- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 15th, 2024!
So ... dare I ask? How was your Valentines' Day? I know, I know, I know. Not everybody is in a ... erm ... relationship, as they say ... so perhaps it's inappropriate to ask such a -- cough cough -- pointed question. Honestly, I mean no insult whatsoever. I'm simply doing as I do each and every morning and attempting to make blog-based conversation with the readership. Even those who aren't in a relationship did something on Valentines' Day, am I right? Watch TV? Walk the mall? Read a book? It's OK to hear about whatever they did as well as those who partook of the dating scene, and I do what I can to practice inclusivity on all fronts here at SciFiHistory.Net. (Well, except for Matt Damon, that is ... not a fan, Matty ...)
So ... how was your Valentines' Day? Me. It was relaxing. I didn't have any major activity on the agenda anyway as the wifey and I have something pretty spiffy scheduled for tonight. So last night was reasonably quiet at our house, and we were perfectly OK with that. But to each of you out there in cyberspace I do hope you did something grand on the day.
So ... dare I ask? How was your Valentines' Day? I know, I know, I know. Not everybody is in a ... erm ... relationship, as they say ... so perhaps it's inappropriate to ask such a -- cough cough -- pointed question. Honestly, I mean no insult whatsoever. I'm simply doing as I do each and every morning and attempting to make blog-based conversation with the readership. Even those who aren't in a relationship did something on Valentines' Day, am I right? Watch TV? Walk the mall? Read a book? It's OK to hear about whatever they did as well as those who partook of the dating scene, and I do what I can to practice inclusivity on all fronts here at SciFiHistory.Net. (Well, except for Matt Damon, that is ... not a fan, Matty ...)
So ... how was your Valentines' Day? Me. It was relaxing. I didn't have any major activity on the agenda anyway as the wifey and I have something pretty spiffy scheduled for tonight. So last night was reasonably quiet at our house, and we were perfectly OK with that. But to each of you out there in cyberspace I do hope you did something grand on the day.
I'm occasionally dragged through the mud for pointing out that -- ahem -- Science Fiction and Fantasy has produced a fair number of dogs over the years. I've often observed that -- the gentle soul in me -- refuses to believe that bad films start out being bad at the inception; and -- somewhere along the way -- any number of projects just veer off the rails, never quite metastasizing toward greatness the way they should.
So ... 1980's Saturn 3 is a particular fetid piece of cinematic stinkery. While it does boast an occasional interesting idea here and there -- along with some imaginative production work, props, and the like -- it still remains a film that curiously feels out of touch with the world and the people it proposed. Kirk Douglas? In space? Well, producers balanced that out by casting one of the world's most beautiful souls ever -- Farrah Fawcett. But a mechanical monster, Harvey Keitel, and a somewhat sexually suggestive hulking robot? Well ...
No, no, and no. This isn't one I saw on the silver screen. I probably could have, despite being a few years shy, but it really had no interest for me. I did see it on home video a few years later; and I wasn't all that impressed by it. I did catch in on cable not all that long ago, and maybe -- maybe -- I'll try to do so again for the purposes of penning a review on it for the site. Though I'm not sure I'd have much positive to say about it, maybe I can muster a few attaboys now that I'm in my ripe old age.
So ... 1980's Saturn 3 is a particular fetid piece of cinematic stinkery. While it does boast an occasional interesting idea here and there -- along with some imaginative production work, props, and the like -- it still remains a film that curiously feels out of touch with the world and the people it proposed. Kirk Douglas? In space? Well, producers balanced that out by casting one of the world's most beautiful souls ever -- Farrah Fawcett. But a mechanical monster, Harvey Keitel, and a somewhat sexually suggestive hulking robot? Well ...
No, no, and no. This isn't one I saw on the silver screen. I probably could have, despite being a few years shy, but it really had no interest for me. I did see it on home video a few years later; and I wasn't all that impressed by it. I did catch in on cable not all that long ago, and maybe -- maybe -- I'll try to do so again for the purposes of penning a review on it for the site. Though I'm not sure I'd have much positive to say about it, maybe I can muster a few attaboys now that I'm in my ripe old age.
Back in the site's earliest days, I did have a couple of -- sigh -- "insufferable asshats" who rather routinely spent their free time reaching out to me via email with the sole purpose of trying to drag me through the mud for my prose. There was this one guy who'd pop up with a laundry list of anniversaries I hadn't yet gotten around to highlighting; while such constructive feedback is always welcomed, it was pretty clear that this guy was everything BUT constructive. There was this other guy who -- believe it or not -- always took issue with me pointing out that some talent is just downright lovely, attractive, or sexy. Erm, apparently this guy operated from the false belief that actors and actresses are cast only for their talent and never because their good looks might actually serve a project well; and he thought it was inappropriate to point out that souls like -- say, today's birthday gal Jane Seymour -- was a vision of beauty like no one else.
My point? Well, I've yet to meet a woman who was offended by pointing out she was dressed nice or looked nice or anything else in the same vein. Mind you: I'm not hitting on them. I'm simply complimenting them. So ... Jane, if you're out there, reading this, and offending? My apology. And that's sincere. I'll still think you're lovely, and I'm happy to point out the fricking obvious to my readership. But I do apologize, nonetheless.
Seymour brought her talent to the world of the original Battlestar Galactica, albeit briefly, as the character of Serena met a dark fate at the hands of those dastardly Cylons. Still, it was fabulous to have her as part of that universe while she lasted.
Happy Birthday, Ms. Seymour!
My point? Well, I've yet to meet a woman who was offended by pointing out she was dressed nice or looked nice or anything else in the same vein. Mind you: I'm not hitting on them. I'm simply complimenting them. So ... Jane, if you're out there, reading this, and offending? My apology. And that's sincere. I'll still think you're lovely, and I'm happy to point out the fricking obvious to my readership. But I do apologize, nonetheless.
Seymour brought her talent to the world of the original Battlestar Galactica, albeit briefly, as the character of Serena met a dark fate at the hands of those dastardly Cylons. Still, it was fabulous to have her as part of that universe while she lasted.
Happy Birthday, Ms. Seymour!
And, yes, this is the point wherein I inform you that there's more -- a great deal more -- over on the Daily Citation Page for February 15th. You're encouraged to head on over there and check it out. The link? Why ... it's right here, silly ...
As always, thanks to each and every one of you for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Well, well, well ... good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 14th, 2024 ... and Happy Valentines Day to all of the good people out there in cyberspace!
Woohoo!
I know, I know, I know ... "Look, bubb, don't overdo it," and I won't. I just thought I'd do the honorably deed of mentioning the holiday for all involved. Let's face facts: when the hardest part of being a daily blogger is knowing when and when not to use the exclamation point, it's a pretty easy gig. I try to suppress the natural tendency around here to get excited about every little thing, but such a feeling of giddyness creeps up in even old me. The older I get the more I do try to treat every day like it's a great day to be alive (thanks, Travis Tritt) because you never know when the ride's gonna end. You youngsters? Consider that the only wisdom I'll ever really try to impart. Otherwise, all I got's is trivia, and it's currently standing at a happy and healthy 61 different ones for you to relish today. 'Nuff said.
Woohoo!
I know, I know, I know ... "Look, bubb, don't overdo it," and I won't. I just thought I'd do the honorably deed of mentioning the holiday for all involved. Let's face facts: when the hardest part of being a daily blogger is knowing when and when not to use the exclamation point, it's a pretty easy gig. I try to suppress the natural tendency around here to get excited about every little thing, but such a feeling of giddyness creeps up in even old me. The older I get the more I do try to treat every day like it's a great day to be alive (thanks, Travis Tritt) because you never know when the ride's gonna end. You youngsters? Consider that the only wisdom I'll ever really try to impart. Otherwise, all I got's is trivia, and it's currently standing at a happy and healthy 61 different ones for you to relish today. 'Nuff said.
Yes, yes, and yes: I enjoyed a good portion of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's run on television, but if I'm being perfectly honest with you I wasn't a huge fan of it.
No, my opinion has little to nothing to do with that whole "oh, it's so much darker than the original Star Trek" -- which, in ways, I thought was true but nothing all that noticeable in most episodes. My struggle with it was that it had a great number of episodes I just didn't much care for. First seasons being what they were, DS9 had some stinkers; and the writing crew just couldn't quite shake whatever ideas could make for less-interesting diversions as well as the team of other Treks. (No, I'm not complaining or insulting them; it ain't easy always coming up with fresh ideas, and I think that showed in such stretches on the program.) While I appreciated a good portion of the whole Dominion War arc -- which was very, very, very long -- I also thought they found themselves retreading ground they'd already tread before; and that slowed down the forward progress of the series' run.
But what I did like almost universally was the incredible characters they created. It was in this respect that DS9 far outpaced the other Trek shows, crafting authentic beings with flaws and hangups and shortcomings and prejudices and emotional baggage and a whole lot more. The writing crew wasn't afraid to really dig in and truly flesh out a bit of psychology now and then; and it was this that made the show vastly more complex ... when it was done right. Granted, not every player got great material to work with, but perhaps one of the semi-regulars they got pitch perfect was Garak, played to wondrous delight by Andrew Robinson.
Under his watchful eye, Garak never settled into any predestined path. When he found himself involved with station's happenings, you never quite knew where he was going to come down on it, choosing the high and bold 'Starfleet-approved' option or that which showed what a troubled mind he had and nurtured. Naturally, this made for far more interesting developments on the show; and this is what DS9 -- under Robinson's care -- did uniquely well.
In fact, I'll go one step further and remind folks that the TV show wasn't the actor's only foray with this seminal character: in 2000, Robinson and Simon and Shuster teamed up to publish "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine #27 - A Stitch In Time," a novel that takes place after the series' run and puts the fabled Cardassian right in the middle of rebuilding his homeworld after the Dominion War has ended. It's a brilliant character piece dreamt up and delivered by the man who knew this key player best; and it's arguably one of the best novels in all of Trekdom. I've read it, and I give it a huge thumbs up for fans of that saga.
Happy birthday, Mr. Robinson!
No, my opinion has little to nothing to do with that whole "oh, it's so much darker than the original Star Trek" -- which, in ways, I thought was true but nothing all that noticeable in most episodes. My struggle with it was that it had a great number of episodes I just didn't much care for. First seasons being what they were, DS9 had some stinkers; and the writing crew just couldn't quite shake whatever ideas could make for less-interesting diversions as well as the team of other Treks. (No, I'm not complaining or insulting them; it ain't easy always coming up with fresh ideas, and I think that showed in such stretches on the program.) While I appreciated a good portion of the whole Dominion War arc -- which was very, very, very long -- I also thought they found themselves retreading ground they'd already tread before; and that slowed down the forward progress of the series' run.
But what I did like almost universally was the incredible characters they created. It was in this respect that DS9 far outpaced the other Trek shows, crafting authentic beings with flaws and hangups and shortcomings and prejudices and emotional baggage and a whole lot more. The writing crew wasn't afraid to really dig in and truly flesh out a bit of psychology now and then; and it was this that made the show vastly more complex ... when it was done right. Granted, not every player got great material to work with, but perhaps one of the semi-regulars they got pitch perfect was Garak, played to wondrous delight by Andrew Robinson.
Under his watchful eye, Garak never settled into any predestined path. When he found himself involved with station's happenings, you never quite knew where he was going to come down on it, choosing the high and bold 'Starfleet-approved' option or that which showed what a troubled mind he had and nurtured. Naturally, this made for far more interesting developments on the show; and this is what DS9 -- under Robinson's care -- did uniquely well.
In fact, I'll go one step further and remind folks that the TV show wasn't the actor's only foray with this seminal character: in 2000, Robinson and Simon and Shuster teamed up to publish "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine #27 - A Stitch In Time," a novel that takes place after the series' run and puts the fabled Cardassian right in the middle of rebuilding his homeworld after the Dominion War has ended. It's a brilliant character piece dreamt up and delivered by the man who knew this key player best; and it's arguably one of the best novels in all of Trekdom. I've read it, and I give it a huge thumbs up for fans of that saga.
Happy birthday, Mr. Robinson!
There's more, and with an amazing 61 different trivia citations it's pretty clear that there's room to grow. As I'll remind all of you, my goal initially was to have 100 different items listed on every single day in the year, and I'm well on my way to seeing that achieved. These 61 are a great start. So -- without further delay -- head on over there and check them out ...
As always, my friends, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 13th, 2024!
How's the week shaping up for you?
Mine is going swimmingly, folks, just swimmingly. I do have a doctor's appointment later in the week that'll pull me away from the blog -- nothing to worry about, so far as I know -- and a few other items that require a bit of personal time; and yet all-in-all things are looking up. Thank God we left 2023 behind us as that year I'd had more than enough of. Am I right?
Well, well, well ... what can I tell you about today?
I finished up an old Film Noir film yesterday afternoon that I'll be reviewing this week (most likely), and then I even managed to squeeze in a mid-1970's fright that came in the mail just a few days back. I won't divulge it yet -- I'm doing a bit of reading into its background, preparing for my review -- but I will say it's a bit of a confusing flick. It's one of those that may or may not have started out as a novel -- the research is a bit unclear at this point -- and I can't help but wonder if some of the effect has been lost in translation, as they say. Interesting performances and a few good scenes; and yet it's still a picture that's hard to give an enthusiastic thumbs up to. You'll know more in a few days, so don't fret.
Otherwise, that's all I have for now on the personal/casual front. Let's get down to the nitty gritty, and I'll tell you what I find worth celebrating On This Day In Science Fiction History ... if you will.
How's the week shaping up for you?
Mine is going swimmingly, folks, just swimmingly. I do have a doctor's appointment later in the week that'll pull me away from the blog -- nothing to worry about, so far as I know -- and a few other items that require a bit of personal time; and yet all-in-all things are looking up. Thank God we left 2023 behind us as that year I'd had more than enough of. Am I right?
Well, well, well ... what can I tell you about today?
I finished up an old Film Noir film yesterday afternoon that I'll be reviewing this week (most likely), and then I even managed to squeeze in a mid-1970's fright that came in the mail just a few days back. I won't divulge it yet -- I'm doing a bit of reading into its background, preparing for my review -- but I will say it's a bit of a confusing flick. It's one of those that may or may not have started out as a novel -- the research is a bit unclear at this point -- and I can't help but wonder if some of the effect has been lost in translation, as they say. Interesting performances and a few good scenes; and yet it's still a picture that's hard to give an enthusiastic thumbs up to. You'll know more in a few days, so don't fret.
Otherwise, that's all I have for now on the personal/casual front. Let's get down to the nitty gritty, and I'll tell you what I find worth celebrating On This Day In Science Fiction History ... if you will.
Because I do like to give some complimentary shout-outs to some of the best hours of televised Science Fiction and Fantasy, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that it was on this day all the way back in 1993 (in TV syndication, mind you) that Star Trek: The Next Generation saw its beloved Captain Jean-Luc Picard die in the heat of the moment and find himself in a curious afterlife, indeed ... one apparently 'lorded' over by none other than Q himself.
"Tapestry" is one of those rare convergences of great ideas, solid writing, and winning performances. It's easy to see why it's often voted as one of the fan-favorite installments in all of TNG's run -- if not even one of Trek all-time best hours -- because it's a relatable story, am I right? Who among us wouldn't like to get a do-over, perhaps setting ourselves and our lives on a vastly different trajectory? Yes, it's the kind of the thing that's been done here and there and everywhere else, but rarely has it been done so wonderfully in Trekdom ... and that's saying something.
So ... if time permits ... find a means to watch it today, whether that be via a streaming platform or through your old physical media purchases. It'll definitely be time well spent, and it might even cleanse that palate from that -- cough cough -- less meaningful Paramount+ journey that was all three seasons of Star Trek: Picard. I know, I know, I know ... "but Picard Season 3 was good!" No, I disagree. It had good moments, but it wasn't much better than what had come before. (Yes, that's my estimation, and that's what I do on my website, peeps.) I understand you're easy to forgive such jackassery, but I'm an old dog ... and get off my lawn!
"Tapestry" is one of those rare convergences of great ideas, solid writing, and winning performances. It's easy to see why it's often voted as one of the fan-favorite installments in all of TNG's run -- if not even one of Trek all-time best hours -- because it's a relatable story, am I right? Who among us wouldn't like to get a do-over, perhaps setting ourselves and our lives on a vastly different trajectory? Yes, it's the kind of the thing that's been done here and there and everywhere else, but rarely has it been done so wonderfully in Trekdom ... and that's saying something.
So ... if time permits ... find a means to watch it today, whether that be via a streaming platform or through your old physical media purchases. It'll definitely be time well spent, and it might even cleanse that palate from that -- cough cough -- less meaningful Paramount+ journey that was all three seasons of Star Trek: Picard. I know, I know, I know ... "but Picard Season 3 was good!" No, I disagree. It had good moments, but it wasn't much better than what had come before. (Yes, that's my estimation, and that's what I do on my website, peeps.) I understand you're easy to forgive such jackassery, but I'm an old dog ... and get off my lawn!
It isn't always easy to talk in any regard about the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy.
Now, buckle up, haters, because I'm not among you. I didn't think that George Lucas raped your childhood or any such thing when he decided to go back and tell the story he wanted to tell. Of course, nothing could ever live up to the greatness of the Original Trilogy -- that should go without saying -- and shame on all of you who seriously thought it could. Lucas is even on record as saying that the initial reason why he decided to start with the Original Trilogy was because "that's where the fun stuff was." So there. That alone tells me that he understood how things like galactic governance, trade federations, and the like were probably always going to get in the way of the merriment, but -- at this point -- it is what it is.
Plus, I conceded long ago that The Phantom Menace is a heavily, heavily flawed film. In doing so, I'd even stated that I had -- like many -- an idea for how it could've been crafted as better film, but that's easy because it's Monday Morning quarterbacking. Besides, it's ultimately George's story, and I'm fine with leaving it in his capable hands.
Still, Episode I had a few things I liked, one of which was the performance of today's 'Birthday Gal' Pernilla August. In Episode I and Episode II, she played Shmi Skywalker, the genetic sponsor of young Anakin Skywalker ... the little boy who'd grow up to both decimate and renew the universe. Think what you will, August did a solid job with the material she was given, proving that The Force can be strong with those whose Midichlorian count might not be all that high.
Happy Birthday, milady, and here's to many more!
Now, buckle up, haters, because I'm not among you. I didn't think that George Lucas raped your childhood or any such thing when he decided to go back and tell the story he wanted to tell. Of course, nothing could ever live up to the greatness of the Original Trilogy -- that should go without saying -- and shame on all of you who seriously thought it could. Lucas is even on record as saying that the initial reason why he decided to start with the Original Trilogy was because "that's where the fun stuff was." So there. That alone tells me that he understood how things like galactic governance, trade federations, and the like were probably always going to get in the way of the merriment, but -- at this point -- it is what it is.
Plus, I conceded long ago that The Phantom Menace is a heavily, heavily flawed film. In doing so, I'd even stated that I had -- like many -- an idea for how it could've been crafted as better film, but that's easy because it's Monday Morning quarterbacking. Besides, it's ultimately George's story, and I'm fine with leaving it in his capable hands.
Still, Episode I had a few things I liked, one of which was the performance of today's 'Birthday Gal' Pernilla August. In Episode I and Episode II, she played Shmi Skywalker, the genetic sponsor of young Anakin Skywalker ... the little boy who'd grow up to both decimate and renew the universe. Think what you will, August did a solid job with the material she was given, proving that The Force can be strong with those whose Midichlorian count might not be all that high.
Happy Birthday, milady, and here's to many more!
By golly and by gosh, there's more ... and with a mind-blowing 86 different genre trivia citations you can rest assured that there's a great deal more goodness awaiting your discovery. Where can you find all of it? Why, I'm glad you asked ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
What’s transcendent about Horror is that – whether we like it or not – the genre always tells us something about ourselves.
Who we are and what frightens us is always evolving. We learn from what scares us today, and our growing familiarity with those things inevitably robs them of their power to set our collective heart pumping. As a consequence, something fresh, daring, and new is always required to go bump in the night; and it’s this dark-tinged process improvement that tasks storytellers with always seeking out something brand new to insert into our nightmares. Yes, it’s a dirty job, but there are many who’ve proven themselves both willing and able to do it, counting among them such visionaries as Alfred Hitchcock, George A. Romero, Dario Argento, Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Sam Raimi, Wes Craven, and many more. As a middle sibling, I ask only that you trust me when I saw that there will always be those willing to scare you silly.
Despite the fact that Horror is forever changing, there are still a good number of tropes or constructs that directors and screenwriters return to again and again and again. And why shouldn’t they? Truth be told, they work reasonably well just about every time they’re tried. Yes, they might brush off the ol’ creepy kid vibe, but they’re hoping you don’t notice he looks vaguely similar to the last creepy kid on your walk. Of course, demonic possession continues to plague people around the world, but there’s nothing stopping some new black spirit from inhabiting the soul of a girl scout, a bank teller, or your local politician. Naturally, houses are the kind of place where such spectral entities tend to gather; and – under the watchful eye of writer/director Dan Curtis (Dark Shadows, The Night Stalker, and Trilogy Of Terror) – the Dunsmuir Mansion in Oakland, California briefly experienced a resurgence of interest in ‘haunted houses’ at the box office.
Curtis and his rather celebrated cast allegedly shot Burnt Offerings over the entire month of August, 1975; and the picture was released to modest returns beginning on October 18, 1976. (Purists will tell you that it was screened previously, and that’s true, but those were either festival screenings or city-specific theatrical premieres, not a full release to the general public.) According to Wikipedia.org, Curtis adapted the novel (with some contributions by William F. Nolan) of the same name written by Robert Marasco; but a quick glance into the protracted production history suggests that Marasco himself may’ve based his novel on his own unproduced screenplay from the late 1960’s. The film starred Karen Black, Oliver Reed, Burgess Meredith, Eileen Heckart, Lee H. Montgomery, Dub Taylor, and Hollywood heavyweight Bette Davis in prominent roles.
Naturally, what matters most when discussing any Horror feature is does it frighten anyone?
Well, I’ll do my best to explain what works and what doesn’t in the space below. Regular readers can tell you that I’m generally not all that terrified by the usual haunts, and Offerings is no different. What it does well enough is it shows the magical and mystical influence a haunted house might have on those who brave such time under its roof. What it lacks is a compelling explanation for precisely how it all worked.
Who we are and what frightens us is always evolving. We learn from what scares us today, and our growing familiarity with those things inevitably robs them of their power to set our collective heart pumping. As a consequence, something fresh, daring, and new is always required to go bump in the night; and it’s this dark-tinged process improvement that tasks storytellers with always seeking out something brand new to insert into our nightmares. Yes, it’s a dirty job, but there are many who’ve proven themselves both willing and able to do it, counting among them such visionaries as Alfred Hitchcock, George A. Romero, Dario Argento, Tobe Hooper, John Carpenter, Sam Raimi, Wes Craven, and many more. As a middle sibling, I ask only that you trust me when I saw that there will always be those willing to scare you silly.
Despite the fact that Horror is forever changing, there are still a good number of tropes or constructs that directors and screenwriters return to again and again and again. And why shouldn’t they? Truth be told, they work reasonably well just about every time they’re tried. Yes, they might brush off the ol’ creepy kid vibe, but they’re hoping you don’t notice he looks vaguely similar to the last creepy kid on your walk. Of course, demonic possession continues to plague people around the world, but there’s nothing stopping some new black spirit from inhabiting the soul of a girl scout, a bank teller, or your local politician. Naturally, houses are the kind of place where such spectral entities tend to gather; and – under the watchful eye of writer/director Dan Curtis (Dark Shadows, The Night Stalker, and Trilogy Of Terror) – the Dunsmuir Mansion in Oakland, California briefly experienced a resurgence of interest in ‘haunted houses’ at the box office.
Curtis and his rather celebrated cast allegedly shot Burnt Offerings over the entire month of August, 1975; and the picture was released to modest returns beginning on October 18, 1976. (Purists will tell you that it was screened previously, and that’s true, but those were either festival screenings or city-specific theatrical premieres, not a full release to the general public.) According to Wikipedia.org, Curtis adapted the novel (with some contributions by William F. Nolan) of the same name written by Robert Marasco; but a quick glance into the protracted production history suggests that Marasco himself may’ve based his novel on his own unproduced screenplay from the late 1960’s. The film starred Karen Black, Oliver Reed, Burgess Meredith, Eileen Heckart, Lee H. Montgomery, Dub Taylor, and Hollywood heavyweight Bette Davis in prominent roles.
Naturally, what matters most when discussing any Horror feature is does it frighten anyone?
Well, I’ll do my best to explain what works and what doesn’t in the space below. Regular readers can tell you that I’m generally not all that terrified by the usual haunts, and Offerings is no different. What it does well enough is it shows the magical and mystical influence a haunted house might have on those who brave such time under its roof. What it lacks is a compelling explanation for precisely how it all worked.
(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 family moves into a large old mansion in the countryside which seems to have a mysterious and sinister power over its new residents.”
I’ve read that director Curtis admitted to trimming somewhere around 15 minutes from the opening of his original cut of Burnt Offerings; and – undoubtedly – that was a good decision. The surviving 116 minutes are already slow-moving enough as it is, though I can’t help but wonder if somewhere in that cut material there might’ve been a better explanation for why Ben (played by Oliver Reed) and Marion Rolf (Karen Black) felt some time was needed away from the hustle and bustle of city life. That loss of narrative context felt like a gaping hole at times, and the premise could’ve easily been strengthened with a throwaway bit of exposition, though none really emerged.
But, yes, Ben hauls his family – the wife, his son David (Lee Montgomery), and his aunt Elizabeth (Bette Davis) – out into the countryside as an escape from their daily lives. He rents the old Allardyce homestead – an expansive three-story estate – at a fabulous discount for the summer, but it all comes with one catch: the family’s matriarch – known only as Mrs. Allardyce – must remain in the residence. Though she’ll shelter herself off privately on the third floor, Ben is asked to provide the grandam with three square meals a day, to which Marion rather happily agrees. And why not? It’s a big house. There’s plenty of space. They’ll never know the lady is even there.
Well …
Have you never heard that the even the best laid plans always go awry?
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A family moves into a large old mansion in the countryside which seems to have a mysterious and sinister power over its new residents.”
I’ve read that director Curtis admitted to trimming somewhere around 15 minutes from the opening of his original cut of Burnt Offerings; and – undoubtedly – that was a good decision. The surviving 116 minutes are already slow-moving enough as it is, though I can’t help but wonder if somewhere in that cut material there might’ve been a better explanation for why Ben (played by Oliver Reed) and Marion Rolf (Karen Black) felt some time was needed away from the hustle and bustle of city life. That loss of narrative context felt like a gaping hole at times, and the premise could’ve easily been strengthened with a throwaway bit of exposition, though none really emerged.
But, yes, Ben hauls his family – the wife, his son David (Lee Montgomery), and his aunt Elizabeth (Bette Davis) – out into the countryside as an escape from their daily lives. He rents the old Allardyce homestead – an expansive three-story estate – at a fabulous discount for the summer, but it all comes with one catch: the family’s matriarch – known only as Mrs. Allardyce – must remain in the residence. Though she’ll shelter herself off privately on the third floor, Ben is asked to provide the grandam with three square meals a day, to which Marion rather happily agrees. And why not? It’s a big house. There’s plenty of space. They’ll never know the lady is even there.
Well …
Have you never heard that the even the best laid plans always go awry?
It doesn’t take long before the spectral shenanigans are afoot. Marion begins acting as if she’s never going to leave the home, smitten with wearing period clothing she finds tucked away in hallway closets. Ben is suddenly plagued by dreams of a frightening image from his youth along with a desire to inflict bodily harm onto his young son. Aunt Elizabeth can no longer keep the peace between the feuding family, and her health is suddenly in rapid decline. Once David is nearly drowned in an uncharacteristic bit of roughhousing in the pool by dear ol’ dad, it becomes clear that the Rolf family has fallen under the influence of an entity with no shape or form but still manages to make its presence felt when everyone suspects it least.
What’s missing in all of this ghostly affair?
Well, that would be a bit of context.
The very best stories exploring haunted houses go out of their way to explain (or, at least, identify) the creature behind the madness. While it might usually be a previous resident who died under violent circumstances, screenwriters have found other ways to incorporate vengeful or even playful spirits who have found their way into such confines under curious circumstances. However, Offerings offers up no central culprit – well, unless I completely missed it – instead suggesting that the dwelling itself (apparently) has a will all of its own; and it’ll do what it wants in order to perhaps gain the life force of those trapped within it to prolong its essence.
Perhaps this was why Curtis thought it entirely unnecessary to give the Rolf family any greater definition. Because the premise reduced them to little more than unfortunate victims – as changeable as are the many portraits kept on Mrs. Allardyce’s bureau – maybe he saw no fundamental need to expound on Ben’s, Marion’s, David’s, or Elizabeth’s respective peccadillos. If they’re nothing more than a life force to be sucked out by a malevolent spirit, then what difference does it make? You and I might call that stuff ‘character building’ and maybe that’s why we show up to see how these souls fare in this particular story, and I can only assume Curtis blanched at such an idea. “How quaint.”
As I was never encouraged to care more about them as individuals, I found it increasingly difficult to appreciate what they went through except for the vicarious and/or gratuitous delight of it all. We come into Horror films expecting a degree of that – it’s definitely the genre’s foundational appeal – but in the final estimation that’s really all Offerings delivers: it’s life, and then you die. All that’s added to that adage is that if you die within the house then it claims your … energy? These ‘burnt offerings’ are little more than sacrifices required for residence in the Dunsmuir Mansion; should you trouble yourself with why they were requisite, you’re likely to come up empty … at least about as empty as these characters.
What’s missing in all of this ghostly affair?
Well, that would be a bit of context.
The very best stories exploring haunted houses go out of their way to explain (or, at least, identify) the creature behind the madness. While it might usually be a previous resident who died under violent circumstances, screenwriters have found other ways to incorporate vengeful or even playful spirits who have found their way into such confines under curious circumstances. However, Offerings offers up no central culprit – well, unless I completely missed it – instead suggesting that the dwelling itself (apparently) has a will all of its own; and it’ll do what it wants in order to perhaps gain the life force of those trapped within it to prolong its essence.
Perhaps this was why Curtis thought it entirely unnecessary to give the Rolf family any greater definition. Because the premise reduced them to little more than unfortunate victims – as changeable as are the many portraits kept on Mrs. Allardyce’s bureau – maybe he saw no fundamental need to expound on Ben’s, Marion’s, David’s, or Elizabeth’s respective peccadillos. If they’re nothing more than a life force to be sucked out by a malevolent spirit, then what difference does it make? You and I might call that stuff ‘character building’ and maybe that’s why we show up to see how these souls fare in this particular story, and I can only assume Curtis blanched at such an idea. “How quaint.”
As I was never encouraged to care more about them as individuals, I found it increasingly difficult to appreciate what they went through except for the vicarious and/or gratuitous delight of it all. We come into Horror films expecting a degree of that – it’s definitely the genre’s foundational appeal – but in the final estimation that’s really all Offerings delivers: it’s life, and then you die. All that’s added to that adage is that if you die within the house then it claims your … energy? These ‘burnt offerings’ are little more than sacrifices required for residence in the Dunsmuir Mansion; should you trouble yourself with why they were requisite, you’re likely to come up empty … at least about as empty as these characters.
Despite all of these rather obvious shortcomings, Offerings still managed to garner some incredible attention during its life in theaters and beyond.
I’ve read that it’s somehow of favorite of some major Horror authors, and I see from the listing on IMDB.com that the motion picture took home an incredible three Saturn Awards (‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actress,’ and ‘Best Horror Film’) from its 1977 ceremony. (It also fared equally well at the 1977 Sitges-Catalonian International Film Festival.) In 2016, an all-new home video release was nominated for its fourth Saturn Award in the category of ‘Best DVD/Blu-ray Classic Film Release.’ That’s all well and good, I suppose, but I’d be hard pressed to explain just how it warranted so much praise … well, except for the fact that Curtis was smart to chock his slim cast full of recognized talent. Oliver Reed has had some highs and lows, but actress Black was only hitting her young stride with critical acclaim. Davis was a Hollywood force to be reckoned with, and the great Burgess Meredith, Eileen Heckart, and Western favorite Dub Taylor were also Tinseltown royalty. Certainly, this many talented industry players wouldn’t work in a routine and forgettable Horror feature now, would they?
You be the judge.
Burnt Offerings (1976) was produced by Produzioni Europee Associate (PEA) and Dan Curtis Productions. 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 to be of pretty exceptional quality consistently throughout. (There’s a sequence at night that appeared a bit grainier that usual, but it’s still fine.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts interviews with screenwriter Nolan and actor Anthony James and Lee Montgomery along with two separate audio commentaries. A theatrical trailer rounds out the impressive bunch of extras. Well done, Kino Lorber.
Mildly recommended.
Though I’m usually a fan of haunted houses, I found Burnt Offerings (1976) a bit of a throwback to times when these films weren’t all that well designed. There’s no current that propels these characters on this particular thrill ride, and the lack of context to all of this spiritual ballyhoo causes it to deflate when just a wee bit more could’ve inflated it to some wondrous proportions. God knows, it had a talented cast – along with a truly winning location – but as is? Why, I’ve seen episodes of Scooby Doo make more sense in the last reel than this one did.
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 Burnt Offerings (1976) 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
I’ve read that it’s somehow of favorite of some major Horror authors, and I see from the listing on IMDB.com that the motion picture took home an incredible three Saturn Awards (‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actress,’ and ‘Best Horror Film’) from its 1977 ceremony. (It also fared equally well at the 1977 Sitges-Catalonian International Film Festival.) In 2016, an all-new home video release was nominated for its fourth Saturn Award in the category of ‘Best DVD/Blu-ray Classic Film Release.’ That’s all well and good, I suppose, but I’d be hard pressed to explain just how it warranted so much praise … well, except for the fact that Curtis was smart to chock his slim cast full of recognized talent. Oliver Reed has had some highs and lows, but actress Black was only hitting her young stride with critical acclaim. Davis was a Hollywood force to be reckoned with, and the great Burgess Meredith, Eileen Heckart, and Western favorite Dub Taylor were also Tinseltown royalty. Certainly, this many talented industry players wouldn’t work in a routine and forgettable Horror feature now, would they?
You be the judge.
Burnt Offerings (1976) was produced by Produzioni Europee Associate (PEA) and Dan Curtis Productions. 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 to be of pretty exceptional quality consistently throughout. (There’s a sequence at night that appeared a bit grainier that usual, but it’s still fine.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts interviews with screenwriter Nolan and actor Anthony James and Lee Montgomery along with two separate audio commentaries. A theatrical trailer rounds out the impressive bunch of extras. Well done, Kino Lorber.
Mildly recommended.
Though I’m usually a fan of haunted houses, I found Burnt Offerings (1976) a bit of a throwback to times when these films weren’t all that well designed. There’s no current that propels these characters on this particular thrill ride, and the lack of context to all of this spiritual ballyhoo causes it to deflate when just a wee bit more could’ve inflated it to some wondrous proportions. God knows, it had a talented cast – along with a truly winning location – but as is? Why, I’ve seen episodes of Scooby Doo make more sense in the last reel than this one did.
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 Burnt Offerings (1976) 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
Under SciFiHistory.Net’s ‘Monsters Of A Sort’ category heading, I take a look at features that kinda/sorta dabble with 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 helps to keep me fresh … and a ‘fresh me’ is good for all of you, my faithful readers.
Today’s distraction: 1945’s Scarlet Street is a noirish melodrama directed by the much-revered Fritz Lang, and yes – in case you wondered – his association to it was largely the reason I was interested in see this one. Wikipedia.org reports that the source material – Georges de La Fouchardière’s “The Bitch” (ouch!) – was adapted for the stage by André Mouëzy-Éon and for the screen by Dudley Nichols. The film starred Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, Dan Duryea, Margaret Lindsay, and Rosalind Ivan in key roles.
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its themes and 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:
“A man in mid-life crisis befriends a young woman, though her fiancé persuades her to con him out of the fortune they mistakenly assume he possesses.”
From what I’ve read, Lang’s Scarlet Street created a bit of controversy upon its original U.S. theatrical release when it was ceremoniously banned in three states. By today’s standards, it might be a bit difficult to imagine this morality play showcasing the highs and lows of a homewrecker, a swindler, and man willing to break laws in pursuit of a forbidden love getting Americans all hot under the collar; but the film still went on to some respectable box office returns from those who saw it. I’ll admit that there are some surprising moments here and there in the melodrama department, but it all still pales in comparison to the subject matter that rarely musters so much as a blush from today’s audiences.
Christopher Cross (played by Edward G. Robinson) is a man who late in his life finds himself in an uninteresting career (as a bank teller) and an equally unfulfilling marriage to Adele (Rosalind Ivan). On his way home from a dinner commemorating his years of service, he rescues Kitty March (Joan Bennett) from a beatdown she’s enduring on the streets. As fate would have it, Kitty’s aggressor – Johnny Prince (Dan Duryea) – is actually ‘the love of her life;’ and when the two of them believe that Cross – in a case of mistaken identity – is some world-renowned painter, they decide she can string the elder fellow along as her ‘sugar daddy.’
Today’s distraction: 1945’s Scarlet Street is a noirish melodrama directed by the much-revered Fritz Lang, and yes – in case you wondered – his association to it was largely the reason I was interested in see this one. Wikipedia.org reports that the source material – Georges de La Fouchardière’s “The Bitch” (ouch!) – was adapted for the stage by André Mouëzy-Éon and for the screen by Dudley Nichols. The film starred Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, Dan Duryea, Margaret Lindsay, and Rosalind Ivan in key roles.
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its themes and 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:
“A man in mid-life crisis befriends a young woman, though her fiancé persuades her to con him out of the fortune they mistakenly assume he possesses.”
From what I’ve read, Lang’s Scarlet Street created a bit of controversy upon its original U.S. theatrical release when it was ceremoniously banned in three states. By today’s standards, it might be a bit difficult to imagine this morality play showcasing the highs and lows of a homewrecker, a swindler, and man willing to break laws in pursuit of a forbidden love getting Americans all hot under the collar; but the film still went on to some respectable box office returns from those who saw it. I’ll admit that there are some surprising moments here and there in the melodrama department, but it all still pales in comparison to the subject matter that rarely musters so much as a blush from today’s audiences.
Christopher Cross (played by Edward G. Robinson) is a man who late in his life finds himself in an uninteresting career (as a bank teller) and an equally unfulfilling marriage to Adele (Rosalind Ivan). On his way home from a dinner commemorating his years of service, he rescues Kitty March (Joan Bennett) from a beatdown she’s enduring on the streets. As fate would have it, Kitty’s aggressor – Johnny Prince (Dan Duryea) – is actually ‘the love of her life;’ and when the two of them believe that Cross – in a case of mistaken identity – is some world-renowned painter, they decide she can string the elder fellow along as her ‘sugar daddy.’
As Cross’s feelings for the much younger woman continue to blossom, he’s forced to beg, borrow, and steal money to give her (and Johnny) the lifestyle she wants, up until the point wherein he realizes he’s been taken advantage of. At this point, Scarlet Street takes a very dark turn, with Cross committing a series of acts depicting a level of desperation that wasn’t quite organically spelled out in a script that takes a few more surprising and unpredictable twists and turns before arriving at a true low point in human existence: a broken man with no home and no family, the disgraced Cross roams the streets as a soul with no possible chance at redemption.
Honestly, Scarlet Street is one of the grimmest experiences I’ve seen of films from the bygone era. This isn’t to say that it isn’t watchable because nothing could be further from the truth; still, the simple fact that this is a world that seems to offer no single character willing to stand up and do the right thing is a bit depressing. While its performances are good (Bennett is the only one who truly hits one outta the park as one of the more contemptible screen shrews of record), there just isn’t much else in here worth celebrating. Robinson’s kinda/sorta done this kind of thing before, and Duryea is pretty much relegated to the role of bilking everyone around him out of any cash he or she might have. It’s a dirty job, somebody’s gotta do it, but did you have to be so good at it?
Visually, Lang’s style helps elevate some of the highs as well as depresses some of the obvious lows. As this one was most likely shot on a studio backlot and soundstages, the director manages to make great use of interiors and exteriors, giving all of it the proper big city texture even though it was probably anything but. Still, the story plods along – even drags in a few places – with some predictably hammy moments played out at almost maudlin levels. Much like the lives it explores, it’s a perfectly imperfect snapshot of people pushed to their limits even when a modicum of sanity would’ve had them behaving otherwise.
Scarlet Street (1945) was produced by Fritz Lang Productions and Walter Wanger Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good people at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s reported as a brand new HDR/Dolby Vision Master from a 16-bit 4K scan of the 35mm nitrate composite fine grain to be good in some places and great in others. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts two audio commentaries (one archival and one new, from what I’ve read), a nice addition for those who like those sorts of things.
Mildly recommended.
As noirs go, Scarlet Street (1945) only occasionally works for me. Frankly, I was more surprised with how little I liked this one when it came to its downbeat last reel, and the only consistency I can point my finger at is that, tonally, the story is all over the map. At times, it’s a rather conventional drama, though its swindling couple definitely pushes this one into Film Noir’s black-and-white themes from time to time. Then, it actually tinkers with ideas more akin to the screwball comedies of the 1940’s in a few places. Because it never quite settles into a single track, the script never quite felt right to me; and I wound up not really caring about any single character in all of its labyrinthian shenanigans. That’s rare for me – especially with older flicks which I tend to enjoy because they offer more story – but without a player to support (or cheer for) I struggled with truly appreciating this one except for Lang’s obvious technical merits.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Scarlet Street (1945) 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
Honestly, Scarlet Street is one of the grimmest experiences I’ve seen of films from the bygone era. This isn’t to say that it isn’t watchable because nothing could be further from the truth; still, the simple fact that this is a world that seems to offer no single character willing to stand up and do the right thing is a bit depressing. While its performances are good (Bennett is the only one who truly hits one outta the park as one of the more contemptible screen shrews of record), there just isn’t much else in here worth celebrating. Robinson’s kinda/sorta done this kind of thing before, and Duryea is pretty much relegated to the role of bilking everyone around him out of any cash he or she might have. It’s a dirty job, somebody’s gotta do it, but did you have to be so good at it?
Visually, Lang’s style helps elevate some of the highs as well as depresses some of the obvious lows. As this one was most likely shot on a studio backlot and soundstages, the director manages to make great use of interiors and exteriors, giving all of it the proper big city texture even though it was probably anything but. Still, the story plods along – even drags in a few places – with some predictably hammy moments played out at almost maudlin levels. Much like the lives it explores, it’s a perfectly imperfect snapshot of people pushed to their limits even when a modicum of sanity would’ve had them behaving otherwise.
Scarlet Street (1945) was produced by Fritz Lang Productions and Walter Wanger Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good people at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s reported as a brand new HDR/Dolby Vision Master from a 16-bit 4K scan of the 35mm nitrate composite fine grain to be good in some places and great in others. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts two audio commentaries (one archival and one new, from what I’ve read), a nice addition for those who like those sorts of things.
Mildly recommended.
As noirs go, Scarlet Street (1945) only occasionally works for me. Frankly, I was more surprised with how little I liked this one when it came to its downbeat last reel, and the only consistency I can point my finger at is that, tonally, the story is all over the map. At times, it’s a rather conventional drama, though its swindling couple definitely pushes this one into Film Noir’s black-and-white themes from time to time. Then, it actually tinkers with ideas more akin to the screwball comedies of the 1940’s in a few places. Because it never quite settles into a single track, the script never quite felt right to me; and I wound up not really caring about any single character in all of its labyrinthian shenanigans. That’s rare for me – especially with older flicks which I tend to enjoy because they offer more story – but without a player to support (or cheer for) I struggled with truly appreciating this one except for Lang’s obvious technical merits.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Scarlet Street (1945) 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
Hey there! Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to Monday, February 12th, 2024! Could there be a better time to be a genre fan?! I think not.
Yes, yes, and yes: I realize it's Monday all over again, but shake that off, folks. Let it go. There are many more Mondays yet to come in this year -- not to mention our shared experiences -- and there's really very little we can do about it to slow that parade. You know what I mean? So let's try to let that one go. It is what it is.
But ... how was your weekend?
Last night, I passed up on watching the Superbowl -- honestly, I haven't watched it in years anyway -- and instead took in a late Sunday afternoon matinee of Dune: Part 1 at the corner moviehouse. This local Arizona chain had advertised that it would be returning to theaters in the build-up to Part 2 coming out next month (March), and -- having only seen it on HBOMax -- I wanted to see it up there on the silver screen. Of course, it was quite wonderful, and I stayed afterward to even see a few minutes 'special attraction' of Part 2 which highlighted Paul's first ride of the sandworm. That was something to see, and I'm looking forward to enjoying the whole installment next month.
In case you're wondering, no, the big screen didn't quite change my opinion of the Dune experience. Until the story is functionally over, it's a hard nut to crack -- meaning what's the final score -- and I've always maintained that Paul is a hard character for audiences to identify with. Given that he's inevitably turned into a world savior, he's just not all that relatable. The moments that could narrow that gap -- one example being the death of his father -- ends up getting very little reaction from him, and I think that's a disservice. Granted, that may be the case with the source material, but we all know that film adaptations can take minor liberties with the book's story. I would've liked to have seen something as opposed to what little we got, but that might be my only real big complaint. Visually, there are few films made as well as Dune: Part 1, and let's hope that trend continues with the sequel.
And that's essentially where I'm going to leave you for today ... wanting more.
There's a good deal of material already waiting for your discovery any way, so all involved are encouraged to surf on over to the Daily Citation Page for February 12th and check it out. Some key birthdays. A few new releases in the movie department. And some TV show airings that might interest you. Here's the link ...
Yes, yes, and yes: I realize it's Monday all over again, but shake that off, folks. Let it go. There are many more Mondays yet to come in this year -- not to mention our shared experiences -- and there's really very little we can do about it to slow that parade. You know what I mean? So let's try to let that one go. It is what it is.
But ... how was your weekend?
Last night, I passed up on watching the Superbowl -- honestly, I haven't watched it in years anyway -- and instead took in a late Sunday afternoon matinee of Dune: Part 1 at the corner moviehouse. This local Arizona chain had advertised that it would be returning to theaters in the build-up to Part 2 coming out next month (March), and -- having only seen it on HBOMax -- I wanted to see it up there on the silver screen. Of course, it was quite wonderful, and I stayed afterward to even see a few minutes 'special attraction' of Part 2 which highlighted Paul's first ride of the sandworm. That was something to see, and I'm looking forward to enjoying the whole installment next month.
In case you're wondering, no, the big screen didn't quite change my opinion of the Dune experience. Until the story is functionally over, it's a hard nut to crack -- meaning what's the final score -- and I've always maintained that Paul is a hard character for audiences to identify with. Given that he's inevitably turned into a world savior, he's just not all that relatable. The moments that could narrow that gap -- one example being the death of his father -- ends up getting very little reaction from him, and I think that's a disservice. Granted, that may be the case with the source material, but we all know that film adaptations can take minor liberties with the book's story. I would've liked to have seen something as opposed to what little we got, but that might be my only real big complaint. Visually, there are few films made as well as Dune: Part 1, and let's hope that trend continues with the sequel.
And that's essentially where I'm going to leave you for today ... wanting more.
There's a good deal of material already waiting for your discovery any way, so all involved are encouraged to surf on over to the Daily Citation Page for February 12th and check it out. Some key birthdays. A few new releases in the movie department. And some TV show airings that might interest you. Here's the link ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I have to admit that I don’t participate all that much in our collective fascination with serial killers.
Now, don’t overthink what I said right there. This isn’t to say that I’m not intrigued by some of the salacious details uncovered when performing any postmortem of a particular madman’s career; it’s just that I’ve never felt the need to pull back every conceivable psychological layer thinking that there’s – cough cough – a rational explanation buried somewhere underneath. Sometimes, evil is just evil – it requires no further examination – and I think we’d all be better off leaving these nasty culprits in the trash bin of history. Let the scientists and/or psychologists try to figure it all out. Still, fandom and curiosity being what they are, I see that some of us can’t just leave well enough alone. That’s my only point in not following along with the consensus.
Of course, the occasional television series or well-crafted movie might be just enough to tickle my fancy; and that’s pretty much the case with The Black Mass, a 2023 kinda/sorta docudrama that’s alleged to be inspired by real events and is explores a particularly bloody campaign orchestrated by Ted Bundy. (Yes, yes, and yes: that Ted Bundy. He’s a favorite of storytellers near and far, it would seem.) This loose story details the killer’s descent into bloodshed over a dangerous 24-hour period when the young ladies of a sorority house found themselves smack dab in the middle of his sights. It’s winds up being a somewhat artsy affair – well, so far as the camerawork and cinematography are concerned – but I’m not quite convinced that we come away with any greater understanding as to the how’s and why’s one man was driven to do the things that he did.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Inspired by real events, The Black Mass is set over a 24-hour period in Florida during the winter of 1978 when college girls were being stalked by a serial killer.”
It’s long ago been said that “there’s nothing new under the sun,” and – to a degree – I suppose that’s true. Culturally, we’ve certainly seen a fair number of pictures about serial killers, and – try though they might to deliver a new outlook – storytellers have come up against the same challenges at the end of the day. Structurally, these stories are either about (A) the murderer or (B) the victims – rarely is balance achieved – so it’s important to underscore that no matter how dark, violent, or depraved these tales might be they’re still subject to whatever formula they serve. In that respect, The Black Mass – a title coined from the observation of a survivor alleging the slaughter felt like she was one member in the most twisted congregation gathered – stumbles as often as it crosses the finish line, though this one earns points for trying to render it from some unique camera angles.
For those unaware, the late Ted Bundy (1946-1989) – rumored to have been one of America’s most prolific serial killers – confessed to kidnapping, raping, and murdering over two dozen young women; but it’s long been thought that the real body count involved a vastly higher number. Characterized as a ‘sadistic sociopath,’ Bundy confessed to committing some of the vilest acts imaginable, even taking pleasure and pain on his victims well after they’d expired and begun decomposing. While the truth to just how far and wide his campaign of evil may’ve stretched, experts suggest the man’s charm and disarming tactics rather effortlessly opened far more doors than we’ll ever truly want to know.
Because storytellers have long been intrigued by Bundy as a topic, society-at-large has been treated to a growing number of films, television shows, and books. Essentially, this means that 2023’s The Black Mass is among good yet bloody company as writer and director Devanny Pinn explores a stand-alone massacre of a Florida sorority house believed to have been part of Bundy’s past exploits. Indeed, it’s a grim affair – one that rather painstakingly captures the event and lead-up to it – and it gives a curiously imaginative veneer to what would otherwise be a rather routine descent into homicidal madness.
Now, don’t overthink what I said right there. This isn’t to say that I’m not intrigued by some of the salacious details uncovered when performing any postmortem of a particular madman’s career; it’s just that I’ve never felt the need to pull back every conceivable psychological layer thinking that there’s – cough cough – a rational explanation buried somewhere underneath. Sometimes, evil is just evil – it requires no further examination – and I think we’d all be better off leaving these nasty culprits in the trash bin of history. Let the scientists and/or psychologists try to figure it all out. Still, fandom and curiosity being what they are, I see that some of us can’t just leave well enough alone. That’s my only point in not following along with the consensus.
Of course, the occasional television series or well-crafted movie might be just enough to tickle my fancy; and that’s pretty much the case with The Black Mass, a 2023 kinda/sorta docudrama that’s alleged to be inspired by real events and is explores a particularly bloody campaign orchestrated by Ted Bundy. (Yes, yes, and yes: that Ted Bundy. He’s a favorite of storytellers near and far, it would seem.) This loose story details the killer’s descent into bloodshed over a dangerous 24-hour period when the young ladies of a sorority house found themselves smack dab in the middle of his sights. It’s winds up being a somewhat artsy affair – well, so far as the camerawork and cinematography are concerned – but I’m not quite convinced that we come away with any greater understanding as to the how’s and why’s one man was driven to do the things that he did.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Inspired by real events, The Black Mass is set over a 24-hour period in Florida during the winter of 1978 when college girls were being stalked by a serial killer.”
It’s long ago been said that “there’s nothing new under the sun,” and – to a degree – I suppose that’s true. Culturally, we’ve certainly seen a fair number of pictures about serial killers, and – try though they might to deliver a new outlook – storytellers have come up against the same challenges at the end of the day. Structurally, these stories are either about (A) the murderer or (B) the victims – rarely is balance achieved – so it’s important to underscore that no matter how dark, violent, or depraved these tales might be they’re still subject to whatever formula they serve. In that respect, The Black Mass – a title coined from the observation of a survivor alleging the slaughter felt like she was one member in the most twisted congregation gathered – stumbles as often as it crosses the finish line, though this one earns points for trying to render it from some unique camera angles.
For those unaware, the late Ted Bundy (1946-1989) – rumored to have been one of America’s most prolific serial killers – confessed to kidnapping, raping, and murdering over two dozen young women; but it’s long been thought that the real body count involved a vastly higher number. Characterized as a ‘sadistic sociopath,’ Bundy confessed to committing some of the vilest acts imaginable, even taking pleasure and pain on his victims well after they’d expired and begun decomposing. While the truth to just how far and wide his campaign of evil may’ve stretched, experts suggest the man’s charm and disarming tactics rather effortlessly opened far more doors than we’ll ever truly want to know.
Because storytellers have long been intrigued by Bundy as a topic, society-at-large has been treated to a growing number of films, television shows, and books. Essentially, this means that 2023’s The Black Mass is among good yet bloody company as writer and director Devanny Pinn explores a stand-alone massacre of a Florida sorority house believed to have been part of Bundy’s past exploits. Indeed, it’s a grim affair – one that rather painstakingly captures the event and lead-up to it – and it gives a curiously imaginative veneer to what would otherwise be a rather routine descent into homicidal madness.
Under Pinn’s direction, cinematographer Noah Luke sets up some bizarre camera angles – ones that never quite reveal our perpetrator’s full face – for the bulk of this wild ride. The audience is provided only a fraction of expression here and there – the occasional glance into his eyes or even a few seconds of close-up on his lips, profile, or brow – and this unsettling approach helps to underscore that we’re a long way from Mayberry (if you catch my drift). What may appear to be any ordinary street across the great American experiment is something else with this visual perspective, and it’s most definitely something devilishly awry. Why, it’s as if the audience itself is the voyeur: much like Bundy scouting out his next victim, we’re forced to walk in his footsteps, sometimes watching him, sometimes seeing through his eyes. Clearly, it’s meant to be an uncomfortable ride, and most of the time it’s a winning technique, especially when it plunges the viewer into visions of what Bundy may’ve imagined before getting his hands dirty.
But like any overused technique it gets a bit predictable after a time.
Mass is a good film, far from being great. My central issue with it is that it strives far too often to be a bit weird visually, even when something a bit more mundane would’ve worked just fine. That and the fact that there’s really no story here – just a note-by-note dramatization of the sorority attack paired up with the mental visions of a convicted lunatic – and I’m left with no functioning assessment of what Pinn and her talented cast and crew wanted to ultimately say about Bundy, other than the obvious fact that he was one sick dude. Given that I knew that going in, one wonders what else all of the fuss could’ve been about.
Certainly, this won’t be the last we hear about Ted Bundy.
Like the Energizer Bunny, this guy – and those intrigued by what he did – goes on and on and on. Perhaps in some parallel universe, our collective frenzy has already risen to the heights of requiring a popular, ongoing television series to detail each and every possible murder at his hands. Like Dr. Richard Kimble on the run in TV’s The Fugitive, Bundy could show up in a different town each week, off some lovely coed in spectacular fashion, and then ride off into the sunset just before being caught by the authorities. The only real difference between Kimble and Bundy – after all – is that Bundy more likely would’ve killed his wife whereas Kimble was wrong accused of the same.
The Black Mass (2023) was produced by Jaguar Motion Pictures, Nitro Maximus, Roman Media, and WendBrook Brothers. 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 still found the sights-and-sounds to this slow-burn to be of exceptional quality. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, alas, this one is a surprisingly bare bones affair as the disc ponies up only the feature, the trailer, and some collected images. Sigh. I would’ve liked a bit more.
Mildly recommended.
It goes without saying that films exploring the dark underbelly of crime will, likely, always find an audience; and still, I’m not so sure that The Black Mass (2023) will be as successful. Some of my hesitation is owed to the fact that writer/director Pinn packs a bit too much camera-angle into this reasonably trim 82-minute run-time. The dirty little secret is that fans of this stuff don’t show up for the wicked cinematography and the imaginative flourishes, so it’s a bit of a slog wading through some fairly sedate build-up to arrive ultimately at the money shots. Mass isn’t without its merits; its just unfortunate that it takes its sweet time getting to them.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Black Mass (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
But like any overused technique it gets a bit predictable after a time.
Mass is a good film, far from being great. My central issue with it is that it strives far too often to be a bit weird visually, even when something a bit more mundane would’ve worked just fine. That and the fact that there’s really no story here – just a note-by-note dramatization of the sorority attack paired up with the mental visions of a convicted lunatic – and I’m left with no functioning assessment of what Pinn and her talented cast and crew wanted to ultimately say about Bundy, other than the obvious fact that he was one sick dude. Given that I knew that going in, one wonders what else all of the fuss could’ve been about.
Certainly, this won’t be the last we hear about Ted Bundy.
Like the Energizer Bunny, this guy – and those intrigued by what he did – goes on and on and on. Perhaps in some parallel universe, our collective frenzy has already risen to the heights of requiring a popular, ongoing television series to detail each and every possible murder at his hands. Like Dr. Richard Kimble on the run in TV’s The Fugitive, Bundy could show up in a different town each week, off some lovely coed in spectacular fashion, and then ride off into the sunset just before being caught by the authorities. The only real difference between Kimble and Bundy – after all – is that Bundy more likely would’ve killed his wife whereas Kimble was wrong accused of the same.
The Black Mass (2023) was produced by Jaguar Motion Pictures, Nitro Maximus, Roman Media, and WendBrook Brothers. 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 still found the sights-and-sounds to this slow-burn to be of exceptional quality. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, alas, this one is a surprisingly bare bones affair as the disc ponies up only the feature, the trailer, and some collected images. Sigh. I would’ve liked a bit more.
Mildly recommended.
It goes without saying that films exploring the dark underbelly of crime will, likely, always find an audience; and still, I’m not so sure that The Black Mass (2023) will be as successful. Some of my hesitation is owed to the fact that writer/director Pinn packs a bit too much camera-angle into this reasonably trim 82-minute run-time. The dirty little secret is that fans of this stuff don’t show up for the wicked cinematography and the imaginative flourishes, so it’s a bit of a slog wading through some fairly sedate build-up to arrive ultimately at the money shots. Mass isn’t without its merits; its just unfortunate that it takes its sweet time getting to them.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Black Mass (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
Well, well, well ... good afternoon, gentle readers, and Happy Weekend! Woohoo!
Also ... welcome to Superbowl Sunday!
Alas, our household is not much of a football fan, friends. Just never have been. Back in the day, I recall watching the game -- as do many -- more for the entertainment quality of the sport, but like so many organizations these days the NFL really thumbed its nose at America, its people, and our country's standing in the world-at-large ... and I'm just not a appreciative when institutions do that. Granted, I have learned to put aside my differences with the entertainment industry more often than not, but because I've never had that much interest in professional sports I find it harder to do in that marketplace. As a consequence, we don't tune in, and I don't feel I'm missing anything. Don't worry: I have plenty of folks who are happy to let me know otherwise in my life, so I take it all in style.
Otherwise, it's been a reasonably quiet weekend. Had a nice meal. Relaxed a little bit extra since it's been a tough week. And here we are.
Apologies for being away from the blog for a few days, but -- as I just mentioned -- I have had a few other activities that required a bit of attention. When life gets busy and my focus gets directed elsewhere, SciFiHistory.Net is the first thing that gets set aside -- it is what it is -- so please don't harbor any ill will regarding those circumstances. We all have things that push us in different directions from time-to-time, and that's really all this is. I have (still) a short stack of reviews I'm presently working on, and they'll definitely start to dribble into this space over the next few days.
What else do I have? Why, I'm glad you asked!
Also ... welcome to Superbowl Sunday!
Alas, our household is not much of a football fan, friends. Just never have been. Back in the day, I recall watching the game -- as do many -- more for the entertainment quality of the sport, but like so many organizations these days the NFL really thumbed its nose at America, its people, and our country's standing in the world-at-large ... and I'm just not a appreciative when institutions do that. Granted, I have learned to put aside my differences with the entertainment industry more often than not, but because I've never had that much interest in professional sports I find it harder to do in that marketplace. As a consequence, we don't tune in, and I don't feel I'm missing anything. Don't worry: I have plenty of folks who are happy to let me know otherwise in my life, so I take it all in style.
Otherwise, it's been a reasonably quiet weekend. Had a nice meal. Relaxed a little bit extra since it's been a tough week. And here we are.
Apologies for being away from the blog for a few days, but -- as I just mentioned -- I have had a few other activities that required a bit of attention. When life gets busy and my focus gets directed elsewhere, SciFiHistory.Net is the first thing that gets set aside -- it is what it is -- so please don't harbor any ill will regarding those circumstances. We all have things that push us in different directions from time-to-time, and that's really all this is. I have (still) a short stack of reviews I'm presently working on, and they'll definitely start to dribble into this space over the next few days.
What else do I have? Why, I'm glad you asked!
When it comes to a franchise like Star Trek -- one that has told an incredible number of stories over its decades in existence -- I honestly have reasonably few personal favorite hours. This isn't because I've liked so few; rather it's that I've witnessed only a relative handful of them as being truly exceptional hours of storytelling. I have plenty of more 'comfort' type adventures within the various series; but those that not only involved great ideas that truly surpass other episodes is rare, and one of my all-time personal favorites -- Star Trek: The Next Generation's "The Measure Of A Man" -- turns an incredible thirty-five years young today.
It's never easy to hammer a synopsis into perfect shape -- especially when an hour is crafted as grand as this one is -- but, basically, Commander Data has to face the greatest challenge to his existence when he's ruled 'property' of Starfleet and can be disassembled for further study. Essentially, this construct then gets played out in an actual courtroom, wherein Captain Jean-Luc Picard serves as the android's chief counsel in an attempt to obtain a ruling that'll both save one of his senior officers from the chopping block as well as set a legal precedent that will allow for research to continue. It's a fascinatingly human look into the soul of a robot, and that's something you don't get every day ... even in an intellectual property as wide and deep as is Trek.
This one isn't about phasers or space battles. There are some stirring speeches made by a few of the onscreen talent, and it's this kind of incisive commentary that Trek used to do best. Somehow, Paramount has lost sight of intelligent storytelling -- if Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds are any indication -- and fans don't get this kind of quality these days. Hopefully the franchise will find its way back home, but I'm not holding my breath for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, I'm happy to watch this one on repeat. That's just how good it is.
It's never easy to hammer a synopsis into perfect shape -- especially when an hour is crafted as grand as this one is -- but, basically, Commander Data has to face the greatest challenge to his existence when he's ruled 'property' of Starfleet and can be disassembled for further study. Essentially, this construct then gets played out in an actual courtroom, wherein Captain Jean-Luc Picard serves as the android's chief counsel in an attempt to obtain a ruling that'll both save one of his senior officers from the chopping block as well as set a legal precedent that will allow for research to continue. It's a fascinatingly human look into the soul of a robot, and that's something you don't get every day ... even in an intellectual property as wide and deep as is Trek.
This one isn't about phasers or space battles. There are some stirring speeches made by a few of the onscreen talent, and it's this kind of incisive commentary that Trek used to do best. Somehow, Paramount has lost sight of intelligent storytelling -- if Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds are any indication -- and fans don't get this kind of quality these days. Hopefully the franchise will find its way back home, but I'm not holding my breath for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, I'm happy to watch this one on repeat. That's just how good it is.
Science Fiction and Fantasy has benefitted from a great many talented Thespians over the years, but it's frankly quite rare for many of them to plant a flag in this genre and stay here for the life of an acting career. Such is the case for the late Leslie Nielsen, a man who led a warmly received legacy in drama for most of his life, as well as a late-breaking turn into some of the zaniest screen comedies of record. Many forget that the actor was the face of thoughtful SciFi when he turned up as 'Commander Adams' aboard the groundbreaking Fantastic Planet (1956).
Now, I realize that Planet may not exactly be everyone's cup o'tea when it comes to 1950's Science Fiction, but the motion picture deserves as much credit as it's received over the years. In point of fact, Fantastic Planet was the very first cinematic adventure that propelled audiences out there -- far beyond our star systems and into the great black depths of the galaxy -- instead of taking a jaunt to the moon or a nearby planet. In fact, it's been noted that even the late Gene Roddenberry drew inspiration from this voyage in creating his original 'wagon train to the stars' - Star Trek -- for broadcast television. Nielsen's no-nonsense commander may or may not have inspired James T. Kirk, but there are definitely some similarities for those of us watching closely.
While I think it's a shame that there never was any follow-up or sequel to Fantastic Planet, I still revere what the film both accomplished on its own as well as the road it paved for those who'd follow in its footsteps. Without it, cinematic outer space may not have been explored for years to come.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Nielsen ... wherever you may be ...
Now, I realize that Planet may not exactly be everyone's cup o'tea when it comes to 1950's Science Fiction, but the motion picture deserves as much credit as it's received over the years. In point of fact, Fantastic Planet was the very first cinematic adventure that propelled audiences out there -- far beyond our star systems and into the great black depths of the galaxy -- instead of taking a jaunt to the moon or a nearby planet. In fact, it's been noted that even the late Gene Roddenberry drew inspiration from this voyage in creating his original 'wagon train to the stars' - Star Trek -- for broadcast television. Nielsen's no-nonsense commander may or may not have inspired James T. Kirk, but there are definitely some similarities for those of us watching closely.
While I think it's a shame that there never was any follow-up or sequel to Fantastic Planet, I still revere what the film both accomplished on its own as well as the road it paved for those who'd follow in its footsteps. Without it, cinematic outer space may not have been explored for years to come.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Nielsen ... wherever you may be ...
Naturally, folks, there's more. I've done my work with respect to February 11th, and there's a great number of flavor that makes genre experiences what it is, whether you're talking SciFi, Fantasy, or Horror. Don't take my word for it. Head on over to the Daily Citation Page and relish the glory that is All Things SciFi ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you (even more) for sharing ... thank you (even even more) for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Holy mother of dragons! Do you see that? Do you see that? 91 genre trivia citations? All on a single day? What a great day to be a fan of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror ... am I right?
Well, well, well ... good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 8th, presently the home for an astonishing 91 different genre trivia citations to behold ... oh, what a world it would be if every day were like this, eh? I know, I know, I know. I can do it. I can, if I just set my mind to it. Sure, but it still takes a helluva lotta work, folks, so gimme time. Each day will get to over 100 different items. It just takes time.
For those of you wondering, yes, I just checked my archives for this day, and -- you guessed it -- I have an awful lot more just waiting in the wings to get up in this space. There's easily over 50 more birthdays, movies, TV show airings, etc. that are in transition. Were this my full-time gig, then maybe you'd be truly amazed. Until they get up there, however, these 91 will have to suffice. Trust me: it's a good 91 items. Just check 'em out.
Now ... folks, listen up:
Yes, yes, and yes: I'm well aware of the whole Gina Carano suing Walt Disney and the Disney earnings call from yesterday, and all that jazz. But for those of you who don't come here regularly, let me again clarify my stance on such breaking news: generally speaking, I have very little to say on them. Of course, I have an opinion, but as that isn't what I do here -- I don't often opine on news blurbs -- I tend to keep a stiff upper lip about them. I may -- repeat MAY -- offer up some observations on the Carano situation for posterity's sake; but so many other folks have already sounded off on that topic I just don't feel I'd have all that much to add. While I do appreciate your asking, let me mull it all over. If I have something of substance to offer, then it'll be on the MainPage. If not, then consider me pretty much in agreement with the majority.
Also, might I remind you: I don't have -- nor have I ever -- nor have I made any attempt -- to cultivate spies within the industry. I have been contacted a time or two, but I respectfully declined, actually encouraging those folks elsewhere because I'm hesitant to get into that line of work. I've not the resources to verify said spies in the first place, so the contacting folks could've been hoaxes to begin with. Not every fanboy outlet lives to serve such internal gossip -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- but it's just not in my wheelhouse, as they say. More power to those who did it, because many of them do it quite well.
Well, well, well ... good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to February 8th, presently the home for an astonishing 91 different genre trivia citations to behold ... oh, what a world it would be if every day were like this, eh? I know, I know, I know. I can do it. I can, if I just set my mind to it. Sure, but it still takes a helluva lotta work, folks, so gimme time. Each day will get to over 100 different items. It just takes time.
For those of you wondering, yes, I just checked my archives for this day, and -- you guessed it -- I have an awful lot more just waiting in the wings to get up in this space. There's easily over 50 more birthdays, movies, TV show airings, etc. that are in transition. Were this my full-time gig, then maybe you'd be truly amazed. Until they get up there, however, these 91 will have to suffice. Trust me: it's a good 91 items. Just check 'em out.
Now ... folks, listen up:
Yes, yes, and yes: I'm well aware of the whole Gina Carano suing Walt Disney and the Disney earnings call from yesterday, and all that jazz. But for those of you who don't come here regularly, let me again clarify my stance on such breaking news: generally speaking, I have very little to say on them. Of course, I have an opinion, but as that isn't what I do here -- I don't often opine on news blurbs -- I tend to keep a stiff upper lip about them. I may -- repeat MAY -- offer up some observations on the Carano situation for posterity's sake; but so many other folks have already sounded off on that topic I just don't feel I'd have all that much to add. While I do appreciate your asking, let me mull it all over. If I have something of substance to offer, then it'll be on the MainPage. If not, then consider me pretty much in agreement with the majority.
Also, might I remind you: I don't have -- nor have I ever -- nor have I made any attempt -- to cultivate spies within the industry. I have been contacted a time or two, but I respectfully declined, actually encouraging those folks elsewhere because I'm hesitant to get into that line of work. I've not the resources to verify said spies in the first place, so the contacting folks could've been hoaxes to begin with. Not every fanboy outlet lives to serve such internal gossip -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- but it's just not in my wheelhouse, as they say. More power to those who did it, because many of them do it quite well.
As good as those modern CGI-Apes movies are, they still just can't hold a candle to the power of the original, if you ask me.
I've mentioned before that I knew when I was very young that Science Fiction and Fantasy were always going to 'be my thing,' and -- without a doubt -- this groundbreaking film will always be one of my first major influences. No, I didn't see it in theaters, but I did see it when it premiered on television; and I was hooked right away with the whole idea of turning mankind on its head. Like Star Trek had done, this Planet Of The Apes used allegory masterfully at casting our world in cultural and evolutionary turnabout; and nothing has ever truly even come close to surpassing the genius of its ape-level make-up work. Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. (Really, debaters, don't even try.) It's rare for characters in genre entries to rise up so easily off the screen and insert themselves into our collective consciousness, but that's precisely what happened with this franchise. And, yes, I have it tucked away in its very own soft spot in my heart.
I will say that the flick's opening sequence -- astronaut Taylor (as played by Charlton Heston) chomping on a cigar in his spacecraft's command capsule -- does produce some laughter when its screened today. While I suspect we knew way back then the obvious dangers of "lighting up" inside a pressurized environment, I think it was a sequence that softly tried to underscore just how far we'd come in the future ... that even smoking in the distant reaches of space was possible ... but, as I said, it's a moment in filmdom that could benefit from a do-over. I think I even laughed at it when I watched the picture on the silver screen not all that long ago in celebration of its 55th anniversary. (Yes, I'm usually in the audience for such events, especially when it's a film of this magnitude.) It just struck me a so bizarre.
Also, I've always been a bit puzzled that the film didn't garner as much attention and/or critical praise in that original release in theaters. In fact, the flick seemed to have been a bit scoffed at by the celluloid mafia (to a degree), garnering only two Academy Award nominations (but lost) and only took home a 1969 Honorary Oscar for John Chambers' make-up effects. Clearly, these critical oversights can be forgiven, but how did so many miss the boat the first time they had a chance to come onboard? I'll never make sense of that.
I've mentioned before that I knew when I was very young that Science Fiction and Fantasy were always going to 'be my thing,' and -- without a doubt -- this groundbreaking film will always be one of my first major influences. No, I didn't see it in theaters, but I did see it when it premiered on television; and I was hooked right away with the whole idea of turning mankind on its head. Like Star Trek had done, this Planet Of The Apes used allegory masterfully at casting our world in cultural and evolutionary turnabout; and nothing has ever truly even come close to surpassing the genius of its ape-level make-up work. Nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. (Really, debaters, don't even try.) It's rare for characters in genre entries to rise up so easily off the screen and insert themselves into our collective consciousness, but that's precisely what happened with this franchise. And, yes, I have it tucked away in its very own soft spot in my heart.
I will say that the flick's opening sequence -- astronaut Taylor (as played by Charlton Heston) chomping on a cigar in his spacecraft's command capsule -- does produce some laughter when its screened today. While I suspect we knew way back then the obvious dangers of "lighting up" inside a pressurized environment, I think it was a sequence that softly tried to underscore just how far we'd come in the future ... that even smoking in the distant reaches of space was possible ... but, as I said, it's a moment in filmdom that could benefit from a do-over. I think I even laughed at it when I watched the picture on the silver screen not all that long ago in celebration of its 55th anniversary. (Yes, I'm usually in the audience for such events, especially when it's a film of this magnitude.) It just struck me a so bizarre.
Also, I've always been a bit puzzled that the film didn't garner as much attention and/or critical praise in that original release in theaters. In fact, the flick seemed to have been a bit scoffed at by the celluloid mafia (to a degree), garnering only two Academy Award nominations (but lost) and only took home a 1969 Honorary Oscar for John Chambers' make-up effects. Clearly, these critical oversights can be forgiven, but how did so many miss the boat the first time they had a chance to come onboard? I'll never make sense of that.
Now, haters, don't take this the wrong way when I suggest that I'm not as rabid a fan of John Williams' work as you are.
Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
Of course, his work and contribution to film is a legacy no one else comes near. My point in the above confession is that I think he's written a lot of stuff that just isn't all that memorable for lesser flicks. His genre stuff? Top notch. His work in Star Wars is without parallel. His Indiana Jones stuff? As legendary as the character was. His scores for E.T., Superman, and Jurassic Park? Nothing short of incredible and heartfelt in just the right ways. I'm just also saying that -- as one who has listened to hundreds if not thousands of scores -- there are other composers who've done some incredible work in the realms of the Fantastic, too, and they get overlooked a lot as producers always clamor for Williams' compositions. That's all I'm going to say on that.
Williams' stuff has aged so well that it's hard to separate some of the images from the music. In an almost effortless way, these tracks merge to become one with the theatrical experience; and his tunes have elevated a great many works in ways few ever come close to achieving. With an unbelievable five Oscars to his name -- along with, literally, hundreds of other accolades and citations -- his is a record no one will likely ever match ... and that's certainly saying something.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Williams! And here's to many more!
Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!
Of course, his work and contribution to film is a legacy no one else comes near. My point in the above confession is that I think he's written a lot of stuff that just isn't all that memorable for lesser flicks. His genre stuff? Top notch. His work in Star Wars is without parallel. His Indiana Jones stuff? As legendary as the character was. His scores for E.T., Superman, and Jurassic Park? Nothing short of incredible and heartfelt in just the right ways. I'm just also saying that -- as one who has listened to hundreds if not thousands of scores -- there are other composers who've done some incredible work in the realms of the Fantastic, too, and they get overlooked a lot as producers always clamor for Williams' compositions. That's all I'm going to say on that.
Williams' stuff has aged so well that it's hard to separate some of the images from the music. In an almost effortless way, these tracks merge to become one with the theatrical experience; and his tunes have elevated a great many works in ways few ever come close to achieving. With an unbelievable five Oscars to his name -- along with, literally, hundreds of other accolades and citations -- his is a record no one will likely ever match ... and that's certainly saying something.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Williams! And here's to many more!
According to Google.com, the late Jules Verne retains the title of being the second-most translated author in the entire world ... and that's definitely saying something!
It goes without saying that Verne is in very good company, as well, when it comes to serving as one of the chief founders of Science Fiction in literature. While a good many gives that nod to either Mary Shelley or H.G. Wells, Verne's catalogue gets tossed into that debate probably as often as they do, but I honestly wonder how well regarded his prose is with today's audiences. While I come across folks who've cracked open something from Wells, I rarely find those who've read anything from Verne; and I've often thought this was the case (in part) because literary scholars kinda/sorta see the man's works as being a bit beneath others. Plus, it's always easier to garner attention by claiming someone else's works are more influential, so these academics do like to push the envelope away from known commodities instead of just 'bending the knee' when the knee truly deserves to be bent.
However, there's no escaping the fondness storytellers have for Verne's library. Why, it seems like a decade can't go by without a new adaptation or derivation of Journey To The Center Of The Earth finds its way to screens. Likewise, Around The World In 80 Days may not see a remake or reboot every 80 days, but they're probably attempted almost as much as Journey hits the drawing board as well. One of Verne's lesser ideas -- Mysterious Island -- is a personal favorite of mine; and I can usually be wooed into watching any of the iterations that show up on television, even if it's one that's about as passable as anything else on Syfy. And 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea? That's another staple in Hollywood that gets thrown into the hopper whenever some new studio suit thinks it's high time such a yarn was attempted again ... and, yes, we're a better people for embracing subsequent attempts.
Happy birthday, Mr. Verne! And did you ever imagine what your written words would inspire?
It goes without saying that Verne is in very good company, as well, when it comes to serving as one of the chief founders of Science Fiction in literature. While a good many gives that nod to either Mary Shelley or H.G. Wells, Verne's catalogue gets tossed into that debate probably as often as they do, but I honestly wonder how well regarded his prose is with today's audiences. While I come across folks who've cracked open something from Wells, I rarely find those who've read anything from Verne; and I've often thought this was the case (in part) because literary scholars kinda/sorta see the man's works as being a bit beneath others. Plus, it's always easier to garner attention by claiming someone else's works are more influential, so these academics do like to push the envelope away from known commodities instead of just 'bending the knee' when the knee truly deserves to be bent.
However, there's no escaping the fondness storytellers have for Verne's library. Why, it seems like a decade can't go by without a new adaptation or derivation of Journey To The Center Of The Earth finds its way to screens. Likewise, Around The World In 80 Days may not see a remake or reboot every 80 days, but they're probably attempted almost as much as Journey hits the drawing board as well. One of Verne's lesser ideas -- Mysterious Island -- is a personal favorite of mine; and I can usually be wooed into watching any of the iterations that show up on television, even if it's one that's about as passable as anything else on Syfy. And 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea? That's another staple in Hollywood that gets thrown into the hopper whenever some new studio suit thinks it's high time such a yarn was attempted again ... and, yes, we're a better people for embracing subsequent attempts.
Happy birthday, Mr. Verne! And did you ever imagine what your written words would inspire?
It goes without saying that -- with the aforementioned astonishing 91 different trivia citations -- there's an awful lot more for you to discover. This is definitely a day for the history books, and this is the part of the blog post wherein I encourage you to head on over, do your own deep dive into such fascinations, and relish what vast riches bring Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror to life for each of us.
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 yet another Hump Day in all of the Hump Days of a single lifetime! It's officially Wednesday, February 7th, 2024, so let's get rolling with all of the Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror trivia citations you ever thought was coming your way!
Geesh. Had a rough afternoon yesterday. I mentioned the day before that I had to get a shot (vax), and woo-hoo did it make me tired. I had to catch some extra Zzzz's in the afternoon after running a few errands during the day. The pharmacist had warned me previously that it could send me for a small loop, and it certainly did. I think I'm on the mend for today. At least, I don't feel as sluggish as I did yesterday, so that small improvement alone is a very, very, very good thing.
But let's dispense with the personal information, shall we? That's probably TMI for a good deal of you anyway. You're really here for the trivia, and I have a bit to say about a few items on the agenda, so buckle up.
Geesh. Had a rough afternoon yesterday. I mentioned the day before that I had to get a shot (vax), and woo-hoo did it make me tired. I had to catch some extra Zzzz's in the afternoon after running a few errands during the day. The pharmacist had warned me previously that it could send me for a small loop, and it certainly did. I think I'm on the mend for today. At least, I don't feel as sluggish as I did yesterday, so that small improvement alone is a very, very, very good thing.
But let's dispense with the personal information, shall we? That's probably TMI for a good deal of you anyway. You're really here for the trivia, and I have a bit to say about a few items on the agenda, so buckle up.
I've always maintained that the true purpose behind SciFiHistory.Net -- no matter how many fancy extras or supplemental benefits I might add since inception and over those years -- was to highlight what came before. You know what I mean? I've always liked the idea of shedding a bit of light on the pioneers of the past; and while I'd love to cast a bit more attention onto writers and thinkers and such, the biggest push has been and will likely always be the stars who helped bring the final frontiers to life on screens big and small.
Well ... back in the days of my youth (that's right, kids, grandpa's talking again) you couldn't get any more groundbreaking that the work of Buster Crabbe. I know, I know, I know. Some of you grew up with George Reeves as Superman, putting him on the Mount Rushmore of Science Fiction. A goodly portion of you grew up with Mark Hamill embodying the likeness of Luke Skywalker aboard George Lucas' impressive Star Wars saga. For those of you who don't know Crabbe's name, he played both Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers in serials from the 1930's, and -- like it or not -- these were the staples of my youth.
(No, no, no: I wasn't there to see them premiere in theaters. I'm not that old.)
Crabbe was the ultimate space hero for the earliest generation of SciFi and Fantasy fans. Special effects and costuming being what they were in that bygone era, the man had to truly 'sell the sizzle' of these distant worlds, and the entertainment industry couldn't have had a better icon for such space adventures. I was first aware of them when they were only one small part -- an entertaining segment -- of a popular children's show out of Chicago in the 1970's; and I couldn't wait for each chapter to unfurl before my eyes over breakfast each day they aired. Eventually I discovered the full installments when they'd play on syndicated television, and I think it was at that time that I knew I was forever hooked on going where no man had gone before.
Every now and then, these serials do turn up once more in rotation on Turner Classic Movies on Saturday mornings. Very early, I might add. For what it's worth (if you're reading TCM), I think you should just make each and every Saturday morning a Buster Crabbe event -- leave them on in perpetuity -- because who else watches TV at that time anyway? I know it would be a staple for this household.
Wherever you are in the cosmos, Mr. Crabbe, Happy Birthday to you! You made a believer out of so many of us!
Well ... back in the days of my youth (that's right, kids, grandpa's talking again) you couldn't get any more groundbreaking that the work of Buster Crabbe. I know, I know, I know. Some of you grew up with George Reeves as Superman, putting him on the Mount Rushmore of Science Fiction. A goodly portion of you grew up with Mark Hamill embodying the likeness of Luke Skywalker aboard George Lucas' impressive Star Wars saga. For those of you who don't know Crabbe's name, he played both Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers in serials from the 1930's, and -- like it or not -- these were the staples of my youth.
(No, no, no: I wasn't there to see them premiere in theaters. I'm not that old.)
Crabbe was the ultimate space hero for the earliest generation of SciFi and Fantasy fans. Special effects and costuming being what they were in that bygone era, the man had to truly 'sell the sizzle' of these distant worlds, and the entertainment industry couldn't have had a better icon for such space adventures. I was first aware of them when they were only one small part -- an entertaining segment -- of a popular children's show out of Chicago in the 1970's; and I couldn't wait for each chapter to unfurl before my eyes over breakfast each day they aired. Eventually I discovered the full installments when they'd play on syndicated television, and I think it was at that time that I knew I was forever hooked on going where no man had gone before.
Every now and then, these serials do turn up once more in rotation on Turner Classic Movies on Saturday mornings. Very early, I might add. For what it's worth (if you're reading TCM), I think you should just make each and every Saturday morning a Buster Crabbe event -- leave them on in perpetuity -- because who else watches TV at that time anyway? I know it would be a staple for this household.
Wherever you are in the cosmos, Mr. Crabbe, Happy Birthday to you! You made a believer out of so many of us!
Also, the warmest birthday wishes ever are extended to the late Miguel Ferrer.
Ahh, this guy was so, so, so talented. As a actor, he may've had a 'type' of role that he was best at, but I always thought he was a bit of a chameleon, you know? The kind of talent who could rather effortlessly slip into any skin and inhabit it like no other could. Granted, he probably is best known for the kinda of driven personae he personified aboard 1987's seminal RoboCop -- arguably, one of Science Fiction's greatest films ever -- and he did that work so well that I think it did end up seeing him kinda/sorta revisit that role in lesser films and TV shows across his career. While that happens in Hollywood, I'd still insist Ferrer did some incredible work with other parts, so readers are encouraged to check out his full portfolio at their leisure.
In fact, the man did some of his best work on the small screen when he turned up as FBI Special Agent Albert Rosenfeld aboard David Lynch's phenomenal Twin Peaks. His no-nonsense Fed always found himself at odds with the locals of the said small city, and it was the source of many, many, many great moments and laughs even. (Honestly, I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at a TV show as I did with Ferrer's bits here.)
Regular readers to this space know that I have a penchant for detective stories, too, and Ferrer even made an interesting foray into that realm: 1998's Where's Marlowe? is a clever but flawed look at a big city private investigations firm that can't quite get its act together that I picked up on home video way back in the day ... and I did so only because it boasts Ferrer in the guise of the traditional private eye on the cover. It's a good film -- not a great one -- but like so many flicks I think it's made better by the quality of Ferrer's performance in it, so I encourage fans of noirish comedies to check that one out if interested.
Ahh, this guy was so, so, so talented. As a actor, he may've had a 'type' of role that he was best at, but I always thought he was a bit of a chameleon, you know? The kind of talent who could rather effortlessly slip into any skin and inhabit it like no other could. Granted, he probably is best known for the kinda of driven personae he personified aboard 1987's seminal RoboCop -- arguably, one of Science Fiction's greatest films ever -- and he did that work so well that I think it did end up seeing him kinda/sorta revisit that role in lesser films and TV shows across his career. While that happens in Hollywood, I'd still insist Ferrer did some incredible work with other parts, so readers are encouraged to check out his full portfolio at their leisure.
In fact, the man did some of his best work on the small screen when he turned up as FBI Special Agent Albert Rosenfeld aboard David Lynch's phenomenal Twin Peaks. His no-nonsense Fed always found himself at odds with the locals of the said small city, and it was the source of many, many, many great moments and laughs even. (Honestly, I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at a TV show as I did with Ferrer's bits here.)
Regular readers to this space know that I have a penchant for detective stories, too, and Ferrer even made an interesting foray into that realm: 1998's Where's Marlowe? is a clever but flawed look at a big city private investigations firm that can't quite get its act together that I picked up on home video way back in the day ... and I did so only because it boasts Ferrer in the guise of the traditional private eye on the cover. It's a good film -- not a great one -- but like so many flicks I think it's made better by the quality of Ferrer's performance in it, so I encourage fans of noirish comedies to check that one out if interested.
Now, of course, there's more -- isn't there always? Have you folks not yet learned that invaluable lesson? I've done some good work over the years chocking full each and every day with the kind of SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror goodness you would expect from a site celebrating such things, but I can't expose each of the highlights for you in this space. What kind of host would that make me? The beauty is in the discovery, and this is the time wherein I encourage each of you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page and see just for yourself what makes this day unique from all others.
Here's the important link:
As always, my friends ... thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ