did manage to squeeze in a 'Country Gals' concert in the afternoon. So, yes, it was a reasonably busy one, but a great time was had by all. Sunday night, I spent a fair amount of the evening working on the blog, as they say.
Like you, I'm all in for a whole new work, though. I'm ready and raring for the opportunities that present themselves, so let's buckle down and get to the grit and grime of the Daily Grindhouse.
And by the way ... how was that weekend of yours?
Mine? Ahhh. It was ... okay. Nothing all that elaborate, just a whole lot of little things. The wifey and I caught a Saturday afternoon matinee of 1974's Young Frankenstein -- arguably one of the funniest Horror/Comedies ever made -- and then ran a few errands. Sunday was pretty much more of the same, but we did manage to squeeze in a 'Country Gals' concert in the afternoon. So, yes, it was a reasonably busy one, but a great time was had by all. Sunday night, I spent a fair amount of the evening working on the blog, as they say.
Like you, I'm all in for a whole new work, though. I'm ready and raring for the opportunities that present themselves, so let's buckle down and get to the grit and grime of the Daily Grindhouse.
From what I can remember of my youth, there was a bit of a UFO craze in the mid-to-late 1970's. I suspect some of this was fueled by sightings -- or should I say 'alleged sightings' -- but it very well could be that the collective thirst for more Science Fiction and Fantasy -- the genre set on fire with the 1977 release of Star Wars -- might also have had something to do with it. This is not to say that society expected those little green men to show up bearing lightsabers but rather we were a people awakened to the possibilities of life beyond our own so a bit of spillover into other related fields was a probably a result.
So ... leave the powers that be in Hollywood to try to get out in front of the public demand for more SciFi and Fantasy by trying to tap darn near anything that could've satiated our hunger, and that likely explains why anyone thought that Project U.F.O. (1978-1979) was a good idea. It didn't have any elaborate special effects -- certainly nothing on par with what George Lucas and/or Steven Spielberg were having done on the silver screen -- but it did have the occasional flying saucer along with some creepy representations of alien lifeforms. Kudos to producers for making a go of it, but I do recall being largely unimpressed.
If I remember this one correctly, each week trying to give a particular case file from the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book -- the official investigation into the phenomenon -- a bit of a deep dive. As tends to happen when Hollywood gets their hands on any story, the people, places, and events had to get a bit salacious at times in order for their to be a tale worth exploring. I would imagine that the UFO brainiacs of the day probably took issue with the changing of details in order to make for a more compelling investigation, but that's what storytellers have to do in order to sell the sizzle of a good yarn.
Project U.F.O. premiered on this day back in 1978.
So ... leave the powers that be in Hollywood to try to get out in front of the public demand for more SciFi and Fantasy by trying to tap darn near anything that could've satiated our hunger, and that likely explains why anyone thought that Project U.F.O. (1978-1979) was a good idea. It didn't have any elaborate special effects -- certainly nothing on par with what George Lucas and/or Steven Spielberg were having done on the silver screen -- but it did have the occasional flying saucer along with some creepy representations of alien lifeforms. Kudos to producers for making a go of it, but I do recall being largely unimpressed.
If I remember this one correctly, each week trying to give a particular case file from the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book -- the official investigation into the phenomenon -- a bit of a deep dive. As tends to happen when Hollywood gets their hands on any story, the people, places, and events had to get a bit salacious at times in order for their to be a tale worth exploring. I would imagine that the UFO brainiacs of the day probably took issue with the changing of details in order to make for a more compelling investigation, but that's what storytellers have to do in order to sell the sizzle of a good yarn.
Project U.F.O. premiered on this day back in 1978.
Here is today's cautionary tale, gentle readers: "kids, don't grow up to be a 'Josh Trank.'"
Now, I don't recall all of the specifics on this one, but from what I can remember Trank was somewhat christened with the 'Next Big Thing' label by folks in the entertainment industry. His film Chronicle (2012) was a modestly budgeted sleeper/superhero flick that largely came out of nowhere and showed audiences once again what could be accomplished by relative unknowns. Riding the waves of positive energy, Trank was suddenly on everyone's radar, and -- before too long -- he found himself playing in the big leagues. 20th Century Fox hired him to reboot the Fantastic Four -- a Marvel property that hasn't exactly found good luck on the big screen -- and things were definitely looking up for the young director.
Well ...
Apparently, the FF reboot was a bit of chaos behind the scenes. Again, I'm not aware of every little rumor, but I seem to recall the director being alleged to have gotten into some fisticuffs with a performer or two. Somewhere around this time, Trank's star was still rising, and Kathleen Kennedy apparently wanted him to come aboard the Lucasfilm fiasco to develop a Star Wars project. Depending upon what you believe, word has it his behind-the-scenes behavior finally caught up with him: whatever the truth there may be, it's a fact that he's had nothing to do with any Star Wars project to date, and I suspect he's still jockeying to land that 'next big job' as his IMDB.com profile indicates very little activity since those days.
Ouch.
Whatever the case, Happy Birthday, Mr. Trank! It's Hollywood, after all, so it's never too late for a comeback!
Now, I don't recall all of the specifics on this one, but from what I can remember Trank was somewhat christened with the 'Next Big Thing' label by folks in the entertainment industry. His film Chronicle (2012) was a modestly budgeted sleeper/superhero flick that largely came out of nowhere and showed audiences once again what could be accomplished by relative unknowns. Riding the waves of positive energy, Trank was suddenly on everyone's radar, and -- before too long -- he found himself playing in the big leagues. 20th Century Fox hired him to reboot the Fantastic Four -- a Marvel property that hasn't exactly found good luck on the big screen -- and things were definitely looking up for the young director.
Well ...
Apparently, the FF reboot was a bit of chaos behind the scenes. Again, I'm not aware of every little rumor, but I seem to recall the director being alleged to have gotten into some fisticuffs with a performer or two. Somewhere around this time, Trank's star was still rising, and Kathleen Kennedy apparently wanted him to come aboard the Lucasfilm fiasco to develop a Star Wars project. Depending upon what you believe, word has it his behind-the-scenes behavior finally caught up with him: whatever the truth there may be, it's a fact that he's had nothing to do with any Star Wars project to date, and I suspect he's still jockeying to land that 'next big job' as his IMDB.com profile indicates very little activity since those days.
Ouch.
Whatever the case, Happy Birthday, Mr. Trank! It's Hollywood, after all, so it's never too late for a comeback!
Of course, you folks know the drill: there's vastly more than this waiting for your discovery over on the Daily Citation Page for February 19th, and this is the point wherein I encourage all of you to head on over to that space, check it out, and relish the details! There's really a whole world awaiting you, and you just have to go and see:
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Under SciFiHistory.Net’s ‘Monsters Of A Sort’ category heading, I take a look at features that kinda/sorta dabble into sensibilities very close to (if not downright demonstrative of) Film Noir and/or the unconventional screen mystery. Despite maintaining a heavy (and near constant) diet of genre projects, I’m not always satiated by just SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror; so I do like – from time-to-time – to add a little substance from these other realms. It helps to widen my perspective. It helps to cleanse the palate. It keeps me fresh … and a ‘fresh me’ is good for all of you, my faithful readers.
Today’s distraction: 1949’s Chicago Deadline exists as a reasonably well-regarded Noir – not all that dissimilar from 1944’s superior Laura – from the folks at Paramount Pictures.
The source material for the film was a novel – “One Woman” – penned by Mr. Tiffany Thayer, a talented fellow whose resume shows not only writing and acting but as well he served as a founding member of the Fortean Society. (For those unaware, Charles Fort was an author and researcher who spent a good portion of his life investigating paranormal and the supernatural.) IMDB.com reports that several of Thayer’s novels were adapted for the silver screen, a fact that indicates he definitely had a knack for weaving yarns that met with Hollywood interest and approval. Screenwriter Warren Duff (1933’s Deluge, 1938’s Angels With Dirty Faces, The Girl From U.N.C.L.E., and The Invaders) adapted the novel for director Lewis Allen, a man known for such other entries as The Unseen (1945), Suddenly (1954), and some episodes of various television shows.
As for the onscreen talent? Chicago Deadline starred Alan Ladd, Donna Reed, June Havoc, Irene Hervey, and Arthur Kennedy in prominent roles exploring the tale of a crack Chicago reporter chasing down leads from an address book of Rosita Jean d’Ur, a beautiful young woman who turns up dead in a boarding house. The plot winds up being perhaps a bit more labyrinthian than many expected, and I’ll concede that – as older flicks go – this one requires a bit closer attention in the second half when some of the plot threads get wound a bit more tightly than probably expected.
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its construction follow.
(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:
“On Chicago’s South Side, reporter Ed Adams finds the body of a dead girl. Her address book leads to a host of names of men frightened by her death but claiming to never have known her. Adams comes to know quite a lot, dangerously so.”
Well … if I’m being particularly blunt, then I think all I’d really have to say about Chicago Deadline is that Alan Ladd fans have one solid reason to celebrate the film’s inclusion as part of Kino Lorber’s Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema Collection, Volume XVI. While I found it respectably interesting, the story of one reporter’s crusade to get to the bottom of a death he basically stumbles upon by being in the right place at the right time is otherwise bland. It essentially weaves flashbacks of the fallen woman’s life into the fabric of big city politics; though Ladd’s efforts remain the crux of the narrative, I just didn’t find much of it riveting, certainly not nearly as much as I have territory covered in similar noirs.
Today’s distraction: 1949’s Chicago Deadline exists as a reasonably well-regarded Noir – not all that dissimilar from 1944’s superior Laura – from the folks at Paramount Pictures.
The source material for the film was a novel – “One Woman” – penned by Mr. Tiffany Thayer, a talented fellow whose resume shows not only writing and acting but as well he served as a founding member of the Fortean Society. (For those unaware, Charles Fort was an author and researcher who spent a good portion of his life investigating paranormal and the supernatural.) IMDB.com reports that several of Thayer’s novels were adapted for the silver screen, a fact that indicates he definitely had a knack for weaving yarns that met with Hollywood interest and approval. Screenwriter Warren Duff (1933’s Deluge, 1938’s Angels With Dirty Faces, The Girl From U.N.C.L.E., and The Invaders) adapted the novel for director Lewis Allen, a man known for such other entries as The Unseen (1945), Suddenly (1954), and some episodes of various television shows.
As for the onscreen talent? Chicago Deadline starred Alan Ladd, Donna Reed, June Havoc, Irene Hervey, and Arthur Kennedy in prominent roles exploring the tale of a crack Chicago reporter chasing down leads from an address book of Rosita Jean d’Ur, a beautiful young woman who turns up dead in a boarding house. The plot winds up being perhaps a bit more labyrinthian than many expected, and I’ll concede that – as older flicks go – this one requires a bit closer attention in the second half when some of the plot threads get wound a bit more tightly than probably expected.
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its construction follow.
(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:
“On Chicago’s South Side, reporter Ed Adams finds the body of a dead girl. Her address book leads to a host of names of men frightened by her death but claiming to never have known her. Adams comes to know quite a lot, dangerously so.”
Well … if I’m being particularly blunt, then I think all I’d really have to say about Chicago Deadline is that Alan Ladd fans have one solid reason to celebrate the film’s inclusion as part of Kino Lorber’s Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema Collection, Volume XVI. While I found it respectably interesting, the story of one reporter’s crusade to get to the bottom of a death he basically stumbles upon by being in the right place at the right time is otherwise bland. It essentially weaves flashbacks of the fallen woman’s life into the fabric of big city politics; though Ladd’s efforts remain the crux of the narrative, I just didn’t find much of it riveting, certainly not nearly as much as I have territory covered in similar noirs.
Now, some of my disinterest could honestly be fueled by the fact that the script – as derived from a novel – seems to have really overthought its pieces, at times so much so that it felt like an unnecessarily elaborate reconstruction to what ultimately ends up playing up predictably in the last reel. (Yes, it’s pretty easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys at every step of the way.) That and the fact that Ladd’s portrayal of a reporter all too often implied that he was somehow bigger, better, and badder than everyone else he crossed paths with, certainly a cinematic liberty considering that most real-world reporters might be a bit nebbish when it comes to engaging with the level of violence necessary to tell this story as is. At one point, Ladd even takes a bullet in his pursuit of justice – a predicament that often meant a bitter end in the realm of most 1940’s and 1950’s dramas – but he’s fine once he’s all bandaged up at the hospital. Just fine. That’s good, too … because there was much more to go before this mystery was solved.
Still, Deadline went to great lengths to show the amount of shoe leather reporters would go in the pursuit of a lead. The first half of the flick rather effectively shows how reporters get good at their game, even if that means absconding evidence from a crime scene that otherwise would’ve likely been filed away in some cardboard box. Driven to get to the bottom of a hunch may not work for you and me out here in Realityville, but this is the kind of set-up that drives a great many investigative features. On that level, the picture works just fine; I’d only caution the audience that you’ll have to follow what develops closely in order to keep up with Adams, and even then you might be disappointed with how obviously it all wraps up in the finale.
To the film’s credit, Deadline enjoyed a 1950 ‘Best Motion Picture’ nomination from the Edgar Allan Poe Awards. Alas, the film lost out in final estimation to The Window … but, hey, as they say, it’s an honor to just be nominated, am I right?
Deadline Chicago (1949) was produced by Paramount Pictures. 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 this Blu-ray release to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a commentary by film historian Alan K. Rode along with the theatrical trailer to whet your whistle.
Alas, only mildly recommended.
Much to my surprise, Chicago Deadline (1949) wound up being my least favorite of this all-new Kino Lorber noir set. For some reason, I thought that Ladd’s inclusion alone meant that I was in for something special. While his work here was good – a bit too theatrical in some spots, especially considering he was little more than a big city reporter – it just wasn’t enough to elevate this yarn to the point of being all that memorable. Sometimes, character motivations mean more than mere characters; and I ended this diversion feeling as if I didn’t learn much about the folks met along the way. That spoiled the deal for me, so it’s a hard one to recommend with any degree of enthusiasm.
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 Chicago Deadline (1949) – as part of their Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema Collection, Volume XVI – by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Still, Deadline went to great lengths to show the amount of shoe leather reporters would go in the pursuit of a lead. The first half of the flick rather effectively shows how reporters get good at their game, even if that means absconding evidence from a crime scene that otherwise would’ve likely been filed away in some cardboard box. Driven to get to the bottom of a hunch may not work for you and me out here in Realityville, but this is the kind of set-up that drives a great many investigative features. On that level, the picture works just fine; I’d only caution the audience that you’ll have to follow what develops closely in order to keep up with Adams, and even then you might be disappointed with how obviously it all wraps up in the finale.
To the film’s credit, Deadline enjoyed a 1950 ‘Best Motion Picture’ nomination from the Edgar Allan Poe Awards. Alas, the film lost out in final estimation to The Window … but, hey, as they say, it’s an honor to just be nominated, am I right?
Deadline Chicago (1949) was produced by Paramount Pictures. 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 this Blu-ray release to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a commentary by film historian Alan K. Rode along with the theatrical trailer to whet your whistle.
Alas, only mildly recommended.
Much to my surprise, Chicago Deadline (1949) wound up being my least favorite of this all-new Kino Lorber noir set. For some reason, I thought that Ladd’s inclusion alone meant that I was in for something special. While his work here was good – a bit too theatrical in some spots, especially considering he was little more than a big city reporter – it just wasn’t enough to elevate this yarn to the point of being all that memorable. Sometimes, character motivations mean more than mere characters; and I ended this diversion feeling as if I didn’t learn much about the folks met along the way. That spoiled the deal for me, so it’s a hard one to recommend with any degree of enthusiasm.
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 Chicago Deadline (1949) – as part of their Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema Collection, Volume XVI – 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
Generally speaking, I’m no fan of storytelling gimmicks, and that’s especially the case when the gimmick really is the story and not vice versa.
In fact, there are many examples wherein the geographic construct for telling a certain story becomes almost as important as the story itself. Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954) is told almost entirely from the point of view of L.B. Jefferies (Jimmy Stewart), a wheelchair-bound photographer recovering from his injuries who believes he witnesses a murder and the resulting cover-up via nothing more than the window to his second-floor apartment. Similarly, Joel Schumacher’s Phone Booth (2002) spins a provocative web from the dubious location of the corner telephone booth, where Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) unwittingly answers the call from a nearby sniper and propels himself to the center of a media spotlight. Amping up the claustrophobia to inhuman proportions, Rodrigo Cortés set his 2010 thriller Buried smack dab in the coffin itself, forcing the abducted Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) into a battle of wills with a caller who may or may not have his best interests at heart.
There’s a balance that needs to be maintained whenever approaching such material. In limiting the movement of characters, there’s a huge risk of sacrificing visible pace all in favor of maintaining the framework. Actors and actresses put into such circumstances will not only be required to perform at the top of their game, but they also must be given interesting material that’ll keep the focus of the audience while asking them to endure such tight confines. Having seen this attempted with middling results, it’s not a construct I would encourage many to facilitate … and, yet, 2023’s Trunk: Locked In somehow manages to get surprisingly good mileage out of little more than a trunk space filled with actress Sina Martens. The ride might be a bit cramp at times – bumpy in others – but it reaches its destination just as planned.
(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:
“Malina wakes up disoriented in the trunk of a speeding car and discovers to her horror that she is missing more than her memory. With her mobile phone as the only link to the outside world, she wages a desperate battle for survival.”
Though I could be a bit confused on the details, I’m pretty certain that it was Chris Carter – the celebrated creator of Fox TV’s stellar paranormal procedural The X-Files – who once remarked that his show couldn’t have been made in the days prior to the invention of the cell phone. While it might be easy to debate otherwise, I think the storyteller’s central premise was that having the technological ability to have advanced forms of communication available at one’s fingertips certainly swung the door open to a good many new avenues for those crafting such stories; and – if that’s the case – then the same could be said for writer/director Marc Scheißer’s latest thriller, Trunk: Locked In.
In fact, there are many examples wherein the geographic construct for telling a certain story becomes almost as important as the story itself. Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954) is told almost entirely from the point of view of L.B. Jefferies (Jimmy Stewart), a wheelchair-bound photographer recovering from his injuries who believes he witnesses a murder and the resulting cover-up via nothing more than the window to his second-floor apartment. Similarly, Joel Schumacher’s Phone Booth (2002) spins a provocative web from the dubious location of the corner telephone booth, where Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) unwittingly answers the call from a nearby sniper and propels himself to the center of a media spotlight. Amping up the claustrophobia to inhuman proportions, Rodrigo Cortés set his 2010 thriller Buried smack dab in the coffin itself, forcing the abducted Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) into a battle of wills with a caller who may or may not have his best interests at heart.
There’s a balance that needs to be maintained whenever approaching such material. In limiting the movement of characters, there’s a huge risk of sacrificing visible pace all in favor of maintaining the framework. Actors and actresses put into such circumstances will not only be required to perform at the top of their game, but they also must be given interesting material that’ll keep the focus of the audience while asking them to endure such tight confines. Having seen this attempted with middling results, it’s not a construct I would encourage many to facilitate … and, yet, 2023’s Trunk: Locked In somehow manages to get surprisingly good mileage out of little more than a trunk space filled with actress Sina Martens. The ride might be a bit cramp at times – bumpy in others – but it reaches its destination just as planned.
(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:
“Malina wakes up disoriented in the trunk of a speeding car and discovers to her horror that she is missing more than her memory. With her mobile phone as the only link to the outside world, she wages a desperate battle for survival.”
Though I could be a bit confused on the details, I’m pretty certain that it was Chris Carter – the celebrated creator of Fox TV’s stellar paranormal procedural The X-Files – who once remarked that his show couldn’t have been made in the days prior to the invention of the cell phone. While it might be easy to debate otherwise, I think the storyteller’s central premise was that having the technological ability to have advanced forms of communication available at one’s fingertips certainly swung the door open to a good many new avenues for those crafting such stories; and – if that’s the case – then the same could be said for writer/director Marc Scheißer’s latest thriller, Trunk: Locked In.
After having run away from her adult life and responsibilities to abscond with her lover Enno (Artjom Gilz), Malina (Sina Martens) wakes up in the trunk of a car with little recollection of how she may’ve gotten there. Thankfully, she was curiously (conveniently) videotaping their road trip and somehow managed to be tossed ‘in the boot’ with said camcorder, allowing her to replay the footage to jog her memories. Over the course of the next few hours, she’ll use her cell phone to call for help – all the while trying to secure additional details on her abductor that she can relay to the authorities – in a race to save herself and Enno from whatever dark fate might be waiting at the end of the trip.
Now, I’m not going to make light of Malina’s circumstances. The truth here is that each of us – no matter what we might think otherwise – has no way of knowing how we’d react if we found ourselves in similar dire straits. What I’m suggesting lightly here is that the lady doesn’t make some of the smartest decisions right out of the gate, and I suspect this was most likely owed to Scheißer’s script. Saying the first thing I would’ve done is called the police is an easy gimme; the fact that Malina chooses otherwise is eventually underscored by the weight of her character’s emotional baggage, none of which is known in these early scenes. Let’s just agree that an effective game plan for escape never quite emerges, and, yes, some of this weakens an otherwise crisp and exciting tale.
Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out the obvious: this has to be one of the most spacious and best lit trunk spaces ever featured in cinema. Yes, Scheißer manages to work wonders with the obvious claustrophobia-inducing camerawork in every conceivable passage; but there are still a few sequences I suspect push the limits of what’s plausible to accomplish with relative ease in such cramped quarters. Again, this is in no way to suggest such a story is impossible; once you set aside some of those quibbles, however, Trunk works about as well as it could ever have been executed.
Ultimately, Trunk is a thrill ride – a fun one, at that – and it relies almost entirely on its unique point-of-view. To that end, Scheißer bobs, weaves, and crawls around the space in ways that wouldn’t have been possible a few decades earlier; and just about the time when you think you’ve experienced every possible camera angle the director manages to find one more to put the car into a higher gear. The fact that there’s far more story to Malina than what meets the eyes definitely elevates this one into territory few will see coming, but it still works best with a willing suspension of disbelief over some of the minutiae about leg room. It ain’t perfect – I’m still trying to figure out just what transpired in one of its last scenes – and maybe that’s the point of life itself.
Trunk: Locked In (2023) was produced by Outside The Club. The film is presently available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this exceedingly well-produced affair to be on the highest quality from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Highly recommended.
Succinctly, I think Sina Martens’ central performance is the biggest reason to enjoy the thrill ride that is Trunk: Locked In. While Marc Scheißer’s script and direction are compelling, it’s ultimately Malina’s journey – with its broken discoveries and misguided attempts along the way – that produce the greatest noise. While the single-set construct has been used before, this arguably should go down in film history as one of the better attempts to ratchet up action while spending the bulk of the duration in the tightest confines of record. Sure, it’s imperfect … but can’t the same be said of every road trip?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Trunk: Locked In (2023) as I viewed this one streaming via my subscription to Amazon Prime Video.
-- EZ
Now, I’m not going to make light of Malina’s circumstances. The truth here is that each of us – no matter what we might think otherwise – has no way of knowing how we’d react if we found ourselves in similar dire straits. What I’m suggesting lightly here is that the lady doesn’t make some of the smartest decisions right out of the gate, and I suspect this was most likely owed to Scheißer’s script. Saying the first thing I would’ve done is called the police is an easy gimme; the fact that Malina chooses otherwise is eventually underscored by the weight of her character’s emotional baggage, none of which is known in these early scenes. Let’s just agree that an effective game plan for escape never quite emerges, and, yes, some of this weakens an otherwise crisp and exciting tale.
Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out the obvious: this has to be one of the most spacious and best lit trunk spaces ever featured in cinema. Yes, Scheißer manages to work wonders with the obvious claustrophobia-inducing camerawork in every conceivable passage; but there are still a few sequences I suspect push the limits of what’s plausible to accomplish with relative ease in such cramped quarters. Again, this is in no way to suggest such a story is impossible; once you set aside some of those quibbles, however, Trunk works about as well as it could ever have been executed.
Ultimately, Trunk is a thrill ride – a fun one, at that – and it relies almost entirely on its unique point-of-view. To that end, Scheißer bobs, weaves, and crawls around the space in ways that wouldn’t have been possible a few decades earlier; and just about the time when you think you’ve experienced every possible camera angle the director manages to find one more to put the car into a higher gear. The fact that there’s far more story to Malina than what meets the eyes definitely elevates this one into territory few will see coming, but it still works best with a willing suspension of disbelief over some of the minutiae about leg room. It ain’t perfect – I’m still trying to figure out just what transpired in one of its last scenes – and maybe that’s the point of life itself.
Trunk: Locked In (2023) was produced by Outside The Club. The film is presently available for streaming on Amazon Prime Video. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this exceedingly well-produced affair to be on the highest quality from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Highly recommended.
Succinctly, I think Sina Martens’ central performance is the biggest reason to enjoy the thrill ride that is Trunk: Locked In. While Marc Scheißer’s script and direction are compelling, it’s ultimately Malina’s journey – with its broken discoveries and misguided attempts along the way – that produce the greatest noise. While the single-set construct has been used before, this arguably should go down in film history as one of the better attempts to ratchet up action while spending the bulk of the duration in the tightest confines of record. Sure, it’s imperfect … but can’t the same be said of every road trip?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Trunk: Locked In (2023) as I viewed this one streaming via my subscription to Amazon Prime Video.
-- EZ