- Published on
it's the end of the world as we know it
(yet again)
with doomsday Meteor (2023)
Well, well, well ... it looks like those of us who happily gravitate toward disaster flicks might have something brand-new to take in this weekend: I've just received word from a confidential media insider (via email) that The Asylum is once more in the 'End Times' business with the digital release of a little something-something called Doomsday Meteor. Taking a gander at materials cited on IMDB.com, it does look like this one may've had a extremely limited theatrical release (April, 2023), but according to Google.com this morning it is showing as a streaming/rental property on VUDU and Redbox.
Directed by Noah Luke from a script by Lauren Pritchard and Joe Roche, the SciFi/Thriller is looking to pulverize Earth (and audiences) now. If this is something that tickles your fancy -- much as it does mine -- then I encourage you to check out the information and the trailer below!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Directed by Noah Luke from a script by Lauren Pritchard and Joe Roche, the SciFi/Thriller is looking to pulverize Earth (and audiences) now. If this is something that tickles your fancy -- much as it does mine -- then I encourage you to check out the information and the trailer below!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Out now on digital!
Synopsis:
When a massive meteor threatens to destroy Earth, scientists try to stop the giant mass with rockets armed with high-powered lasers. When that fails, they land on the asteroid, mounting it with rockets to push its orbit away from the planet.
Alternative Synopsis:
A meteor bigger than the moon, and unseen by Earth until now, has less than a week until planetary impact. Scientists try to stop the giant mass with rockets armed with high-powered lasers. When that fails they land on the asteroid, mounting it with rockets in an attempt to push its orbit away from Earth. But as the team continues to run into problems they never imagined, the future of mankind becomes more and more bleak.
Director: Noah Luke
Writer(s): Lauren Pritchard and Joe Roche
Cast: Caroline Williams, Patrick Labyorteaux, Eva Ceja
Synopsis:
When a massive meteor threatens to destroy Earth, scientists try to stop the giant mass with rockets armed with high-powered lasers. When that fails, they land on the asteroid, mounting it with rockets to push its orbit away from the planet.
Alternative Synopsis:
A meteor bigger than the moon, and unseen by Earth until now, has less than a week until planetary impact. Scientists try to stop the giant mass with rockets armed with high-powered lasers. When that fails they land on the asteroid, mounting it with rockets in an attempt to push its orbit away from Earth. But as the team continues to run into problems they never imagined, the future of mankind becomes more and more bleak.
Director: Noah Luke
Writer(s): Lauren Pritchard and Joe Roche
Cast: Caroline Williams, Patrick Labyorteaux, Eva Ceja
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Ray Wise and Sonya Smith star as washed-up action hero Kommander II and struggling filmmaker Angela LaSalle in this dark and twisted comedy. They’re filming ‘Cyxork 7,’ latest sequel in a haggard sci-fi franchise – this time shooting at the epicenter of a predicted cataclysmic earthquake. Free special effects! Risking their lives for the buzz, they’re desperate to grab Hollywood’s attention. That is: if they will survive.”
Erm …
Well, as I pride myself on being perfectly honest, I made it thirty minutes into Cyxork 7 before I reached for the remote and began fast-forwarding. That’s because so very little of what I sat through in that 30 minutes really interested me. Or was compelling. Or made sense. It isn’t that Cyxork 7 is a bad film; rather, I see it as it tries to capitalize on the Troma label, which it most definitely did not do.
Ray Wise stars as an aging film veteran who’s enjoyed a lucrative career headlining a low-budget SciFi franchise. Unfortunately – as can happen in our fickle society – the enterprise has fallen on hard times, and they’ve had to pick up a veritable piece of fan fiction in order to have a story to make a seventh chapter … and you know what they say about fan fiction! That, and the studio decides to bring in an all-new female direction – one who has absolutely no interest or respect for the Cyxork franchise. All of this spells certain doom … and, yes, I sat through thirty minutes of doom, which was as much as I could take.
To its credit, Cyxork 7 tries to be something more than just a film – it does carry the Troma label, after all – and while the snippets featuring two foul-mouthed, subversive California talking heads are interesting, they’re just so woefully out-of-place and funny at the fourth-grade potty humor level that I didn’t appreciate them in the slightest. I suspect there might be an audience for this … somewhere … it just wasn’t for me even in the most remote possibilities.
Cyxork 7 (2006) was produced by Gamma Gulch Productions, LLC. (FYI: this is their only production of record, so let that speak for itself.) DVD distribution is being handled by the good people at Troma Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Meh. It’s a cheaply produced independent bit of schlock, and it looks and sounds about as good as needed to whatever audience it might earn.
(Not Really) Recommended.
Hey, I can appreciate a low-budget Troma as much as the next film fanatic, but this? This just isn’t Troma. I’ve watched some Troma – some good and some bad – and this just wasn’t it so far as I’m concerned. At least, it isn’t the level of quality I’d attach to any Troma I know and love. It’s uninteresting. It’s poorly conceived. It’s even more poorly assembled. Plus, there’s just no compelling reason to finish it. That isn’t Troma. That’s garbage.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Ray Wise and Sonya Smith star as washed-up action hero Kommander II and struggling filmmaker Angela LaSalle in this dark and twisted comedy. They’re filming ‘Cyxork 7,’ latest sequel in a haggard sci-fi franchise – this time shooting at the epicenter of a predicted cataclysmic earthquake. Free special effects! Risking their lives for the buzz, they’re desperate to grab Hollywood’s attention. That is: if they will survive.”
Erm …
Well, as I pride myself on being perfectly honest, I made it thirty minutes into Cyxork 7 before I reached for the remote and began fast-forwarding. That’s because so very little of what I sat through in that 30 minutes really interested me. Or was compelling. Or made sense. It isn’t that Cyxork 7 is a bad film; rather, I see it as it tries to capitalize on the Troma label, which it most definitely did not do.
Ray Wise stars as an aging film veteran who’s enjoyed a lucrative career headlining a low-budget SciFi franchise. Unfortunately – as can happen in our fickle society – the enterprise has fallen on hard times, and they’ve had to pick up a veritable piece of fan fiction in order to have a story to make a seventh chapter … and you know what they say about fan fiction! That, and the studio decides to bring in an all-new female direction – one who has absolutely no interest or respect for the Cyxork franchise. All of this spells certain doom … and, yes, I sat through thirty minutes of doom, which was as much as I could take.
To its credit, Cyxork 7 tries to be something more than just a film – it does carry the Troma label, after all – and while the snippets featuring two foul-mouthed, subversive California talking heads are interesting, they’re just so woefully out-of-place and funny at the fourth-grade potty humor level that I didn’t appreciate them in the slightest. I suspect there might be an audience for this … somewhere … it just wasn’t for me even in the most remote possibilities.
Cyxork 7 (2006) was produced by Gamma Gulch Productions, LLC. (FYI: this is their only production of record, so let that speak for itself.) DVD distribution is being handled by the good people at Troma Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Meh. It’s a cheaply produced independent bit of schlock, and it looks and sounds about as good as needed to whatever audience it might earn.
(Not Really) Recommended.
Hey, I can appreciate a low-budget Troma as much as the next film fanatic, but this? This just isn’t Troma. I’ve watched some Troma – some good and some bad – and this just wasn’t it so far as I’m concerned. At least, it isn’t the level of quality I’d attach to any Troma I know and love. It’s uninteresting. It’s poorly conceived. It’s even more poorly assembled. Plus, there’s just no compelling reason to finish it. That isn’t Troma. That’s garbage.
-- EZ
- Published on
I do very much love some of the lesser flicks being rediscovered these days by distributors like Shout Factory, Kino, and Arrow Films.
It’s great that these companies have the time, effort, and resources to not only freshen older films up with restoration efforts but also they’re producing some very good new extras that can be found on any number of discs. It’s very respectful, and it definitely doesn’t get the level of praise it deserves in the media. Lastly, it gives those of us who do appreciate some of these otherwise forgotten bygone epics a chance to see them once more – perhaps in even greater cinematic glory than we did in their original theatrical runs and undeniably better than previous home video (tape) releases.
Such is the case with Contamination (1980), a film most folks will pleasantly ignore while fans of off-the-beaten-path cinema like myself will happily review.
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A former astronaut helps a government agent and a police detective track the source of mysterious alien pod spores, filled with lethal flesh-dissolving acid, to a South American coffee plantation controlled by alien pod clones.”
It’s really hard to make all that much of a film like Contamination largely because of the increasingly small niche it filled. Its slim story was inspired by other films, so being less of a B-Movie and a maybe bit more of a low-budget knock-off of ideas and characters already explored elsewhere is a target not many storytellers would strive to hit. Still, such was the nature of Italian cinema as one can even discover by watching any of the exceptional extras available in this release’s packaging: filmmakers would rush ‘their’ versions (or ‘interpretations’) of American blockbusters into packed movie houses where audiences (usually also European) would happily scarf them up.
But to Contamination’s credit, even writer/director Luigi Cozzi admits in multiple interviews (also available here) that his film was only inspired by Ridley Scott’s seminal Alien (1979). Borrow an idea here … pilfer a setting from there … and voila! Something completely different! After plucking the ideas he wanted, Cozzi crafted an entirely Earth-based story (with a single Mars-based flashback for clarity) which still mimics much of a traditional thriller’s talking points though stifling much of the potential suspense under entirely wooden and predictable performances from mediocre lead players. Nestled between the opening and closing credit remains a film that never quite achieved the level of logic and intensity perhaps it did in Cozzi’s mind’s eye but still manages to be relevant for its era and watchable even today.
In fact, all that generally ‘dates’ much of Contamination (aside from the obvious hair and clothes styles) is an awful synthesizer soundtrack that clearly tries to draw comparisons to some of what director John Carpenter was doing in his releases. Sadly, it doesn’t work here, largely because the tracks are rendered with far too much flourish, so much so that they draw attention to themselves than they do the scenes they accompany. Anyone familiar with Carpenter’s stuff will tell you that his soundtracks felt much more organic to his work, blending almost seamlessly with the images and action, supporting the visuals and acting as any music should.
What is there to enjoy?
Well …
The performances all end up feeling a bit more comical than they were probably intended. I’d venture a guess that if the lovable knuckleheads at MST3K and Rifftrax haven’t lampooned Contamination then this one is ripe for the plucking. Some of the set constructions (the government science labs, mostly) are quite good and do hold up despite a measure of … erm … frivolity? Also, the film boasts some very solid in-camera effects work (the alien eggs and the monstrous creature near the big finish), so much so that I’d imagine many folks previously drawn to this story as well as those discovering it today might be intrigued by it. That’s no small feat, and I still find practical effects work like that refreshing instead of seeing all of the gadgets and gizmos rendered in post CGI these days.
Contamination (1980) is produced by Alex Cinematografica, Barthonia Film, and Lisa-Film. DVD distribution for this release is being handled by Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow! This 80’s flick actually has cleaned up very nicely in the restoration process, and the sound update is actually a bit better than I expected (but not without the occasional tinnyness). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’ve plenty in store as Arrow Films has packed this with some dated interviews as well as a few new extras that explore both the film, its era, and its filmmaker for posterity. A grand collection.
(Mildly) Recommended.
Check your brain at the door for fear of Contamination, and you’ll probably have some modest fun with this 80’s stinker that actually boasts some respectable production qualities, practical special effects, and what feels like an unusual five-minute commercial (late in the flick) for South American tourism. It’s a harmless SciFi confection – one that definitely feels derivative of many other superior films – and it even manages to dish out the obligatory promise of a sequel if the first one was revered as much. (FYI: it wasn’t.)
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a DVD copy of Contamination (1980) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
It’s great that these companies have the time, effort, and resources to not only freshen older films up with restoration efforts but also they’re producing some very good new extras that can be found on any number of discs. It’s very respectful, and it definitely doesn’t get the level of praise it deserves in the media. Lastly, it gives those of us who do appreciate some of these otherwise forgotten bygone epics a chance to see them once more – perhaps in even greater cinematic glory than we did in their original theatrical runs and undeniably better than previous home video (tape) releases.
Such is the case with Contamination (1980), a film most folks will pleasantly ignore while fans of off-the-beaten-path cinema like myself will happily review.
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A former astronaut helps a government agent and a police detective track the source of mysterious alien pod spores, filled with lethal flesh-dissolving acid, to a South American coffee plantation controlled by alien pod clones.”
It’s really hard to make all that much of a film like Contamination largely because of the increasingly small niche it filled. Its slim story was inspired by other films, so being less of a B-Movie and a maybe bit more of a low-budget knock-off of ideas and characters already explored elsewhere is a target not many storytellers would strive to hit. Still, such was the nature of Italian cinema as one can even discover by watching any of the exceptional extras available in this release’s packaging: filmmakers would rush ‘their’ versions (or ‘interpretations’) of American blockbusters into packed movie houses where audiences (usually also European) would happily scarf them up.
But to Contamination’s credit, even writer/director Luigi Cozzi admits in multiple interviews (also available here) that his film was only inspired by Ridley Scott’s seminal Alien (1979). Borrow an idea here … pilfer a setting from there … and voila! Something completely different! After plucking the ideas he wanted, Cozzi crafted an entirely Earth-based story (with a single Mars-based flashback for clarity) which still mimics much of a traditional thriller’s talking points though stifling much of the potential suspense under entirely wooden and predictable performances from mediocre lead players. Nestled between the opening and closing credit remains a film that never quite achieved the level of logic and intensity perhaps it did in Cozzi’s mind’s eye but still manages to be relevant for its era and watchable even today.
In fact, all that generally ‘dates’ much of Contamination (aside from the obvious hair and clothes styles) is an awful synthesizer soundtrack that clearly tries to draw comparisons to some of what director John Carpenter was doing in his releases. Sadly, it doesn’t work here, largely because the tracks are rendered with far too much flourish, so much so that they draw attention to themselves than they do the scenes they accompany. Anyone familiar with Carpenter’s stuff will tell you that his soundtracks felt much more organic to his work, blending almost seamlessly with the images and action, supporting the visuals and acting as any music should.
What is there to enjoy?
Well …
The performances all end up feeling a bit more comical than they were probably intended. I’d venture a guess that if the lovable knuckleheads at MST3K and Rifftrax haven’t lampooned Contamination then this one is ripe for the plucking. Some of the set constructions (the government science labs, mostly) are quite good and do hold up despite a measure of … erm … frivolity? Also, the film boasts some very solid in-camera effects work (the alien eggs and the monstrous creature near the big finish), so much so that I’d imagine many folks previously drawn to this story as well as those discovering it today might be intrigued by it. That’s no small feat, and I still find practical effects work like that refreshing instead of seeing all of the gadgets and gizmos rendered in post CGI these days.
Contamination (1980) is produced by Alex Cinematografica, Barthonia Film, and Lisa-Film. DVD distribution for this release is being handled by Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow! This 80’s flick actually has cleaned up very nicely in the restoration process, and the sound update is actually a bit better than I expected (but not without the occasional tinnyness). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’ve plenty in store as Arrow Films has packed this with some dated interviews as well as a few new extras that explore both the film, its era, and its filmmaker for posterity. A grand collection.
(Mildly) Recommended.
Check your brain at the door for fear of Contamination, and you’ll probably have some modest fun with this 80’s stinker that actually boasts some respectable production qualities, practical special effects, and what feels like an unusual five-minute commercial (late in the flick) for South American tourism. It’s a harmless SciFi confection – one that definitely feels derivative of many other superior films – and it even manages to dish out the obligatory promise of a sequel if the first one was revered as much. (FYI: it wasn’t.)
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a DVD copy of Contamination (1980) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
FACE THE PAST
SAVE THE FUTURE
Future Soldier is now available to rent and buy on Amazon Prime Video, iTunes, Microsoft Store and Google Play in the UK & US!!!
Folks, I've said many, many times that one of the truly great joys I get to experience in my duties as editor of SciFiHistory.Net is receiving information on forthcoming and/or newly released projects that tickle the fancy of genre enthusiasts like you and I. Granted, motion pictures are most definitely not created equal -- some get greater budgets while some have to make end-meet-end with more storytelling creativity -- and there's a bit of risk involved in any production; but if nothing else I've learned to truly appreciate the fact that there are so very many talented auteurs out there in the world who -- if nothing else -- deserve an equal opportunity to deliver their unique vision to an audience hungry for 'something different.'
Now, the reality of independent and/or small studio filmmaking is that more has to be accomplished with less. So, in the process of trying to spin a big yarn with tighter budgetary controls, the truth is that some ideas may not translate as well to the silver screen as others. As a consequence, I do tend to favor these lesser-known releases because they don't get the kind of flash media coverage that tentpole projects do, and I find some of these pictures to be truly invigorating as compared to the usual formula approach to blockbuster storytelling. These pictures may not always achieve the results desired, but they usually give me a bit more to consider when digesting the good, the bad, and the occasionally ugly of any new adventure. And -- most importantly -- I usually find them made with more love, enthusiasm, and good old-fashioned moxie than the typical studio production.
Not all that long ago, I was provided the press materials for Future Soldier, the debut feature from writer/director Ed Kirk. A summary of his resume on IMDB.com suggests that this is a world he's been tinkering with in short films for some time now, and I'm guessing that the resulting popularity has finally given him the chance to transition from those shorter works into something with a bit more meat on its bones. Mr. Kirk was also kind enough to have provided me with complimentary streaming access to the film, so I'll be doing the watch-and-review in the next day or so ... thus, I encourage everyone to keep their eyes peeled on this space as my thoughts will be up for consumption very soon.
In the meantime, I'm going to be doing the usual copy-and-paste of some promotional info that I think might be of service to Mr. Kirk and to all of you. This one definitely looks interesting -- and the accompanying still photographs have a good tone to them -- and I figured you might like being brought up-to-speed on the merits of Future Soldier.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by our good friends at IMDB.com:
"In the dystopian, cyberpunk future, bounty hunter Mo Harrington returns to action after uncovering a sinister conspiracy. Joining forces with an old friend, hardened ex-cop Xoey Cass, Harrington must race against time to stop dangerous new enemies from threatening the future of Supercity Europe. With the conspiracy unravelling, Harrington and Cass find themselves on a collision course with both The Matriarch, a ruthless crime lord, and the Phalanx Corporation, the militarised security force that polices the streets. Caught in a dangerous web and haunted by ghosts from his previous life, Mo must confront his past as a genetically enhanced Hoplite super-soldier, as well as his own moral code. From the depths of Supercity Europe's underworld to the forgotten military installations of the arctic circle, Harrington and Cass are pitted against shadowy forces, clone troopers and masked assassins as they fight to stop the mysterious 'Project: Centurion', once and for all."
Now, the reality of independent and/or small studio filmmaking is that more has to be accomplished with less. So, in the process of trying to spin a big yarn with tighter budgetary controls, the truth is that some ideas may not translate as well to the silver screen as others. As a consequence, I do tend to favor these lesser-known releases because they don't get the kind of flash media coverage that tentpole projects do, and I find some of these pictures to be truly invigorating as compared to the usual formula approach to blockbuster storytelling. These pictures may not always achieve the results desired, but they usually give me a bit more to consider when digesting the good, the bad, and the occasionally ugly of any new adventure. And -- most importantly -- I usually find them made with more love, enthusiasm, and good old-fashioned moxie than the typical studio production.
Not all that long ago, I was provided the press materials for Future Soldier, the debut feature from writer/director Ed Kirk. A summary of his resume on IMDB.com suggests that this is a world he's been tinkering with in short films for some time now, and I'm guessing that the resulting popularity has finally given him the chance to transition from those shorter works into something with a bit more meat on its bones. Mr. Kirk was also kind enough to have provided me with complimentary streaming access to the film, so I'll be doing the watch-and-review in the next day or so ... thus, I encourage everyone to keep their eyes peeled on this space as my thoughts will be up for consumption very soon.
In the meantime, I'm going to be doing the usual copy-and-paste of some promotional info that I think might be of service to Mr. Kirk and to all of you. This one definitely looks interesting -- and the accompanying still photographs have a good tone to them -- and I figured you might like being brought up-to-speed on the merits of Future Soldier.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by our good friends at IMDB.com:
"In the dystopian, cyberpunk future, bounty hunter Mo Harrington returns to action after uncovering a sinister conspiracy. Joining forces with an old friend, hardened ex-cop Xoey Cass, Harrington must race against time to stop dangerous new enemies from threatening the future of Supercity Europe. With the conspiracy unravelling, Harrington and Cass find themselves on a collision course with both The Matriarch, a ruthless crime lord, and the Phalanx Corporation, the militarised security force that polices the streets. Caught in a dangerous web and haunted by ghosts from his previous life, Mo must confront his past as a genetically enhanced Hoplite super-soldier, as well as his own moral code. From the depths of Supercity Europe's underworld to the forgotten military installations of the arctic circle, Harrington and Cass are pitted against shadowy forces, clone troopers and masked assassins as they fight to stop the mysterious 'Project: Centurion', once and for all."
"Future Soldier is an ambitious, science fiction feature film, made on a microbudget. Having previously directed shorts, I wanted my debut feature to be sweeping in scale. Heavily inspired by cyberpunk, action movies from the 80s and 90s, Future Soldier pays homage to films such as Johnny Mnemonic, Blade Runner and Timecop, striving to tell a compelling story set in an expansive, retrofuturistic, dystopian future. Robot arms, laser knives and flying cars are common place. Evil corporations manipulate citizens from the shadows. The setting is a homage to all things cyberpunk, but the film is not a pastiche. When writing and directing Future Soldier, I wanted to tell a story within the genre that entertains while avoiding parody, presenting characters and themes with a serious tone. Our heroes are flawed. Questions about failing systems, corporate corruption and increased surveillance are as relevant as ever. I set out to make a film which treats its audience seriously, while building upon the genre's tropes and motifs. Future Soldier is a film made with love. I hope you are entertained watching it." -- Ed Kirk, Writer/Director
Q&A WITH THE DIRECTOR
Q: How did you conceive the story of Future Soldier?
A: "With Future Soldier I really wanted to make a film which embodied everything I love about the science fiction genre. I really wanted to tell an entertaining and compelling story in which multilayered characters would be challenged within a vast, dystopian future. It's such a great backdrop to discuss themes of morality and corporate control. I really wanted to get my teeth into this bleak future and flesh it out in a way that felt natural, writing characters which felt consistent with the universe. And some of the characters feature in a short film we made previously. It was an 80s pastiche, tonally a world away from Future Soldier, but that was born from my love of these 80s action films. I just felt that the characters and the world from that short had more to give, more to explore. So when approaching this film, which does stand apart, I wanted to see how we could go a step further and challenge these characters and their beliefs in this really corrupt world they're trying to survive in.
Q: What drew you to the genre and what were your biggest influences when making the film?
A: "It's definitely a mix. I love the 80s/90s science fiction films that really brought the grimy, dystopian cityscapes to life. Blade Runner, Running Man, Johnny Mnemonic and Timecop are all great examples. I really love how this science-fiction setting can be used to discuss really contemporary problems and dilemmas. And visually, we wanted to make a film now, not necessarily make a film with an 80s aesthetic. We looked a lot at Blade Runner 2049, how they revisited that universe through a modern lens. And ultimately, it's an action film. So John Wick and the Raid were really influential when looking at the set pieces and how we physically test the characters in the action sequences.
Q: How has the film evolved from script to screen? Is it different than you expected?
A: "The evolution has been interesting. There's a couple of obvious changes if you read the script. Some scenes have been cut or rearranged to help the story flow a bit better. For example, the opening flashback sequence was originally about 20 minutes in, and we shifted that in post to really strengthen the film's intro. Some things had to be tweaked due to location restrictions on the day. And it's a collaboration. The crew were excellent and really helped suggest things and problem solve on the day. Overall though, the tone and feel of the film is definitely what we set out to make. And I do really believe that films evolve right up until they're done. It's all about making the best, most engaging film you can."
Q: Where was Future Soldier filmed?
A: "Future Soldier was mostly filmed in Lincolnshire, United Kingdom over approximately 2 weeks. We ended up filming a big portion of the film in a couple of warehouses outside of Scunthorpe, with industrial machinery, makeshift sets and corrugated iron filling in the background for some major sequences. It was very rural, in the middle of winter and not very glamourous! We also filmed some of our interiors in Lincoln, which was convenient for some of the cast and crew who were based there. Alongside this, we filmed additional days in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire."
Q: What position were you in, as a filmmaker, when you started production and how has making the film changed this?
A: "Before we decided to make Future Soldier, I was untested as a filmmaker. I previously directed shorts as a student but I think it's fair to say I didn't, at that point, really have the directing skills to really realise my scripts to a high enough standard, which were always really ambitious. When it came to Future Soldier, I wanted to take that next step. If we were going to make a feature, we had to aim for a really high standard, so we looked at how we could make the film feel more cinematic and how we could better utilise sound, score and performance throughout. When we were making the film, I was really focused on performance, how each scene would grip the audience, and how those scenes would all flow together. I had such a great team around me, I learnt from them and gained a huge appreciation for process. And then the film was in post for 4 years. I grew as a lot as a filmmaker during that time, making more shorts, working different jobs, doing some freelance work. We locked the edit in January 2023, and I've come a long way as a filmmaker since we started the journey. I just think your film doesn't stop evolving until you do the final export. Right up until that point, you're refining and tweaking and I think there's something really interesting about that."
Q: What was the main difference between directing shorts and making your first feature?
A: Just the sheer scale of every part of making the film. All the challenges are the same as making a short, there's just a lot more of them across every aspect of production. And it's considering the piece as a whole, making sure everything is consistent with the film's feel and tone. We're trying to enthral an audience for 90 minutes, not just 3 or 10, so you've really got to know how the scenes fit into the story as a whole: how the scenes are building to key points of the film, which details are essential to emphasise etc. We were really ambitious with the scale of the film too. It's a lot of locations, lots of actors. You need to balance wrangling this sprawling production while making sure that you're making the right creative decisions for the film as a whole.
A: "With Future Soldier I really wanted to make a film which embodied everything I love about the science fiction genre. I really wanted to tell an entertaining and compelling story in which multilayered characters would be challenged within a vast, dystopian future. It's such a great backdrop to discuss themes of morality and corporate control. I really wanted to get my teeth into this bleak future and flesh it out in a way that felt natural, writing characters which felt consistent with the universe. And some of the characters feature in a short film we made previously. It was an 80s pastiche, tonally a world away from Future Soldier, but that was born from my love of these 80s action films. I just felt that the characters and the world from that short had more to give, more to explore. So when approaching this film, which does stand apart, I wanted to see how we could go a step further and challenge these characters and their beliefs in this really corrupt world they're trying to survive in.
Q: What drew you to the genre and what were your biggest influences when making the film?
A: "It's definitely a mix. I love the 80s/90s science fiction films that really brought the grimy, dystopian cityscapes to life. Blade Runner, Running Man, Johnny Mnemonic and Timecop are all great examples. I really love how this science-fiction setting can be used to discuss really contemporary problems and dilemmas. And visually, we wanted to make a film now, not necessarily make a film with an 80s aesthetic. We looked a lot at Blade Runner 2049, how they revisited that universe through a modern lens. And ultimately, it's an action film. So John Wick and the Raid were really influential when looking at the set pieces and how we physically test the characters in the action sequences.
Q: How has the film evolved from script to screen? Is it different than you expected?
A: "The evolution has been interesting. There's a couple of obvious changes if you read the script. Some scenes have been cut or rearranged to help the story flow a bit better. For example, the opening flashback sequence was originally about 20 minutes in, and we shifted that in post to really strengthen the film's intro. Some things had to be tweaked due to location restrictions on the day. And it's a collaboration. The crew were excellent and really helped suggest things and problem solve on the day. Overall though, the tone and feel of the film is definitely what we set out to make. And I do really believe that films evolve right up until they're done. It's all about making the best, most engaging film you can."
Q: Where was Future Soldier filmed?
A: "Future Soldier was mostly filmed in Lincolnshire, United Kingdom over approximately 2 weeks. We ended up filming a big portion of the film in a couple of warehouses outside of Scunthorpe, with industrial machinery, makeshift sets and corrugated iron filling in the background for some major sequences. It was very rural, in the middle of winter and not very glamourous! We also filmed some of our interiors in Lincoln, which was convenient for some of the cast and crew who were based there. Alongside this, we filmed additional days in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire."
Q: What position were you in, as a filmmaker, when you started production and how has making the film changed this?
A: "Before we decided to make Future Soldier, I was untested as a filmmaker. I previously directed shorts as a student but I think it's fair to say I didn't, at that point, really have the directing skills to really realise my scripts to a high enough standard, which were always really ambitious. When it came to Future Soldier, I wanted to take that next step. If we were going to make a feature, we had to aim for a really high standard, so we looked at how we could make the film feel more cinematic and how we could better utilise sound, score and performance throughout. When we were making the film, I was really focused on performance, how each scene would grip the audience, and how those scenes would all flow together. I had such a great team around me, I learnt from them and gained a huge appreciation for process. And then the film was in post for 4 years. I grew as a lot as a filmmaker during that time, making more shorts, working different jobs, doing some freelance work. We locked the edit in January 2023, and I've come a long way as a filmmaker since we started the journey. I just think your film doesn't stop evolving until you do the final export. Right up until that point, you're refining and tweaking and I think there's something really interesting about that."
Q: What was the main difference between directing shorts and making your first feature?
A: Just the sheer scale of every part of making the film. All the challenges are the same as making a short, there's just a lot more of them across every aspect of production. And it's considering the piece as a whole, making sure everything is consistent with the film's feel and tone. We're trying to enthral an audience for 90 minutes, not just 3 or 10, so you've really got to know how the scenes fit into the story as a whole: how the scenes are building to key points of the film, which details are essential to emphasise etc. We were really ambitious with the scale of the film too. It's a lot of locations, lots of actors. You need to balance wrangling this sprawling production while making sure that you're making the right creative decisions for the film as a whole.
Production Company Website: www.acamasvideo.com
Prod. Instagram: @acamasvideo
Prod. Twitter: @acamasvideo
Film Instagram: @futuresoldiermovie
Film Twitter: @futuresolmovie
Director's Instagram: @edstrikesagain
Director's IMDB: Click Here
- Published on
The other day, I observed amongst friends that – as long as I’ve been writing online about film – I have gravitated more and more toward favoring independent projects over big studio releases.
Truthfully, there’s not any major reason behind this. Yes, it’s vastly easier for outlets like mine to get on mailing lists for smaller distributors willing to share their wares with secondary media stops like SciFiHistory.Net; so I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a contributing factor. It certainly is, but – as I’ve often argued about how foreign films don’t often feel like they’ve been produced within the Hollywood studio system (a truism that has changed quite a bit over the last decade) – indie filmmakers often imbue their projects with a freshness that elevates the material. They know they’re not Paramount Pictures or Universal Studios or the Walt Disney Company, but they love the process as much (if not more) than anyone else. As such, they will go to the ends of the Earth while laboring within a budget to make a tale work visually and textually .. while our cultural betters (ahem) simply spend a bit more to “fix it in post.”
Still, it ain’t easy accomplishing the level of world-building usually required to complete an independent Science Fiction film. While mainstream society tends to look down their nose at fans of SciFi and Fantasy, I’ve always given them vastly more credit and respect in identifying stories that function in their own reality. Think what you might, but I believe genre junkies like you and me watch films a bit more closely. We consider what they say a bit more fervently. We appreciate how they try to balance what’s come before with blazing a trail toward something different. We notice things like costumes, dialogue, and effects sequences; and we thrive on championing what we find exceptional even with the knowledge of knowing we’re going to be ostracized for it by folks outside our respective social circles.
We like what we like, and we really don’t damn well care if you don’t. We don’t hate you for not sharing our delight because we’ve been the butt of your jokes for ages. We know – better than most, I might add – what that feels like, and we tend to not want to perpetuate those sentiments onto others.
This is why we’ll seek out and explore smaller films – much like Ed Kirk’s Future Soldier – and we’ll happily chat it up. We know it may not be perfect, but we can tell that it was made specifically for us by people who both understand and enjoy flicks that push our group to watch for, think about, appreciate, notice, and thrive on all of the things I mentioned above. It is genre entertainment – all the good, the bad, and the ugly. It’s for films like this that we, culturally, exist … and we really don’t damn well care if you don’t like it.
Truthfully, there’s not any major reason behind this. Yes, it’s vastly easier for outlets like mine to get on mailing lists for smaller distributors willing to share their wares with secondary media stops like SciFiHistory.Net; so I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t a contributing factor. It certainly is, but – as I’ve often argued about how foreign films don’t often feel like they’ve been produced within the Hollywood studio system (a truism that has changed quite a bit over the last decade) – indie filmmakers often imbue their projects with a freshness that elevates the material. They know they’re not Paramount Pictures or Universal Studios or the Walt Disney Company, but they love the process as much (if not more) than anyone else. As such, they will go to the ends of the Earth while laboring within a budget to make a tale work visually and textually .. while our cultural betters (ahem) simply spend a bit more to “fix it in post.”
Still, it ain’t easy accomplishing the level of world-building usually required to complete an independent Science Fiction film. While mainstream society tends to look down their nose at fans of SciFi and Fantasy, I’ve always given them vastly more credit and respect in identifying stories that function in their own reality. Think what you might, but I believe genre junkies like you and me watch films a bit more closely. We consider what they say a bit more fervently. We appreciate how they try to balance what’s come before with blazing a trail toward something different. We notice things like costumes, dialogue, and effects sequences; and we thrive on championing what we find exceptional even with the knowledge of knowing we’re going to be ostracized for it by folks outside our respective social circles.
We like what we like, and we really don’t damn well care if you don’t. We don’t hate you for not sharing our delight because we’ve been the butt of your jokes for ages. We know – better than most, I might add – what that feels like, and we tend to not want to perpetuate those sentiments onto others.
This is why we’ll seek out and explore smaller films – much like Ed Kirk’s Future Soldier – and we’ll happily chat it up. We know it may not be perfect, but we can tell that it was made specifically for us by people who both understand and enjoy flicks that push our group to watch for, think about, appreciate, notice, and thrive on all of the things I mentioned above. It is genre entertainment – all the good, the bad, and the ugly. It’s for films like this that we, culturally, exist … and we really don’t damn well care if you don’t like it.
(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:
“In the future 2002AD, bounty hunter Captain Mo Harrington finds himself pulled into a sinister conspiracy.”
Initially, I was more than a bit confused by Future Soldier.
There’s an opening bit – along with some screen text exposition – that helps to put the story into its proper context; and longtime readers know that I’m not a huge fan of exposition I have to read. My preference has always been for stories to work without having to give me a bit of the usual information dump – big or small – but once this opening confusion is out of the way and the emphasis is truly placed on organic storytelling Soldier gets smoother. As the characters and the world they inhabit gets fleshed out, I realized that the information provided wasn’t quite as necessary: what matters here is that our hero – Mo Harrington (played by Sean Earl McPherson) – isn’t so much on a hero’s quest as he’s trying to gain a bit of redemption for days gone by.
But that doesn’t excuse the narrative confusion from the early moments.
What writer/director Kirk has done here is fashioned an alternate history picture, one involving some secret soldier program, some vast changes to European government, and the introduction of technology that – circa 1989-2002AD (when the film takes place) – didn’t exist in the original timeline. That’s an awful lot to cram into the first five minutes of screen time – along with introducing some of the names and faces the audience is about to get to know – and it doesn’t go down quite as easily as it should. Suddenly we’re pulled into the future that these characters are now living, and it took me a bit to acclimate into this new present.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In the future 2002AD, bounty hunter Captain Mo Harrington finds himself pulled into a sinister conspiracy.”
Initially, I was more than a bit confused by Future Soldier.
There’s an opening bit – along with some screen text exposition – that helps to put the story into its proper context; and longtime readers know that I’m not a huge fan of exposition I have to read. My preference has always been for stories to work without having to give me a bit of the usual information dump – big or small – but once this opening confusion is out of the way and the emphasis is truly placed on organic storytelling Soldier gets smoother. As the characters and the world they inhabit gets fleshed out, I realized that the information provided wasn’t quite as necessary: what matters here is that our hero – Mo Harrington (played by Sean Earl McPherson) – isn’t so much on a hero’s quest as he’s trying to gain a bit of redemption for days gone by.
But that doesn’t excuse the narrative confusion from the early moments.
What writer/director Kirk has done here is fashioned an alternate history picture, one involving some secret soldier program, some vast changes to European government, and the introduction of technology that – circa 1989-2002AD (when the film takes place) – didn’t exist in the original timeline. That’s an awful lot to cram into the first five minutes of screen time – along with introducing some of the names and faces the audience is about to get to know – and it doesn’t go down quite as easily as it should. Suddenly we’re pulled into the future that these characters are now living, and it took me a bit to acclimate into this new present.
Once the particulars are more fully established, Soldier does go about both deepening and widening this dark world into something an audience can appreciate, though I’ll admit that I found it taxing to keep all of these organizations in check. The trouble is – as a viewer – I hear about a group or an organization or a company and, yet, I never fully see it; this makes it challenging to separate one from the other, and I couldn’t tell my ‘Matriarch’ from the ‘Phalanx,’ nor did I know how much it mattered. Again: there’s a lot – and I mean a lot – of world-building at work throughout the film, and – as much as I enjoyed being drawn into the alt-reality – it didn’t fall into place as effortlessly as it should have.
Setting aside the narrative hang-ups, Future Soldier is nonetheless impressive with what it accomplishes on a fracture of the budget that major studio projects get. Kirk and his visual wizards prove themselves masters both in small scale (costuming and set design) as well as large (post-production special effects) by weaving some fabulous yet simple imagery alongside the ideas from start-to-finish, so much so that I think the man and his friends could teach both established directors and budding auteurs how and when to do it right. Balancing out when to ‘go big’ against ‘how big can we afford’ with a smidge of ‘how big do we really need to make this work’ is not a talent in great supply in Hollywood; here, it’s accomplished with an uncanny effortlessness that deserves all of the praise it gets.
Still, filmmaking loves its shakycam footage, a technique I wish were in short supply. Somewhere around 2010, directors got the big idea to photograph fight scenes in extremely tight frame composition; and I have to admit that’s just never worked for me. While I understand how effective it can be especially for independent storytellers – space is at a premium on the screen, so hiding a small set within a larger world will always be the quickest solution – I’ve always suggested it works against the scope of a story if you can’t back up a sequence or two with a wider establishing shot. If I – the audience – can’t tell what’s going on in a fight, then is the fight really necessary? Is it aesthetically taking place? These are the choices a director makes, and I critically don’t always agree with them. Such is life.
As for the performers?
McPherson makes for a convincing lead. He underplays a few of his big moments, and I’m not sure why, other than to suggest that (again) maybe I just didn’t quite understand his motivations. Yasmine Alice – as his kinda/sorta begrudging sidekick through most of her scenes – delivers good stuff as the fallen police officer still clinging for law and order, despite morality being in short supply. Ian Curd largely chews scenery as the film’s fallen and broken patriarch, the guy who always thinks he’s doing what’s best for mankind but is actually doing the worst. Ellie Pickering practically steals every scene she’s in as a surprisingly battle-hardened soldier/daughter who’ll go down fighting if that’s what it takes. Adam Fox also turns in good marks as a street tough who really wants to do the right thing. Lastly, Sarah Whitehouse – as the film’s chief villain ‘The Matriarch’ – exudes a hard-boiled sexiness that may or may not feel a bit misplaced as I never quite got to the bottom of what her designs on mankind truly were. I’m guessing they were for ill, but … who knows?
Setting aside the narrative hang-ups, Future Soldier is nonetheless impressive with what it accomplishes on a fracture of the budget that major studio projects get. Kirk and his visual wizards prove themselves masters both in small scale (costuming and set design) as well as large (post-production special effects) by weaving some fabulous yet simple imagery alongside the ideas from start-to-finish, so much so that I think the man and his friends could teach both established directors and budding auteurs how and when to do it right. Balancing out when to ‘go big’ against ‘how big can we afford’ with a smidge of ‘how big do we really need to make this work’ is not a talent in great supply in Hollywood; here, it’s accomplished with an uncanny effortlessness that deserves all of the praise it gets.
Still, filmmaking loves its shakycam footage, a technique I wish were in short supply. Somewhere around 2010, directors got the big idea to photograph fight scenes in extremely tight frame composition; and I have to admit that’s just never worked for me. While I understand how effective it can be especially for independent storytellers – space is at a premium on the screen, so hiding a small set within a larger world will always be the quickest solution – I’ve always suggested it works against the scope of a story if you can’t back up a sequence or two with a wider establishing shot. If I – the audience – can’t tell what’s going on in a fight, then is the fight really necessary? Is it aesthetically taking place? These are the choices a director makes, and I critically don’t always agree with them. Such is life.
As for the performers?
McPherson makes for a convincing lead. He underplays a few of his big moments, and I’m not sure why, other than to suggest that (again) maybe I just didn’t quite understand his motivations. Yasmine Alice – as his kinda/sorta begrudging sidekick through most of her scenes – delivers good stuff as the fallen police officer still clinging for law and order, despite morality being in short supply. Ian Curd largely chews scenery as the film’s fallen and broken patriarch, the guy who always thinks he’s doing what’s best for mankind but is actually doing the worst. Ellie Pickering practically steals every scene she’s in as a surprisingly battle-hardened soldier/daughter who’ll go down fighting if that’s what it takes. Adam Fox also turns in good marks as a street tough who really wants to do the right thing. Lastly, Sarah Whitehouse – as the film’s chief villain ‘The Matriarch’ – exudes a hard-boiled sexiness that may or may not feel a bit misplaced as I never quite got to the bottom of what her designs on mankind truly were. I’m guessing they were for ill, but … who knows?
Ultimately, Soldier feels like a project that drew on many influences, and having read some of an interview provided by the film’s press materials I know just how true that is. There’s nothing wrong with that – I applaud knowing just how deeply films like Blade Runner continue to resonate with folks decades after their initial release – and I do believe such association will help Kirk and his friends find an audience. The film beckons to be seen, and the right viewers will hang on its every word. How long they’ll hang around depends on just how the storyteller continues to build on what’s come before with something uniquely his own.
Kirk is off to a good start!
Future Soldier (2023) was produced by ACAMAS Video. From what I’ve been able to ascertain (from a Google.com search), the feature is only presently available for purchase or rental via streaming platforms like Apple TV, Amazon Video, Vudu, DIRECTV, and Spectrum On Demand online. As for the technical specifications? Generally speaking, the sights and sounds are very, very good – a few effects sequences are obviously effects sequences, but it’s nothing that detracts from the storytelling. (Just bein’ honest, as they say.) As I viewed this film via streaming, there were no special features, but I’d love for a commercial release (on DVD/Blu-ray) to include some shorts from the cast and crew discussing how to go about world-building of this quality on a budget. I think many in the entertainment business could benefit from the lessons shared.
Recommended, but …
It isn’t always easy to determine what’s the main premise behind Future Soldier, and – to be fair – some of that might be owed to the fact that there’s an awful lot going on in the narrative, so much so that it feels occasionally a bit clunky with exposition and flashbacks. Dipping back into the well he created previously, perhaps writer/director Kirk knew a bit too much about this world and its various characters, allowing him to work with storytelling shorthand that maybe kinda/sorta didn’t serve the audience as well as he intended. But … hey … as an indie SciFi (which we honestly don’t see all that many of) Soldier is still leaps and bounds above many other attempts I’ve seen, so kudos to all involved for raising the bar as to what could, would, and should be expected from low budget yarns. It’s an impressive debut, proving Kirk’s is a voice worth listening to.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that Ed Kirk provided me with complimentary streaming access to Future Soldier (2023) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and the contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Kirk is off to a good start!
Future Soldier (2023) was produced by ACAMAS Video. From what I’ve been able to ascertain (from a Google.com search), the feature is only presently available for purchase or rental via streaming platforms like Apple TV, Amazon Video, Vudu, DIRECTV, and Spectrum On Demand online. As for the technical specifications? Generally speaking, the sights and sounds are very, very good – a few effects sequences are obviously effects sequences, but it’s nothing that detracts from the storytelling. (Just bein’ honest, as they say.) As I viewed this film via streaming, there were no special features, but I’d love for a commercial release (on DVD/Blu-ray) to include some shorts from the cast and crew discussing how to go about world-building of this quality on a budget. I think many in the entertainment business could benefit from the lessons shared.
Recommended, but …
It isn’t always easy to determine what’s the main premise behind Future Soldier, and – to be fair – some of that might be owed to the fact that there’s an awful lot going on in the narrative, so much so that it feels occasionally a bit clunky with exposition and flashbacks. Dipping back into the well he created previously, perhaps writer/director Kirk knew a bit too much about this world and its various characters, allowing him to work with storytelling shorthand that maybe kinda/sorta didn’t serve the audience as well as he intended. But … hey … as an indie SciFi (which we honestly don’t see all that many of) Soldier is still leaps and bounds above many other attempts I’ve seen, so kudos to all involved for raising the bar as to what could, would, and should be expected from low budget yarns. It’s an impressive debut, proving Kirk’s is a voice worth listening to.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that Ed Kirk provided me with complimentary streaming access to Future Soldier (2023) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and the contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Una must confront a secret she’s been hiding when a contagion ravages the ship, incapacitating the rest of the crew.”
When it comes to my fondness for All Things Trek, I’ve always been of the mindset that each new incarnation of the property understandably tinkers with resetting canon to a limited degree.
Now … what does that mean?
Well, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – or its characters, situations, and circumstances – wasn’t referenced aboard the seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation that were produced before it came into broadcast existence; so it should go without saying that DS9 had to tinker with canon in that it added a good number of new layers that had to be incorporated as seamlessly as possible. The same could be said for Star Trek: Voyager and the subsequent Star Trek: Enterprise – as they were entirely new each and of themselves they carried little weight so far as previous shows were concerned – and now the same can be said for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. I approach new shows as having to add to the existence legacy rather than getting wound up in some of the – erm – fictional history; and that’s how I find it effortless to accept each on their own while not putting a whole lot of emphasis on what came before.
However, “Ghosts Of Illyria” – scripted by Akela Cooper and Bill Wolkoff – did take an existing legacy character and reshape her origin entirely.
How could that be?
It’s an easy answer, and that’s because the character of Una Chin-Riley (aka ‘Number One’) never really had an origin. Introduced in the original Star Trek pilot episode titled “The Cage” and then rediscovered in Trek’s two-part installment “The Menagerie,” Una was a blank canvas so far as canon was concerned. Thus, Cooper and Wolkoff’s tinkering was reasonably acceptable so far as I’m concerned. I don’t follow the wider Trek community that stretches across the Information Superhighway, so I can’t realistically sound off on how fandom may’ve felt about this new information … but I think it still has some hang-ups.
Chiefly, I’m not a fan of characters who so openly disobey a Starfleet oath of office, and – sigh – the Kurtzman Era of the Gene Roddenberry franchise is replete with them. I say this understanding full well that haters might love to debate with me the violations to the Prime Directive that Captain James T. Kirk may’ve made back in the day, and that’s all well and good. My point is, simply, this: show me a character in Star Trek: Discovery that hasn’t broken the rules – the always perfect Michael Burnham included – and then we can talk. In the meantime, I still prefer officers who exhibit good judgment, and – when in doubt – that generally means obeying oaths, orders, and the chain of command.
But that aside …
“Ghosts” also had me questioning the whole premise behind the episode or – if not the premise – the presented logic of the script.
From the episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Una must confront a secret she’s been hiding when a contagion ravages the ship, incapacitating the rest of the crew.”
When it comes to my fondness for All Things Trek, I’ve always been of the mindset that each new incarnation of the property understandably tinkers with resetting canon to a limited degree.
Now … what does that mean?
Well, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine – or its characters, situations, and circumstances – wasn’t referenced aboard the seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation that were produced before it came into broadcast existence; so it should go without saying that DS9 had to tinker with canon in that it added a good number of new layers that had to be incorporated as seamlessly as possible. The same could be said for Star Trek: Voyager and the subsequent Star Trek: Enterprise – as they were entirely new each and of themselves they carried little weight so far as previous shows were concerned – and now the same can be said for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. I approach new shows as having to add to the existence legacy rather than getting wound up in some of the – erm – fictional history; and that’s how I find it effortless to accept each on their own while not putting a whole lot of emphasis on what came before.
However, “Ghosts Of Illyria” – scripted by Akela Cooper and Bill Wolkoff – did take an existing legacy character and reshape her origin entirely.
How could that be?
It’s an easy answer, and that’s because the character of Una Chin-Riley (aka ‘Number One’) never really had an origin. Introduced in the original Star Trek pilot episode titled “The Cage” and then rediscovered in Trek’s two-part installment “The Menagerie,” Una was a blank canvas so far as canon was concerned. Thus, Cooper and Wolkoff’s tinkering was reasonably acceptable so far as I’m concerned. I don’t follow the wider Trek community that stretches across the Information Superhighway, so I can’t realistically sound off on how fandom may’ve felt about this new information … but I think it still has some hang-ups.
Chiefly, I’m not a fan of characters who so openly disobey a Starfleet oath of office, and – sigh – the Kurtzman Era of the Gene Roddenberry franchise is replete with them. I say this understanding full well that haters might love to debate with me the violations to the Prime Directive that Captain James T. Kirk may’ve made back in the day, and that’s all well and good. My point is, simply, this: show me a character in Star Trek: Discovery that hasn’t broken the rules – the always perfect Michael Burnham included – and then we can talk. In the meantime, I still prefer officers who exhibit good judgment, and – when in doubt – that generally means obeying oaths, orders, and the chain of command.
But that aside …
“Ghosts” also had me questioning the whole premise behind the episode or – if not the premise – the presented logic of the script.
The story introduces into canon (so much as I’m aware) a race known as the Illyrians, and it kinda/sorta introduces them poorly. The way the episode begins, I got the impression that these were a people who’d gone mysteriously extinct largely owed to the fact that they were caught dabbling in genetics. We are told that the species was forbidden to join Starfleet because of their practiced affinity for genetic modification; and then we see this dead world they supposedly colonized before vanishing from the face of the world. Given the fact that – ahem – La’an Noonien Singh serves as the Enterprise’s chief of security and – ahem – she herself is descended from the great Khan Noonien-Singh (of Trek’s Eugenics Wars), how were these opposing issues reconciled in the hour?
The answer is that they weren’t. Instead, La’an’s background was largely used for a few character exchanges between her and Una, a relationship that really needs greater definition at this point. Were they friends? La’an mentions that Una rescued her and then kinda/sorta brought her back to civilization, but was there something more? I felt that there was a hint of a romantic entanglement there (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but perhaps I was reading a bit more into their affection. Either way, I’m hoping that the writing room can clear that up at some point, as I think it might be useful.
But back to the whole premise …
What we’re told by Una in her officer’s log is that the Enterprise was making a routine stop at Hetemit IX but given no definitive reason why.
So here’s where I struggled (and feel free to tell me that I’m overthinking): if the Illyrians were not a part of the Federation and were, in fact, kinda/sorta ostracized as a race for their work in genetic modifications, why oh why would the Federation have a standing order to stop by and have a look at one of their failed colonies? What was the purpose behind these ‘routine’ inspections? Were we looking for something – clues to why they went extinct – or were we just pillaging what was left of their civilization? Since trafficking in Illyrian technology was a huge no-no, then what were the crew actually doing other than trespassing?
I realize that some of you might suggest that it’s the job of scientists to study dead civilizations, and I’d be apt to remind you that the Illyrian people clearly aren’t dead. Because they apparently still exist elsewhere in the galaxy, why did they not go and reclaim all of their science, technology, belongings, etc. from Hetemit IX? Granted, we weren’t treated to a wide array of spaces and rooms, but clearly the lab/library that Pike and Spock holed up in to ride out the planet’s ion storms suggests that some useable tech was still there. I just wanted to know why, and no answer was really forthcoming.
Besides painting Starfleet as a situationally racist organization, Ghosts really makes light of officers breaking protocol for their own personal gain. Lo and behold, the ship’s physician Dr. M’Benga even gets into the act in a curious plot twist that harkens back to something Montgomery Scott executed in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Yes, yes, yes: I understand the man was driven to dire straits in an attempt to prolong the life of a loved one, but why is it that Dr. Leonard McCoy didn’t do the same to his father as we learned from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? In Trek chronology, it appears that those events happened well after the shenanigans of Ghosts; and it’s this general laziness that does offend Trek traditionalists like myself. While I won’t say it breaks canon, I will say it’s lazy as it’s been done before and done better.
Star Trek: Strange New World’s “Ghosts Of Illyria” was produced by was produced by CBS Television Studios, Roddenberry Entertainment, and Secret Hideout. The episode is currently available for streaming on Paramount+, or it can be purchased as part of the show’s first season on DVD/Blu-ray released this past March 31, 2023. As for the technical specifications? It’s pretty clear that Paramount has pulled out all of the stops in bringing this incarnation of Star Trek to life as the show looks and sounds pretty fabulous from start-to-finish; while I could nitpick the quality of some space scenes or others (coming off as a bit too like a video game), the presentation never distracted from my enjoyment of it.
Recommended, but …
I think I left this episode of Strange New Worlds with a few more questions than probably did others. (Yes, yes, yes: I have a habit of overthinking things as I do try to make absolutely certain that all elements make perfect sense.) Also, some of the moral choices made by a few of the Enterprise officers struck me as flawed; while I might understand why they felt it necessary to bend a rule here and there, that doesn’t escape the fact that the hour still had an undercurrent painting the Federation as stereotypically racist in its attitudes. Sadly, writers with little to no background beyond writing do tend to take unwarranted swipes at government, so I’ll chalk up some of those quips to being part-and-parcel of the usual diatribe from creative types.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I watched this episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds – “Ghosts Of Illyria” – from the 2023 DVD Release of the program’s first season.
-- EZ
The answer is that they weren’t. Instead, La’an’s background was largely used for a few character exchanges between her and Una, a relationship that really needs greater definition at this point. Were they friends? La’an mentions that Una rescued her and then kinda/sorta brought her back to civilization, but was there something more? I felt that there was a hint of a romantic entanglement there (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but perhaps I was reading a bit more into their affection. Either way, I’m hoping that the writing room can clear that up at some point, as I think it might be useful.
But back to the whole premise …
What we’re told by Una in her officer’s log is that the Enterprise was making a routine stop at Hetemit IX but given no definitive reason why.
So here’s where I struggled (and feel free to tell me that I’m overthinking): if the Illyrians were not a part of the Federation and were, in fact, kinda/sorta ostracized as a race for their work in genetic modifications, why oh why would the Federation have a standing order to stop by and have a look at one of their failed colonies? What was the purpose behind these ‘routine’ inspections? Were we looking for something – clues to why they went extinct – or were we just pillaging what was left of their civilization? Since trafficking in Illyrian technology was a huge no-no, then what were the crew actually doing other than trespassing?
I realize that some of you might suggest that it’s the job of scientists to study dead civilizations, and I’d be apt to remind you that the Illyrian people clearly aren’t dead. Because they apparently still exist elsewhere in the galaxy, why did they not go and reclaim all of their science, technology, belongings, etc. from Hetemit IX? Granted, we weren’t treated to a wide array of spaces and rooms, but clearly the lab/library that Pike and Spock holed up in to ride out the planet’s ion storms suggests that some useable tech was still there. I just wanted to know why, and no answer was really forthcoming.
Besides painting Starfleet as a situationally racist organization, Ghosts really makes light of officers breaking protocol for their own personal gain. Lo and behold, the ship’s physician Dr. M’Benga even gets into the act in a curious plot twist that harkens back to something Montgomery Scott executed in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Yes, yes, yes: I understand the man was driven to dire straits in an attempt to prolong the life of a loved one, but why is it that Dr. Leonard McCoy didn’t do the same to his father as we learned from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier? In Trek chronology, it appears that those events happened well after the shenanigans of Ghosts; and it’s this general laziness that does offend Trek traditionalists like myself. While I won’t say it breaks canon, I will say it’s lazy as it’s been done before and done better.
Star Trek: Strange New World’s “Ghosts Of Illyria” was produced by was produced by CBS Television Studios, Roddenberry Entertainment, and Secret Hideout. The episode is currently available for streaming on Paramount+, or it can be purchased as part of the show’s first season on DVD/Blu-ray released this past March 31, 2023. As for the technical specifications? It’s pretty clear that Paramount has pulled out all of the stops in bringing this incarnation of Star Trek to life as the show looks and sounds pretty fabulous from start-to-finish; while I could nitpick the quality of some space scenes or others (coming off as a bit too like a video game), the presentation never distracted from my enjoyment of it.
Recommended, but …
I think I left this episode of Strange New Worlds with a few more questions than probably did others. (Yes, yes, yes: I have a habit of overthinking things as I do try to make absolutely certain that all elements make perfect sense.) Also, some of the moral choices made by a few of the Enterprise officers struck me as flawed; while I might understand why they felt it necessary to bend a rule here and there, that doesn’t escape the fact that the hour still had an undercurrent painting the Federation as stereotypically racist in its attitudes. Sadly, writers with little to no background beyond writing do tend to take unwarranted swipes at government, so I’ll chalk up some of those quips to being part-and-parcel of the usual diatribe from creative types.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I watched this episode of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds – “Ghosts Of Illyria” – from the 2023 DVD Release of the program’s first season.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Follow Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s leading exorcist, as he investigates the possession of a child and uncovers a conspiracy the Vatican has tried to keep secret.”
I don’t normally go into discussions like this, but did any of you – by any chance – happen to see the coming attractions for The Pope’s Exorcist?
Again, I’m not trying to pick fights or create any undue controversy here, but – if you did happen to see these trailers – were you all that impressed? Honestly, I thought the adverts looked incredibly campy if not downright unsophisticated, so much so that I can recall turning to my other half and actually asking her, “Good Lord, who do you think Russell Crowe ticked off to find himself cast in such a role?” Without knowing anything about the plot and only being familiar with the circumstances provided by the commercials, I couldn’t help but think that this Exorcist almost looked like it was trying to maybe unintentionally lampoon the whole business of demonic possession, the religious iconography that goes along with it, and what not. Yes, yes, yes: dare I say all of it definitely looked like it was a motion picture beneath the dignity deserving of the Academy Award winning Crowe. I honestly figured it would open to poor reviews, mediocre box office, and the inevitable trash bin of film history.
To my surprise (and delight), it was my wife who suggested that we go to see it at the cineplex. Like me, she can’t refuse a good story centered on possession; and having that subject matter enduring a bit of a drought for us we took it in one Saturday morning. While I’m glad that we did get to see it up in the lights, I’ll also concede that – yeah – it wasn’t anything all that special … but damned if it didn’t seem like Crowe was actually having fun onscreen again?
From what I’ve learned, Exorcist is actually drawn from the real-life experiences of the late Father Amorth, a Biblical scholar, priest, author, and the one of the Catholic Church’s specialists on exorcisms. Wikipedia.org reports that – despite the measure of controversy his work created – the man conducted thousands of ceremonies to cleanse souls of evil; and he’s even left behind a few books detailing the extent to which the Devil – or whatever you choose to call the force of darkness in the world today – has tried manipulating those trapped in their weakest of possible moments. So whether you believe in the possibility or not, Amorth went about his work, and I’ve no doubt he helped improve the lives of so many in pursuit of such good deeds.
Now, having actually read several of the non-fiction books that have been – ahem – sensationalized with silver screen adaptations, I’ve no doubt that that screenwriters Michael Petroni, Evan Spiliotopoulos, and R. Dean McCreary likely went to great lengths to add more than a fair share of – erm – Hollywoodization to Amorth’s tale as told. In fact, I’ll bet that even director Julius Avery was in on the deal of ramping up the scares necessary to give Exorcist the possibility of truly getting good box office receipts … and who can blame them? If you don’t provide today’s audiences with enough sizzle, then they’re not likely going to order the steak; so I expect a good deal of the film’s more colorful and CGI-laden effects sequences are the result of ‘beefing up’ each and every reel to maximum potential. Still, the flick possesses thankfully a fairly one-minded track: there’s the introduction of a history-spanning conspiracy – one used to kick the door open for sequel potential, I might add – but the bulk of the time is spent with Amorth (played by Crowe), and he’s definitely a character all of his own.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Follow Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s leading exorcist, as he investigates the possession of a child and uncovers a conspiracy the Vatican has tried to keep secret.”
I don’t normally go into discussions like this, but did any of you – by any chance – happen to see the coming attractions for The Pope’s Exorcist?
Again, I’m not trying to pick fights or create any undue controversy here, but – if you did happen to see these trailers – were you all that impressed? Honestly, I thought the adverts looked incredibly campy if not downright unsophisticated, so much so that I can recall turning to my other half and actually asking her, “Good Lord, who do you think Russell Crowe ticked off to find himself cast in such a role?” Without knowing anything about the plot and only being familiar with the circumstances provided by the commercials, I couldn’t help but think that this Exorcist almost looked like it was trying to maybe unintentionally lampoon the whole business of demonic possession, the religious iconography that goes along with it, and what not. Yes, yes, yes: dare I say all of it definitely looked like it was a motion picture beneath the dignity deserving of the Academy Award winning Crowe. I honestly figured it would open to poor reviews, mediocre box office, and the inevitable trash bin of film history.
To my surprise (and delight), it was my wife who suggested that we go to see it at the cineplex. Like me, she can’t refuse a good story centered on possession; and having that subject matter enduring a bit of a drought for us we took it in one Saturday morning. While I’m glad that we did get to see it up in the lights, I’ll also concede that – yeah – it wasn’t anything all that special … but damned if it didn’t seem like Crowe was actually having fun onscreen again?
From what I’ve learned, Exorcist is actually drawn from the real-life experiences of the late Father Amorth, a Biblical scholar, priest, author, and the one of the Catholic Church’s specialists on exorcisms. Wikipedia.org reports that – despite the measure of controversy his work created – the man conducted thousands of ceremonies to cleanse souls of evil; and he’s even left behind a few books detailing the extent to which the Devil – or whatever you choose to call the force of darkness in the world today – has tried manipulating those trapped in their weakest of possible moments. So whether you believe in the possibility or not, Amorth went about his work, and I’ve no doubt he helped improve the lives of so many in pursuit of such good deeds.
Now, having actually read several of the non-fiction books that have been – ahem – sensationalized with silver screen adaptations, I’ve no doubt that that screenwriters Michael Petroni, Evan Spiliotopoulos, and R. Dean McCreary likely went to great lengths to add more than a fair share of – erm – Hollywoodization to Amorth’s tale as told. In fact, I’ll bet that even director Julius Avery was in on the deal of ramping up the scares necessary to give Exorcist the possibility of truly getting good box office receipts … and who can blame them? If you don’t provide today’s audiences with enough sizzle, then they’re not likely going to order the steak; so I expect a good deal of the film’s more colorful and CGI-laden effects sequences are the result of ‘beefing up’ each and every reel to maximum potential. Still, the flick possesses thankfully a fairly one-minded track: there’s the introduction of a history-spanning conspiracy – one used to kick the door open for sequel potential, I might add – but the bulk of the time is spent with Amorth (played by Crowe), and he’s definitely a character all of his own.
Henry (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney) has spent the last year living his life in forced silence. The death of his father clearly left a mark on him while his mother Julia (Alex Essoe) and sister Amy (Laurel Marsden) have tried to create a new normal for him and themselves. But they’ve moved into an old Spanish abbey, and things – as you can imagine – begin to go bump in the night. It isn’t long before Henry finds his voice again, but this one would appear to be serving a dark master who even demands to see Father Amorth, suggesting that there’s a possible connection between the demon and the renowned exorcist. The local priest – Father Esquibel (Daniel Zovatto) – contacts the Vatican for assistance, and Amorth very quickly ascertains that there may be more at play here than just two souls in one body. He’s right, and that secret might spell doom for the church were it to see the light of day.
Because so much of Exorcist really functions on the traditional Horror formula, I found it hard to muster any real measure of sympathy for Henry and his family. The script paints them as traditional victims far too often, never really giving them enough exposure to make them come to life as what may’ve been authentic people in the trials of Father Amorth. Instead, they’re little more than cookie-cutter creations, sidelined by the battle of good versus evil once it begins. That’s sad because both Essoe and Marsden seemed fully capable of doing so much more here, and maybe they were given some better stuff that ultimately ended up on the cutting room floor.
Furthermore, it’s especially frustrating because Crowe here is given over to some wonderful little character bits – he kinda/sorta flirts with some nuns, he’s self-deprecating about his written works to a fault, and he steals a drink of liquor from a flask more than once, etc – and he makes the most of them. Paired up against the prim and proper Esquibel, they’re almost like a religious-themed Laurel and Hardy (Abbott and Costello? Starsky and Hutch?) on occasion; and that relationship – though light-hearted and shown sparingly – really gives Exorcist its better moments. Amorth becomes more than a character in a play/movie: it’s easy to see how some of these quirks might very well have descended from an actual living and breathing person, and that’s a refreshing addition to an otherwise systematic demonic encounter.
As you can guess, the script gets bigger and bigger in the finale – would Hollywood accept anything less? – and that cheapens some of what felt like real moments. Amorth is even given a bit of a flashback history involving a personal failure that gets in the way more than it helps define his character, but who amongst us doesn’t appreciate a priest putting his own demons to rest alongside everyone else’s? It’s all packaged and presented in such a way as to leave it necessarily wide open for a sequel … and I did hear on the news the other day that producers have begun putting something together for a follow-up.
The Pope’s Exorcist (2023) was produced by Screen Gems, 2.0 Entertainment, Loyola Productions, and a few more participating partners. (A full list is available for those interested on IMDB.com.) The film is presently playing theatrically across America. As for the technical specifications? This was a well-budgeted production; as such, there are plenty of high-quality sights and sounds for those expecting to be entertained by dark pursuits.
Recommended.
Even something as imperfect as The Pope’s Exorcist (2023) can be made better when you have a master of acting talent like Russell Crowe defending the forces of goodness and mercy. His participation alone gives the feature the spine necessary to support nearly all of the weight, and I’m not sure another talent could’ve shown up and provided the same backing. In fact, the film’s best when it just revels in the character of this somewhat dowdy yet occasionally sanctimonious do-gooder. The story is a bit rote, and the special effects get in the way at times more than they complement the narrative. Come for the villain, but you’ll likely leave rooting for the good guys in black once more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I took in a local screening of The Pope’s Exorcist on my own dime! So – as you can guess – there’s absolutely no influence whatsoever on my opinion of the film.
-- EZ
Because so much of Exorcist really functions on the traditional Horror formula, I found it hard to muster any real measure of sympathy for Henry and his family. The script paints them as traditional victims far too often, never really giving them enough exposure to make them come to life as what may’ve been authentic people in the trials of Father Amorth. Instead, they’re little more than cookie-cutter creations, sidelined by the battle of good versus evil once it begins. That’s sad because both Essoe and Marsden seemed fully capable of doing so much more here, and maybe they were given some better stuff that ultimately ended up on the cutting room floor.
Furthermore, it’s especially frustrating because Crowe here is given over to some wonderful little character bits – he kinda/sorta flirts with some nuns, he’s self-deprecating about his written works to a fault, and he steals a drink of liquor from a flask more than once, etc – and he makes the most of them. Paired up against the prim and proper Esquibel, they’re almost like a religious-themed Laurel and Hardy (Abbott and Costello? Starsky and Hutch?) on occasion; and that relationship – though light-hearted and shown sparingly – really gives Exorcist its better moments. Amorth becomes more than a character in a play/movie: it’s easy to see how some of these quirks might very well have descended from an actual living and breathing person, and that’s a refreshing addition to an otherwise systematic demonic encounter.
As you can guess, the script gets bigger and bigger in the finale – would Hollywood accept anything less? – and that cheapens some of what felt like real moments. Amorth is even given a bit of a flashback history involving a personal failure that gets in the way more than it helps define his character, but who amongst us doesn’t appreciate a priest putting his own demons to rest alongside everyone else’s? It’s all packaged and presented in such a way as to leave it necessarily wide open for a sequel … and I did hear on the news the other day that producers have begun putting something together for a follow-up.
The Pope’s Exorcist (2023) was produced by Screen Gems, 2.0 Entertainment, Loyola Productions, and a few more participating partners. (A full list is available for those interested on IMDB.com.) The film is presently playing theatrically across America. As for the technical specifications? This was a well-budgeted production; as such, there are plenty of high-quality sights and sounds for those expecting to be entertained by dark pursuits.
Recommended.
Even something as imperfect as The Pope’s Exorcist (2023) can be made better when you have a master of acting talent like Russell Crowe defending the forces of goodness and mercy. His participation alone gives the feature the spine necessary to support nearly all of the weight, and I’m not sure another talent could’ve shown up and provided the same backing. In fact, the film’s best when it just revels in the character of this somewhat dowdy yet occasionally sanctimonious do-gooder. The story is a bit rote, and the special effects get in the way at times more than they complement the narrative. Come for the villain, but you’ll likely leave rooting for the good guys in black once more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I took in a local screening of The Pope’s Exorcist on my own dime! So – as you can guess – there’s absolutely no influence whatsoever on my opinion of the film.
-- EZ
- Published on
The Five Millionaire Dollar Secret
Folks, unlike so many others who blog, vlog, or generally pontificate over the current state of the entertainment industry, I’ve always maintained that I just don’t understand the power that be or how they could possibly make some of the decisions that they do in their exalted positions.
As I’ve said, I don’t have industry spies. And – for the record – I’m not jealous of those who do. It takes a certain mindset and more than a fair amount of moxie to run a website predicated on newsworthy scoops and/or insider information. I never set out with the goal to make SciFiHistory.Net that kind of daily stop for those hungry to know a little bit about All Things Genre, but I salute those who do that on a regular basis. While maybe I’d love to be a fly on the wall like they are, there’s still that part of me who treasures being surprised when I go to the movies or turn on my favorite television show. That’s just how I’m wired. Sure, I monitor a fair number of outlets – mostly so I can stay aware of what’s going on in the business – but I try to avoid trafficking in rumors, gossip, and the like because – ultimately – I find so much of that disappointing and entirely frustrating.
For example, why would anyone running a studio like Lucasfilm and/or Walt Disney release Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi for its fortieth anniversary in theaters and not give it any advance advertising? It’s one of the more beloved Science Fiction and Fantasy films ever, and giving folks another chance to see it up in the lights – the way it was always intended – some might see as a dream come true … so why not promote it? No, no, no: I’m not talking about some major blockbuster release ad campaign – the kind of thing that racks up all kinds of bills – but something modest by comparison. A commercial here and there. Maybe a radio spot. Something! Anything! But … nothing … except for a specially designed poster that theatre chains can use on their websites?
Really?
It’s Saturday morning, and the wifey and I purchased our tickets in advance. We get up, get dressed in some of our humbler Star Wars shirts, and head out to the theater. We get there a bit early, so we stroll the strip plaza and step into a few of the stores open for the day. Now, I don’t know how many of you grew up in the 1990’s, reading comic books and the like, but – back in the day – the local comic book store was a Mecca all of its own. You’d have readers dropping by weekly to pick up their issues and browse whatever else was on the shelves. Animators or graphic artists hit those haunts. Musicians – typically local talent – could also be found under their roof. My point is that if you wanted to get the true pulse regarding anything big and pressing within all of Pop Culture happenings then the best place to do that was the comic book store.
So we step inside, and the clerk immediately notices our Star Wars shirts. She compliments us on our good tastes (naturally), and then she inquires why we were dressed as such. We explain that we’re just killing a few minutes waiting for the theater to open its doors as we have tickets to Return Of The Jedi for its fortieth anniversary blah blah blah … and this clerk had absolutely not idea the picture was playing!
“Wow,” she said. “That’s great. I’ll have to go home and see if my mom wants to go and see it. She loves those films.”
Though the wifey wasn’t aghast like I was, I didn’t show it to the clerk.
But – as I said – back in the day – you couldn’t screen anything from the Star Wars library on the silver screen and not know it was out there somewhere waiting for you to run out, plunk down your credits, and get yourself a seat. Here was a COMIC BOOK STORE – a business that quite probably owes as much to Star Wars as Star Wars owes to it – and its staff had absolutely zero knowledge of the film’s re-release.
Sunday night, I did a bit of digging, and I saw one outlet state that this limited re-issue of Episode VI grossed just under $5 million dollars this weekend. I get that – in this day and age – most folks are going to wave that pittance off because Marvel earns that at the drop of a hat … but Return Of The Jedi is a 40 year old film that – with no advance advertising whatsoever by Lucasfilm and/or Walt Disney (at least, none that I saw) – took in $5 million dollars.
Now, yes, yes, yes: I’m certainly up on what the podcasts are saying about the state of the franchise, Kathleen Kennedy, Bob Iger, The Mandalorian’s tanking TV ratings, and the like, but stick with me for a moment. Let’s say that everything fandom has been told about Kennedy is true. Let’s assume that she hates Star Wars. Let’s assume that she wants the era of George Lucas to go the way of the Dodo bird. Let’s agree that she hates the character of Luke Skywalker. Let’s accept that she thinks the Original Trilogy is dated and no longer relevant to today’s troubled times.
Why would you figuratively piss off the chance to have made $10 million? $20 million? Maybe even $30 million?
You’re still the head of a studio.
Don’t you have an inherent responsibility to see the Intellectual Property make money?
This is what I mean when I say that I don’t understand executives. (This isn’t limited to Kennedy alone.) Why would they ignore what could’ve been a small windfall? Why not throw up a few commercials to whet mankind’s appetite? It could still be a reasonably limited re-release – don’t put it in a billion theaters – and I’m thinking the buckets would still fill themselves with a paltry seven-day run.
Sigh.
And, sure, maybe I’m saying this in part because I find the Sequel Trilogy to be such obvious cash grabs, riddled with bad storytelling and forgettable characters and video-game sensibilities. I don’t begrudge anyone liking them. I’ve just accepted that they not for me, much like Star Wars really was for my generation as a kid going to the movies.
Kennedy and her ilk are free to do what they want with the franchise, but the characters of Luke, Han, Leia, Chewbacca, Darth Vader, C-3PO, and R2-D2 will always – ALWAYS – be Star Wars for me and for countless others. Failing to capitalize on this reality – or refusing to accept that it’s going to be that way for quite some time – only shows me the Peter Principle at work: they’ve been promoted to the level of incompetence, and this is likely why Hollywood is in constant disarray creatively. It’s too bad that people always vote with their wallets, isn’t it? For a fleeting two hours on Saturday morning, the Mouse House gave people what they wanted – for a change – but never intended (apparently) for folks to even know about it.
This is NOT the way.
-- EZ
Folks, unlike so many others who blog, vlog, or generally pontificate over the current state of the entertainment industry, I’ve always maintained that I just don’t understand the power that be or how they could possibly make some of the decisions that they do in their exalted positions.
As I’ve said, I don’t have industry spies. And – for the record – I’m not jealous of those who do. It takes a certain mindset and more than a fair amount of moxie to run a website predicated on newsworthy scoops and/or insider information. I never set out with the goal to make SciFiHistory.Net that kind of daily stop for those hungry to know a little bit about All Things Genre, but I salute those who do that on a regular basis. While maybe I’d love to be a fly on the wall like they are, there’s still that part of me who treasures being surprised when I go to the movies or turn on my favorite television show. That’s just how I’m wired. Sure, I monitor a fair number of outlets – mostly so I can stay aware of what’s going on in the business – but I try to avoid trafficking in rumors, gossip, and the like because – ultimately – I find so much of that disappointing and entirely frustrating.
For example, why would anyone running a studio like Lucasfilm and/or Walt Disney release Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi for its fortieth anniversary in theaters and not give it any advance advertising? It’s one of the more beloved Science Fiction and Fantasy films ever, and giving folks another chance to see it up in the lights – the way it was always intended – some might see as a dream come true … so why not promote it? No, no, no: I’m not talking about some major blockbuster release ad campaign – the kind of thing that racks up all kinds of bills – but something modest by comparison. A commercial here and there. Maybe a radio spot. Something! Anything! But … nothing … except for a specially designed poster that theatre chains can use on their websites?
Really?
It’s Saturday morning, and the wifey and I purchased our tickets in advance. We get up, get dressed in some of our humbler Star Wars shirts, and head out to the theater. We get there a bit early, so we stroll the strip plaza and step into a few of the stores open for the day. Now, I don’t know how many of you grew up in the 1990’s, reading comic books and the like, but – back in the day – the local comic book store was a Mecca all of its own. You’d have readers dropping by weekly to pick up their issues and browse whatever else was on the shelves. Animators or graphic artists hit those haunts. Musicians – typically local talent – could also be found under their roof. My point is that if you wanted to get the true pulse regarding anything big and pressing within all of Pop Culture happenings then the best place to do that was the comic book store.
So we step inside, and the clerk immediately notices our Star Wars shirts. She compliments us on our good tastes (naturally), and then she inquires why we were dressed as such. We explain that we’re just killing a few minutes waiting for the theater to open its doors as we have tickets to Return Of The Jedi for its fortieth anniversary blah blah blah … and this clerk had absolutely not idea the picture was playing!
“Wow,” she said. “That’s great. I’ll have to go home and see if my mom wants to go and see it. She loves those films.”
Though the wifey wasn’t aghast like I was, I didn’t show it to the clerk.
But – as I said – back in the day – you couldn’t screen anything from the Star Wars library on the silver screen and not know it was out there somewhere waiting for you to run out, plunk down your credits, and get yourself a seat. Here was a COMIC BOOK STORE – a business that quite probably owes as much to Star Wars as Star Wars owes to it – and its staff had absolutely zero knowledge of the film’s re-release.
Sunday night, I did a bit of digging, and I saw one outlet state that this limited re-issue of Episode VI grossed just under $5 million dollars this weekend. I get that – in this day and age – most folks are going to wave that pittance off because Marvel earns that at the drop of a hat … but Return Of The Jedi is a 40 year old film that – with no advance advertising whatsoever by Lucasfilm and/or Walt Disney (at least, none that I saw) – took in $5 million dollars.
Now, yes, yes, yes: I’m certainly up on what the podcasts are saying about the state of the franchise, Kathleen Kennedy, Bob Iger, The Mandalorian’s tanking TV ratings, and the like, but stick with me for a moment. Let’s say that everything fandom has been told about Kennedy is true. Let’s assume that she hates Star Wars. Let’s assume that she wants the era of George Lucas to go the way of the Dodo bird. Let’s agree that she hates the character of Luke Skywalker. Let’s accept that she thinks the Original Trilogy is dated and no longer relevant to today’s troubled times.
Why would you figuratively piss off the chance to have made $10 million? $20 million? Maybe even $30 million?
You’re still the head of a studio.
Don’t you have an inherent responsibility to see the Intellectual Property make money?
This is what I mean when I say that I don’t understand executives. (This isn’t limited to Kennedy alone.) Why would they ignore what could’ve been a small windfall? Why not throw up a few commercials to whet mankind’s appetite? It could still be a reasonably limited re-release – don’t put it in a billion theaters – and I’m thinking the buckets would still fill themselves with a paltry seven-day run.
Sigh.
And, sure, maybe I’m saying this in part because I find the Sequel Trilogy to be such obvious cash grabs, riddled with bad storytelling and forgettable characters and video-game sensibilities. I don’t begrudge anyone liking them. I’ve just accepted that they not for me, much like Star Wars really was for my generation as a kid going to the movies.
Kennedy and her ilk are free to do what they want with the franchise, but the characters of Luke, Han, Leia, Chewbacca, Darth Vader, C-3PO, and R2-D2 will always – ALWAYS – be Star Wars for me and for countless others. Failing to capitalize on this reality – or refusing to accept that it’s going to be that way for quite some time – only shows me the Peter Principle at work: they’ve been promoted to the level of incompetence, and this is likely why Hollywood is in constant disarray creatively. It’s too bad that people always vote with their wallets, isn’t it? For a fleeting two hours on Saturday morning, the Mouse House gave people what they wanted – for a change – but never intended (apparently) for folks to even know about it.
This is NOT the way.
-- EZ
- Published on
In the great 1980’s, the Apocalypse was big business … so far as the box office was concerned.
Though some have argued otherwise, I’ve honestly always chocked up interest in the end of the world as we know it based on the popularity of Australia’s Mad Max (1979) and its vastly better sequel Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981). The films sprang (in part) from the fertile imagination of director George Miller – along with screenwriting contributions from James McCausland and Byron Kennedy on the first film as well as Terry Hayes and Brian Hannant on the second. A young Mel Gibson truly emerged as a marquee star in the flicks, playing a cop-turned-vigilante in a world down under sent quickly into decline as a result of our planet slipping into the day of collective reckoning following a major global war. Both films were rewarded with critical and commercial acclaim, so – in the era where imitation is the sincerest form of flattery possible – filmmakers everywhere sought to tap into such doom and gloom with hopes of reaping similar box office receipts.
As tends to happen as a consequence of films being made quickly and only in pursuit of the mighty dollar, many of these lesser Mad Maxes were not only incredibly inferior but also monumentally forgettable. Little attention was paid to plot, character, and circumstances – perhaps the three greatest attributes that Miller and his crew got right – and sanity was sacrificed at the altar of creative costuming, hard-boiled dialogue, and decked-out muscle cars. Rushed through production, these features were either unceremoniously dumped into theaters or deposited straight to home video. If this is what the audiences wanted, then studios and independent filmmakers sought to deliver the goods as soon as was humanly possible, all in hopes of capitalizing on the latest trend at the cineplex.
One of the biggest purveyors of – ahem – cheap imitation was Italian B-Movie auteur Enzo G. Castellari.
In fact, Castellari dipped so deeply into this well that he bathed in the magical waters not once, not twice, but an incredible three times. His 1990: The Bronx Warriors (1982) depicted a devasted New York City overrun with gangs emerging on the cusp of Armageddon. In 1983, he went back (thematically) to the Big Apple for Escape From The Bronx which pitted the last survivors against extermination squads. In between those two releases, the writer/director completed Warriors Of The Wasteland (1983) which some have called the best of the trio. (Mind you: even if it is the best, that still isn’t saying much!) In it, a pair of nomads find that there’s safety in numbers when a bloodthirsty crew of religious zealots set their sights on wiping humanity out once and for all.
Though some have argued otherwise, I’ve honestly always chocked up interest in the end of the world as we know it based on the popularity of Australia’s Mad Max (1979) and its vastly better sequel Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981). The films sprang (in part) from the fertile imagination of director George Miller – along with screenwriting contributions from James McCausland and Byron Kennedy on the first film as well as Terry Hayes and Brian Hannant on the second. A young Mel Gibson truly emerged as a marquee star in the flicks, playing a cop-turned-vigilante in a world down under sent quickly into decline as a result of our planet slipping into the day of collective reckoning following a major global war. Both films were rewarded with critical and commercial acclaim, so – in the era where imitation is the sincerest form of flattery possible – filmmakers everywhere sought to tap into such doom and gloom with hopes of reaping similar box office receipts.
As tends to happen as a consequence of films being made quickly and only in pursuit of the mighty dollar, many of these lesser Mad Maxes were not only incredibly inferior but also monumentally forgettable. Little attention was paid to plot, character, and circumstances – perhaps the three greatest attributes that Miller and his crew got right – and sanity was sacrificed at the altar of creative costuming, hard-boiled dialogue, and decked-out muscle cars. Rushed through production, these features were either unceremoniously dumped into theaters or deposited straight to home video. If this is what the audiences wanted, then studios and independent filmmakers sought to deliver the goods as soon as was humanly possible, all in hopes of capitalizing on the latest trend at the cineplex.
One of the biggest purveyors of – ahem – cheap imitation was Italian B-Movie auteur Enzo G. Castellari.
In fact, Castellari dipped so deeply into this well that he bathed in the magical waters not once, not twice, but an incredible three times. His 1990: The Bronx Warriors (1982) depicted a devasted New York City overrun with gangs emerging on the cusp of Armageddon. In 1983, he went back (thematically) to the Big Apple for Escape From The Bronx which pitted the last survivors against extermination squads. In between those two releases, the writer/director completed Warriors Of The Wasteland (1983) which some have called the best of the trio. (Mind you: even if it is the best, that still isn’t saying much!) In it, a pair of nomads find that there’s safety in numbers when a bloodthirsty crew of religious zealots set their sights on wiping humanity out once and for all.
(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:
“Two mercenaries help wandering caravans fight off an evil and aimless band of white-clad bikers after the nuclear holocaust.”
Throughout the 1960’s and into the 1970’s, Italian filmmakers put their particular stamp on the Great American Western, and – thusly – the ‘Spaghetti Western’ was born. These films were, chiefly, shot in Italy where production costs were low; and the bulk of these storytellers sought to emulate the visual storytelling sensibilities of director Sergio Leone. Also, the lion’s share of these films cast American actors in the leading roles, thus guaranteeing the ‘bankability’ and marketability of these oaters around the world and not just in Europe. Despite varying wildly in quality, the Spaghetti Westerns undoubtedly left a mark on film history by both changing the way business was done as well as culturally influencing directors around the globe to follow in such stylistic footsteps.
For all its placement in the future, Warriors Of The Wasteland (aka The New Barbarians) is thematically little more than one of those Spaghetti Westerns. Its two heroes – Scorpion (played by Giancarlo Prete) and Nadir (Fred Williamson) – are lone gunslingers transported from another time and another place into tomorrow. Their horses are replaced by futuristic automobiles. Scorpion’s pistol is of the laser-firing variety instead of the classic six shooter, and Nadir – his somewhat savage, dark-skinned associate – chooses the bow-and-arrow as his weapon of choice. Though their escapades pack a more explosive wallop than did The Lone Ranger and Tonto, this construct – nomads on patrol – is the foundation upon which Castellari built this colorful vision.
Need more convincing?
Well, the first half of Wasteland spends most of its time introducing both characters and their mutual adversaries: the Templars are a white-clad religious sect whose leader One (George Eastman) believes he’s been chosen by God, Nature, or whatever force remains in this broken universe to cleanse the Earth of the dregs of humanity who have somehow survived the Apocalypse. Like missionaries who went out into the West with a religious conviction all of their own, One remains committed to his own vicious form of salvation; and he’ll stop at nothing to see anyone who stands in his way – man, woman, or child – dispatched into the great hereafter. Though they’re painted as quintessential outlaws, an argument could be made that the Templars are little more than villainous cowboys who’ve lost their way. Redemption is only possible if they clean what’s left of the world of the filth.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Two mercenaries help wandering caravans fight off an evil and aimless band of white-clad bikers after the nuclear holocaust.”
Throughout the 1960’s and into the 1970’s, Italian filmmakers put their particular stamp on the Great American Western, and – thusly – the ‘Spaghetti Western’ was born. These films were, chiefly, shot in Italy where production costs were low; and the bulk of these storytellers sought to emulate the visual storytelling sensibilities of director Sergio Leone. Also, the lion’s share of these films cast American actors in the leading roles, thus guaranteeing the ‘bankability’ and marketability of these oaters around the world and not just in Europe. Despite varying wildly in quality, the Spaghetti Westerns undoubtedly left a mark on film history by both changing the way business was done as well as culturally influencing directors around the globe to follow in such stylistic footsteps.
For all its placement in the future, Warriors Of The Wasteland (aka The New Barbarians) is thematically little more than one of those Spaghetti Westerns. Its two heroes – Scorpion (played by Giancarlo Prete) and Nadir (Fred Williamson) – are lone gunslingers transported from another time and another place into tomorrow. Their horses are replaced by futuristic automobiles. Scorpion’s pistol is of the laser-firing variety instead of the classic six shooter, and Nadir – his somewhat savage, dark-skinned associate – chooses the bow-and-arrow as his weapon of choice. Though their escapades pack a more explosive wallop than did The Lone Ranger and Tonto, this construct – nomads on patrol – is the foundation upon which Castellari built this colorful vision.
Need more convincing?
Well, the first half of Wasteland spends most of its time introducing both characters and their mutual adversaries: the Templars are a white-clad religious sect whose leader One (George Eastman) believes he’s been chosen by God, Nature, or whatever force remains in this broken universe to cleanse the Earth of the dregs of humanity who have somehow survived the Apocalypse. Like missionaries who went out into the West with a religious conviction all of their own, One remains committed to his own vicious form of salvation; and he’ll stop at nothing to see anyone who stands in his way – man, woman, or child – dispatched into the great hereafter. Though they’re painted as quintessential outlaws, an argument could be made that the Templars are little more than villainous cowboys who’ve lost their way. Redemption is only possible if they clean what’s left of the world of the filth.
Still not convinced?
Then how about the caravan of survivors who make their appearance in the second half of the picture? What might they resemble from a traditional oater? If one thinks of them like a wagon train heading out into the great outback in hopes of finally finding a place they can call home, then the comparison of Wasteland as a Western is undeniable. Like those settlers of old who would arrange their wagons in a closed circle, these fighters do the same, albeit here the circle is made of their broken and dilapidated automobiles. They live in their own little mobile commune, and they band together to defend everything that’s theirs when the Templars finally descend upon them.
At this point, I realize that there may yet be one or two holdouts. Persuasive arguments aren’t always convincing, and that’s why I saved the best piece of evidence until the last. Bear with me.
As tends to happen in Westerns, our chief hero – in this case Scorpion – suffers a fairly dramatic beatdown at the hands of his enemies, and the same takes place in Wasteland. Scorpion is captured. He’s strung up by his arms and legs in what services as a town square for the Templars, and One implores his minions to do their worst with him. It’s even suggested – though I’ll admit the filming of this was a bit confusing – that he’s anally raped by One, a torture I’ve read film scholars ascribe to a sub-culture of Italian films. After this, he’s mostly left for dead, giving Nadir the opportunity to swoop in, rescue the man, and put him back on the road to recovery.
Inevitably, all roads lead back to the caravan, and this is precisely where the Old West style showdown in the street is so aptly staged by director Castellari. Scorpion returns, laser gun on his hip and even the traditional Western poncho over his shoulders. It’s all arranged and photographed just like any classic gun draw, and if that doesn’t convince you of my perspective on the whole affair then you’re two mules shy of a wagon train!
None of this is to dismiss the problems inherent within the picture, and there are quite a few. Castellari’s vision of tomorrow is clearly hamstrung by the low-budget nature of Italian film production. While Scorpion is outfitted with a reasonably impressive muscle car (with just enough accessories added aboard to give it that otherworldly look), the rest of the vehicle fleet are these – gasp! – dune buggy style creations that probably evoke more laughter than they inspire terror. Akin to something out of Roger Corman’s Death Race 2000 (1975) if filmed in a senior retirement community, they just don’t evince that kind of grit, oil, and desperation as anything in the aforementioned Mad Max. By comparison, these transports ‘whine’ instead of chug like the traditional autos, and the fact that they look like their top speed might be 20 or 30 miles per hour certainly makes all chase sequences incredibly underwhelming.
Then how about the caravan of survivors who make their appearance in the second half of the picture? What might they resemble from a traditional oater? If one thinks of them like a wagon train heading out into the great outback in hopes of finally finding a place they can call home, then the comparison of Wasteland as a Western is undeniable. Like those settlers of old who would arrange their wagons in a closed circle, these fighters do the same, albeit here the circle is made of their broken and dilapidated automobiles. They live in their own little mobile commune, and they band together to defend everything that’s theirs when the Templars finally descend upon them.
At this point, I realize that there may yet be one or two holdouts. Persuasive arguments aren’t always convincing, and that’s why I saved the best piece of evidence until the last. Bear with me.
As tends to happen in Westerns, our chief hero – in this case Scorpion – suffers a fairly dramatic beatdown at the hands of his enemies, and the same takes place in Wasteland. Scorpion is captured. He’s strung up by his arms and legs in what services as a town square for the Templars, and One implores his minions to do their worst with him. It’s even suggested – though I’ll admit the filming of this was a bit confusing – that he’s anally raped by One, a torture I’ve read film scholars ascribe to a sub-culture of Italian films. After this, he’s mostly left for dead, giving Nadir the opportunity to swoop in, rescue the man, and put him back on the road to recovery.
Inevitably, all roads lead back to the caravan, and this is precisely where the Old West style showdown in the street is so aptly staged by director Castellari. Scorpion returns, laser gun on his hip and even the traditional Western poncho over his shoulders. It’s all arranged and photographed just like any classic gun draw, and if that doesn’t convince you of my perspective on the whole affair then you’re two mules shy of a wagon train!
None of this is to dismiss the problems inherent within the picture, and there are quite a few. Castellari’s vision of tomorrow is clearly hamstrung by the low-budget nature of Italian film production. While Scorpion is outfitted with a reasonably impressive muscle car (with just enough accessories added aboard to give it that otherworldly look), the rest of the vehicle fleet are these – gasp! – dune buggy style creations that probably evoke more laughter than they inspire terror. Akin to something out of Roger Corman’s Death Race 2000 (1975) if filmed in a senior retirement community, they just don’t evince that kind of grit, oil, and desperation as anything in the aforementioned Mad Max. By comparison, these transports ‘whine’ instead of chug like the traditional autos, and the fact that they look like their top speed might be 20 or 30 miles per hour certainly makes all chase sequences incredibly underwhelming.
As Scorpion, Prete does a serviceable job. While clearly looking the part of the screen hero, he never quite displays enough emotion to become relatable the way truly required for lasting audience appeal. He moves through his moments with conviction but never appears to be enjoying himself. By contrast, Williamson does appear to be not so much ‘living it up’ as he is ‘chewing scenery’ when afforded the opportunity. Some of the former athlete’s success here might be owed to the fact that he looks like an End Times loner; buffed and ready to rumble, his only downside might be that he was a bit too clean when his co-stars were unkempt. Eastman and co-star Ennio Girolami fill out the bill as evil leaders calling the shots for the Templars; but former Miss Italy Anna Kanakis appears buried under too much wig to evoke the level of sexiness methinks Castellari intended for her as the love interest.
Warriors Of The Wasteland (aka The New Barbarians) (1983) was produced by Deaf International and Fulvia Film.
(Mildly) Recommended.
While not achieving mainstream viability like the Mad Max films did, Castellari’s Warriors Of The Wasteland is, at best, an interesting diversion into a low-budget Apocalypse. Lacking some of the muscle required to truly sell the end of the world as we know it, the film coasts – as do its gnarly dune buggies – at unscary speeds far too much of the time. A few scenes resonate much the way the Italians Spaghetti Westerns did, and I say that there’s plenty of small favors in here to be thankful for. Still, Williamson hams it up just enough as an archer shooting explosive-tipped arrows, and rarely have bad guys blown up so good.
For those who like these kinds of details, I viewed Warriors Of The Wasteland (1983) as part of the Sci-Fi Fever 20 Film Collection released by Mill Creek Entertainment in 2013, a purchase I made via Amazon.com.
Warriors Of The Wasteland (aka The New Barbarians) (1983) was produced by Deaf International and Fulvia Film.
(Mildly) Recommended.
While not achieving mainstream viability like the Mad Max films did, Castellari’s Warriors Of The Wasteland is, at best, an interesting diversion into a low-budget Apocalypse. Lacking some of the muscle required to truly sell the end of the world as we know it, the film coasts – as do its gnarly dune buggies – at unscary speeds far too much of the time. A few scenes resonate much the way the Italians Spaghetti Westerns did, and I say that there’s plenty of small favors in here to be thankful for. Still, Williamson hams it up just enough as an archer shooting explosive-tipped arrows, and rarely have bad guys blown up so good.
For those who like these kinds of details, I viewed Warriors Of The Wasteland (1983) as part of the Sci-Fi Fever 20 Film Collection released by Mill Creek Entertainment in 2013, a purchase I made via Amazon.com.
- Published on
I’ve found that words like “rebellious” and “subversive” get thrown around an awful lot by people whom I don’t believe know the meaning of words like “rebellious” and “subversive.” Those are two words I’ve seen in many spaces used to describe All Cheerleaders Die (2013), and I’d caution my fellow critics to pull out the dictionary or invest in a good thesaurus should they wish to maintain such sterling reputations. Granted, this picture isn’t as squeaky clean as the Kirsten Dunst headlined Bring It On (2000) … but I honestly think it’s hard for something that makes as little cognitive sense as this film does to earn the adjective of “rebellious” or “subversive.”
Try “goofy,” and you have a winner!
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A rebel girl signs up a group of cheerleaders to help her take down the captain of their high school football team, but a supernatural turn of events thrusts the girls into a different battle.”
Sometimes it’s a bit difficult to figure out what to say about a feature, especially when the one I just finished looks like All Cheerleaders Die. Basically, it’s this story of female empowerment, largely achieved by putting its ladies in skimpy costumes, have them practicing witchcraft, then have them making out with one another, then have them dying and getting resurrected all because those stupid, stupid high school boys tried to kill them. While watching, I always try to form some basic impressions – some initial reaction – but so very much of the film seemed to vacillate between bad and just-plain-bad.
And when it feels like the writers, directors, or storytellers were deliberately trying to jerk you (as an audience) around, I usually find myself frowning at their obviousness.
Still, there’s some charm wrapped up with these Cheerleaders that was hard to defy even if that wasn’t my first instinct. Much of that comes from the performances of the main players (FYI: the girls, not the guys, who were basically as faceless as the next teen star). Caitlin Stasey, Sianoa Smit-McPhee, Brooke Butler, Amanda Grace Cooper, and Reanin Johannink might all share the pleasant distinction of being “easy on the eyes,” but they also manage to each bring some negligible spirit to this game that might not necessarily warm your hearts but should inspire you to keep watching. (I know that worked for me.) In particular, Butler practically attacks the screen with a kind of sure-footedness rarely seen from teen-ish newcomers, effortlessly switching between jilted young lover and Lolita-wannabe with accomplished grace (if not glee). Smit-McPhee pulls off the confused angst common to that age, and her character perhaps finds life’s answers she’s seeking in witchcraft with equal ease, though the first half of the flick shackles her with far too much predictability. However, all of these ladies definitely transcended the narrative weaknesses on display here, and I’d daresay they’re all ‘ones to watch’ in the years ahead.
Try “goofy,” and you have a winner!
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A rebel girl signs up a group of cheerleaders to help her take down the captain of their high school football team, but a supernatural turn of events thrusts the girls into a different battle.”
Sometimes it’s a bit difficult to figure out what to say about a feature, especially when the one I just finished looks like All Cheerleaders Die. Basically, it’s this story of female empowerment, largely achieved by putting its ladies in skimpy costumes, have them practicing witchcraft, then have them making out with one another, then have them dying and getting resurrected all because those stupid, stupid high school boys tried to kill them. While watching, I always try to form some basic impressions – some initial reaction – but so very much of the film seemed to vacillate between bad and just-plain-bad.
And when it feels like the writers, directors, or storytellers were deliberately trying to jerk you (as an audience) around, I usually find myself frowning at their obviousness.
Still, there’s some charm wrapped up with these Cheerleaders that was hard to defy even if that wasn’t my first instinct. Much of that comes from the performances of the main players (FYI: the girls, not the guys, who were basically as faceless as the next teen star). Caitlin Stasey, Sianoa Smit-McPhee, Brooke Butler, Amanda Grace Cooper, and Reanin Johannink might all share the pleasant distinction of being “easy on the eyes,” but they also manage to each bring some negligible spirit to this game that might not necessarily warm your hearts but should inspire you to keep watching. (I know that worked for me.) In particular, Butler practically attacks the screen with a kind of sure-footedness rarely seen from teen-ish newcomers, effortlessly switching between jilted young lover and Lolita-wannabe with accomplished grace (if not glee). Smit-McPhee pulls off the confused angst common to that age, and her character perhaps finds life’s answers she’s seeking in witchcraft with equal ease, though the first half of the flick shackles her with far too much predictability. However, all of these ladies definitely transcended the narrative weaknesses on display here, and I’d daresay they’re all ‘ones to watch’ in the years ahead.
As for the narrative weaknesses?
The script by Lucky McKee and Chris Sivertson (directed by same) never quite figured out what it wanted to be. Is this a Comedy? Is this a Drama? Is it Horror? Is this a cautionary tale for the modern era? Thirty minutes in, I found myself looking at my watch wondering when the main plot was going to show up; and, as no main character had yet emerged on the scene, I was ready to write this off as a creative failure. However, that’s about the point when a premise did show up … I just wish McKee and Sivertson knew what that premise was.
See, as much as Cheerleaders tried very hard to be about something (these ladies, these times, the black arts, etc.), it never quite successfully came together for me. In fact, I don’t doubt that there was a very good (if not great) short film in here (IMDB states this is based on ‘their original film’); but narrative bloat really makes these 90 minutes difficult to swallow. So very much of those first thirty minutes were loose, almost as if the writers didn’t quite know what the point of all of this was, and this kills any synergy from developing. Too many moments felt like they were pulled from the After School Specials of 1970’s and 1980’s television; but given the tone of brazen snark exhibited by the players was I really supposed to take those lessons seriously? Also, the sound engineering in those early moments wasn’t up-to-snuff (early on, it takes the aesthetic of the found-footage-film). Sorry, but when I can’t tell what folks are saying, I tend to tune out if not lose interest entirely.
Once the flick puts itself in full horror-camp mode, it becomes a vastly better feature. Sure, there are still some wild gaps in logic (what appears early on like Wicken magic gets ‘cheapified’ when it’s clear all one has to do is swallow stones to make yourself into a source of evil), but that’s all with keeping with the times. And the laziness of the writing.
Also? Hated most of the music soundtrack. Just downright hated it.
All Cheerleaders Die (2013) is produced by Moderncine. DVD distribution is being handled by RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Most of the film is very smartly constructed with solid sights and sounds; unfortunately – as mentioned above – the first 20-30 minutes really could’ve used a better mix as the blaring music soundtrack really drowned out practically everything the cast was saying. Lastly – if it’s special features you want – you can look forward to a brief (20 minutes) behind-the-scene featurette that I only found lukewarm.
(Mildly) Recommended, but ...
Not since the days of Lifeforce (1985) has a film lacked every such conviction to maintain any sense of logic to it, but that’s what you have to look forward to with All Cheerleaders Die (2013). It utterly makes no sense, but – like a car crash – you may find yourself drawn curiously and curiously closer to its characters and their bloody plight. I don’t know who writers/directors Lucky McKee and Chris Sivertson wanted to impress or offend, but odds are they achieved both goals in this little stinker that might just end up being the next great cult classic. Or not.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment provided me with a DVD copy of All Cheerleaders Die (2013) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The script by Lucky McKee and Chris Sivertson (directed by same) never quite figured out what it wanted to be. Is this a Comedy? Is this a Drama? Is it Horror? Is this a cautionary tale for the modern era? Thirty minutes in, I found myself looking at my watch wondering when the main plot was going to show up; and, as no main character had yet emerged on the scene, I was ready to write this off as a creative failure. However, that’s about the point when a premise did show up … I just wish McKee and Sivertson knew what that premise was.
See, as much as Cheerleaders tried very hard to be about something (these ladies, these times, the black arts, etc.), it never quite successfully came together for me. In fact, I don’t doubt that there was a very good (if not great) short film in here (IMDB states this is based on ‘their original film’); but narrative bloat really makes these 90 minutes difficult to swallow. So very much of those first thirty minutes were loose, almost as if the writers didn’t quite know what the point of all of this was, and this kills any synergy from developing. Too many moments felt like they were pulled from the After School Specials of 1970’s and 1980’s television; but given the tone of brazen snark exhibited by the players was I really supposed to take those lessons seriously? Also, the sound engineering in those early moments wasn’t up-to-snuff (early on, it takes the aesthetic of the found-footage-film). Sorry, but when I can’t tell what folks are saying, I tend to tune out if not lose interest entirely.
Once the flick puts itself in full horror-camp mode, it becomes a vastly better feature. Sure, there are still some wild gaps in logic (what appears early on like Wicken magic gets ‘cheapified’ when it’s clear all one has to do is swallow stones to make yourself into a source of evil), but that’s all with keeping with the times. And the laziness of the writing.
Also? Hated most of the music soundtrack. Just downright hated it.
All Cheerleaders Die (2013) is produced by Moderncine. DVD distribution is being handled by RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Most of the film is very smartly constructed with solid sights and sounds; unfortunately – as mentioned above – the first 20-30 minutes really could’ve used a better mix as the blaring music soundtrack really drowned out practically everything the cast was saying. Lastly – if it’s special features you want – you can look forward to a brief (20 minutes) behind-the-scene featurette that I only found lukewarm.
(Mildly) Recommended, but ...
Not since the days of Lifeforce (1985) has a film lacked every such conviction to maintain any sense of logic to it, but that’s what you have to look forward to with All Cheerleaders Die (2013). It utterly makes no sense, but – like a car crash – you may find yourself drawn curiously and curiously closer to its characters and their bloody plight. I don’t know who writers/directors Lucky McKee and Chris Sivertson wanted to impress or offend, but odds are they achieved both goals in this little stinker that might just end up being the next great cult classic. Or not.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment provided me with a DVD copy of All Cheerleaders Die (2013) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ