The older one gets, the more wisdom one is supposed to achieve.

Certainly, this isn't always the case.  Age tends to cloud one's mind -- not unlike the Dark Side of The Force (snicker snicker) -- and I've always thought that this happens mostly because I'm carrying a lot of excess baggage up there.  Having sat through countless hours of television and movies -- as well as living life itself -- my brain is pretty well chock full with about everything it can presently hold.  Adding further layers with the incredible number of books, graphic novels, and general whatnot, I can attest to the fact that it ain't easy keeping everything straight some day ... but I do honestly give it the best try.

That's why I come to you this morning with a bit of confusion.

From what I've been reading and listening to on the Information Superhighway, it would seem that the forthcoming Disney+ streaming series Ahsoka is blessed to be the 'second coming' of Star Wars ... which, after the 'second coming' of The Mandalorian wouldn't this be the 'third coming?'  There's an awful lot riding on this program -- at least, that's the indication I'm culling from fandom this morning -- and that's what has me just a bit befuddled.

I thought this character was universally loathed by fandom?

That's what I remember, anyway.

Introduced in the Star Wars: The Clone Wars movie in 2008 (which, yes, I'm one of the rare few who actually watched this one in theaters), Ahsoka Tano -- as voiced by the lovely Ashley Eckstein -- was a Jedi padawan that Yoda decided would be best served in being trained by non-Jedi Master Anakin Skywalker.  Apparently, Snips (as she was called) had a bit of an attitude, and Yoda deduced that pairing her up with Anakin might achieve two goals.  First, it would demonstrate to the apprentice that you can still "be yourself" while honing a stronger set of -- erm -- social skills to benefit society; and, second, her brash and mildly persnickety attitude might also temper Anakin's own brashness and -- erm -- persnicketyness.  (Is that a word?)  However, I think that Ahsoka's obvious childishness behavior worked against her on screens big and small, forcing the majority of fans to kinda/sorta turn against her as a character having greater purpose in this universe.

Eckstein -- I believe -- should be credited to winning over fans near and far.  While the character she inhabited wasn't exactly given either the best introduction to the galaxy far, far away nor written seamlessly into what existing canon there was for the Clone Wars era, the actress's incredible ability to both disarm haters (killing them with kindness) and bolster enthusiasm for a whole helluva lot of intellectual properties (check out her HerUniverse.com business to see what I mean) made her a favorite on the convention circuit.  I suspect this earned her an awful lot of goodwill amongst men, women, and children; and the end result is that Ahsoka's reputation was probably improved by Eckstein's incessant ebullience.

Tano's addition to live action required her to be recast, and Rosario Dawson answered the call to now play the somewhat 'fallen apprentice' for Disney+.  Her first appearance in The Mandalorian's second season (Chapter 13: The Jedi) was mostly well-received by fans (at least, so much as I followed it at the time).  There may've been some minor gripes here and there regarding her performance, but Dawson did an affable job picking up the lightsabers and swinging them in this opportunity.  She reappeared in the role for a bit of a cameo in The Book Of Boba Fett, but given that there really wasn't all that much for her to do in that outing I'll let that work be.

Flashing forward to where we are today -- deep in the midsts of a horrifically tepid third season of The Mandalorian -- it would seem that the wider Star Wars TV Universe finds itself in some disarray.

​Fans are voicing some legitimate criticisms about the Mando and friends show, fearing that it has forsaken all that made it a once shining star in the Outer Rim.  While I have mostly avoiding wandering into that fray (I did write about the 'State of the Empire' here), I've conceded with many that, yes, Mando -- from a narrative standpoint -- seems to have lost The Way; the latest installment wasted what prospects it had on celebrity cameos (Jack Black, Lizzo, and Christopher Lloyd) and essentially put the show's namesake character on the back burner yet again behind guest star Katee Sackhoff as Bo-Katan Kryze, a character whose backstory is honestly too complex to account for in this simply article.  Suffice it to say, fans were not happy, and who can blame them?  You don't go to a Clint Eastwood movie to watch the supporting players, and our once somewhat fearsome lead has been reduced to -- sigh -- some of the cheesiest one-liners this side of a B-Movie script.

It's a very human thing to do that -- once something new becomes old -- you turn your eyes toward something fresh, something vivid, and something that might return your perspective to untold heights; and I can't help but think that's what is going on (in fandom) with the amped up anticipation for the Ahsoka series.  We've seen very, very little of it online (trailer will be posted below), and we've heard very, very little of what its characters and circumstances ultimately might be.  But because it's finally building stride right smack dab in the middle of The Mandalorian's possible demise, are we simply giving it our blessing as the all-new 'Chosen One' well before it's aired?

​You folks know that I never like to rain on anyone's parade.

​So much of what fandom is these days sadly is the endless blogs and vlogs highlighting what's wrong in the world of pop culture, and I always try very, very hard to avoid becoming part of the usual noise online.  Growing up at a time when I did, I had to make myself keep busy with creating my own little stories to fill the time in between truly great flicks hitting the silver screen.  Today's audiences have a billion channels to choose from, so I think fandom -- as a consequence -- tends to take the easy way out: if they don't like a certain show, then they trash it and move on to something else ... which ends up being inferior, they trash it, keep moving, and the cycle begins a new.  But because of who I am -- because of when I was raised -- I do tend to exercise a bit of patience.  I'm willing to sit through -- ahem -- 40 minutes of The Mandalorian even if it only delivers ten good minutes ... and that's because I know what it's like to go without.  Most of today's younger viewers?  They don't know that struggle, and it shows.

I guess all I'm trying to say here is that maybe we -- as an audience -- should temper our own expectations of Ahsoka.  Keeping in mind that so many out there hated the character during so much of The Clone Wars, that might be prudent advice.  She's older now, true, and she's hopefully wiser.  She definitely was a more mature character in Star Wars: Rebels, but I don't want to open a whole new can of worms regarding what I thought of that show.  Let's just say it might not be pretty.

In any event ...

There's a bit of Star Wars news out there in cyberspace today, and the biggest bit includes a trailer for Ahsoka.  Feast your eyes on it, kiddies.  Whether you like it or not, it's coming.  Whether you love the character or not, she may -- or may not -- be the 'second coming' (or 'third') for that galaxy far, far away.  Trust in The Force, and let's hope for good things.  This is the way.

-- EZ 
​

When I’ve spent time debating the merits (or lack thereof) to genre film projects over the years, I’m usually the one person who argues that – at some point – Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror occasionally get made by folks who – shall I say? – try to make it something more than the sum of its parts.
 
For example, Fantasy films historically were much frowned upon by Hollywood and much of the viewing audiences throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s.  One could make the case that it wasn’t until high profile director John Milius paired up with budding screenwriter Oliver Stone in the 1980’s to bring the Arnold Schwarzenegger break-out hit Conan The Barbarian to theaters that true Fantasy was shown as the potential moneymaker it became for a time.  Sadly, all of the goodwill that flick established was largely wasted when the new franchise followed it up with the Richard Fleischer directed Conan The Destroyer (1984), pretty much setting the genre back to where it was before ‘the muscles from Brussels’ first suited up as the Robert E. Howard legend.
 
This isn’t in any way to suggest that there still weren’t some grand cinematic adventures brought to life in the intervening years; there were, but alas it really wasn’t until Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema truly risked it all in their adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy for modern audiences and returned epic Fantasy to its place at the box office.  Sadly, I’m of the contingent who feels Jackson and company also largely wasted their earned goodwill as well when he tried to create the same epic scope with his trilogy involving Tolkien’s The Hobbit.  The resulting three-picture slog felt like a mis-directed cash grab, but – at the end of the day – it is what it is.
 
Still, filmmakers who traffic in genre properties are prone to bite off more than they can chew especially when they try to deliver something that goes beyond Science Fiction or Fantasy or Horror’s normal boundaries.  At some point – especially when it comes to films of fright – storytellers have truly sought to add a bit of depth by going ‘meta;’ it’s no longer enough to merely thrill and chill the audiences when pushing the envelope allows for an almost existential commentary on the whole experience of what used to be simply being entertained between the opening and closing credits.  Now, directors want scripts that go bigger, reach broader, and emphasize boldness, even though all most viewers want is cool idea and a respectable body count.
 
When capturing thrills, chills, and spills are no longer sufficient, then you get a little something like Virtual Reality, a 2021 release that tries to raise the stakes by asking audiences to suspense their disbelief much more usual by playing on our collective fears of what an invasive artificial intelligence might do if it took control of our very fates.
​

(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 product packaging:
“A film director agrees to a dark pact to make his career take off.  When he summons the cast and crew to his house for a first-cut screening, they will have to survive a reality they never saw coming.”
 
While I think we’ve all likely watched one of those ‘film within a film’ stories, I’ll still give Virtual Reality some extra kudos for trying to do something just a wee bit different with it.  This Spanish-language carnival ride starts out by looking suspiciously very much like the last Horror picture you likely watched on home video; thankfully, it isn’t all that long before the curtain pulls back, a director calls cut, and viewers learn that the real feature film is just starting.  It doesn’t involve those all-too-predictable types – a young boy and his babysitter’s hide-and-seek antics are interrupted by a menacing killer with a battle-axe – but instead focuses on the cast and crew putting the finishing touches on their latest and greatest independent feature.  Now that it’s finally “in the can,” all that’s left is to gather at the director’s nearby posh home and take a gander at what they’ve achieved … and this is where reality becomes a bit more virtual, if you catch my drift.
 
In order to amp up the screen bloodlust, the director and producer have made an agreement to use an Artificial Intelligence that can interface with the shot footage, recreate the involved characters along with the designed sets, and augment the film with greater and greater scares.  But the problem with selling one’s soul to the Devil – especially in the entertainment industry – is that the Prince of Darkness usually wants more than your willing participation: as fate would have it, this A.I. possesses the ability to interface with reality, meaning that if your character dies on film then the actor or actress playing also suffers the same demise … with equal amounts of pain, torture, and bloodshed.
 
So … the short skinny on Virtual Reality is that – if you accept in this kind of fantastic technology being possible in the slightest – then the film makes perfect sense.  Should you not?  Well, not every film is made for you and me, you know.
 
As for the long skinny?
​

Director Hernán Findling – who penned the script with Lourdes Prado Mendez – stays close enough to the construct as designed to make some effective scares work well between the real and the somewhat imagined world.  He paces each of the reveals expertly, allowing the principles to play both their character and their real self’s increasing tension to the point wherein it’s all believable enough.  There’s even a bit of misdirection both within and beyond the fictional film as these people try to build alliances with their screen counterparts, allowing the actors and actresses to attempt convincing the characters they play that the only way out of both worlds is by working together.  (Imagine real-life actor Mark Hamill breaking the fourth wall in order to advise Luke Skywalker just how to avoid death at the hands of Darth Vader, and you get the idea.)
 
While it’s an occasionally clever idea, Findling’s tale never quite reaches for anything more than the obvious comedy of it.  (Don’t get me wrong: there’s plenty of blood, which most fans show up expecting.)  Those who bear with the project until the big finish will come to accept that it’s really little more than what filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock dubbed ‘the MacGuffin,’ a basic premise around which all characters of a script come together.  (And – for the record – there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.)  At times, this A.I. appears to be under some master craftsman’s control, while at other points it truly seems to have that artificial mind of its own.  A stronger script would’ve been required to ultimately make sense of why these two worlds are tied so closely together, but that’s usually not what Horror does extremely well.  Instead, this is intended as a ‘scare factory,’ and it works relatively well on that front.
 
If there are any shortcomings to Virtual Reality (beyond the basic premise), then I’d have to point out that – given what’s taking place – the script requires a great amount of set-up.  To a degree, that makes sense – the more complicated the scenario, the longer it takes to reach the right ‘jumping off’ point – and I can’t help but wonder if a tighter cut would’ve served the project better.  Much of this feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone, that wonderful Rod Serling concept that works best at 30 or 60 minutes maximum.  At just under ninety minutes, this Reality took about thirty minutes to really get to the main course wherein the audience clearly understands what’s going on; and there are a few scenes here and there in that accompanying set-up that just didn’t serve the overall narrative, meaning they could’ve easily been trimmed.  (I suspect all involved were hoping for a ninety-minute feature, so some of these sequences could’ve been padding.)
 
As for the players?
 
Meh.
 
I rarely pick on the screen talent because they can only work with the material that’s been provided; and – in their defense – an awful lot of both worlds in bloody conflict within this Reality require sticking to Horror’s formula in order to be successful.  By design, the people in the flick are largely the same kind of stereotypical young and/or naïve simpletons required to make some of Horror’s complexities work on the level that they do.  As the implied main character, Vanesa Gonzalez (as Guadalupe) makes the most of serving as second fiddle in both realms; the script posits her as the story’s ‘heart of gold’ underdog, and the actress definitely hit her marks when the narrative required it.
​

Virtual Reality (2021) was produced by Lahaye Media and Wit Producciones.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the good people at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  The sights and sounds of this film are very, very good from start-to-finish: there are a few sequences in the opening set-up of the picture that were understandably dark, but they don’t distract from the overall aesthetic (especially once you learn that it’s kinda/sorta mocking the standard Horror tropes to a degree).  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, get ready for the disappointment as there’s zip, zero, and zilch on here.  A big miss, so far as this reviewer is concerned, as even a modest making-of or promotional interview would’ve been easy-peasy.
 
Recommended.
 
Trust me when I say that it isn’t always easy to define a Horror release these days when it tries to stretch beyond the typical conventions, and Virtual Reality earns a bit of extra respect for – at the very least – trying to bring something a bit fresh technologically to what could otherwise be little more than a routine thriller killer.  Still, I’d encourage viewers to not think too deeply about its SciFi construct for fear that – should you do so – you’ll truly ruin the mildly vicarious ride that the cast and crew put together for mass consumption.  Performances work well enough – they’re not perfect – but we’ve seen some of these ‘meta moments’ before, though with slightly different assembly.
 
(POST SCRIPT: A word of advice to those who do decide to take this wild ride … there’s an after credits scene you might not want to miss.  I think it truly shows just how far the creator wanted his viewers to question reality.  While it isn’t all that different from the story’s true finale, it does underscore the message of this particular ball of yarn.)
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Art Exploitation Films and Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Virtual Reality (2021) 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

Greetings, faithful SciFiHistory.Net readers!

Apologies for the lack of MainPage posts these last few days, but the wifey and I enjoyed a few days off locally so that we could both get a few things done as well as squeeze in some meals and merriment.  She introduced me to Top Golf, and a good time was had by all!  Also watched the John Wick 4 movie, loved it, and caught up on our sleep ... which is always a welcome distraction.

In any event ... back to our regularly scheduled program ...

As I've mentioned before, SciFiHistory.Net has grown considerable over the years.  Consequently, I'm occasionally contacted by folks in the media to kinda/sorta 'shuck' and/or promote some of their upcoming productions.  Sometimes I'm even offered screeners so that I can do the stewardly thing, watch it, have something relevant to say about it, and -- thusly -- give it an endorsement in some way, shape, or form.  I thought that was the case with this project, but as of today's date no screener link or product has been offered.  So's all I can do at this juncture is merely pony up the materials supplied in their press release and leave it up to you folks to what with it what you will.

Colonials appears to be releasing April 7th (this upcoming Friday) according to the kind people at IMDB.com, and I'm assuming that's chiefly a digital release as physical media mostly hits the shelves on Tuesdays (weekly).  Directly by the team of Andrew Balek and Joe Bland, the feature presentation stars Daniel Roebuck, Sean Kanan, Louise Barnes, Jamie Bernadette, and Greg Kriek.  Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:

"A space colonist traveling from Mars crash lands on Earth to save a Resistance stuck in the dark ages from an advance Moon enforcer - and the galaxy from human extinction."

And that, my friends, is all I can tell you personally about the flick.  (Well, aside from the details you can read about below, and I do encourage you to read on.)  If I learn anything further or am provided a screener, I'll be all too happy to pony up some thoughts as it does look like the kind of thing that draws the eye of the usual suspects 'round these parts.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

(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:
“Concerned with population over-growth, the Earth government bans, under the penalty of death, all pregnancies but one couple decides to risk having a real baby rather than legally adopt a cyborg child.”
 
Now …
 
In Z.P.G.’s defense, I think it’s important to point out that the feature was both conceived and shot during a period of Science Fiction cinema wherein storytellers had a vested interest in weaving yarns they felt that society – as a whole – needed to hear.  Mankind was growing by leaps and bounds, and the sheer magnitude of these new people were allegedly already taxing our planet’s resources beyond their manageable limits; and Hollywood felt it their personal responsibility to inform their ‘cultural inferiors’ that changes were a’comin’ – whether they liked it or not – and if your average Tom, Dick and Harry didn’t toe the line then the whole world was in for an endless series of catastrophes that would spell doom for each and every one of us.
 
Sound familiar, you global warming enthusiasts?  And here you folks believed you were first to the party!
 
For example, 1971’s The Omega Man (Warner Bros., Boris Sagal directed) takes audiences to a time when a biological war has all but wiped-out civilization except for the vampire-like survivors living out their nights in pursuit of Robert Neville (played by Charlton Heston), one of our world’s last uncontaminated Earthlings.  This cult will stop at nothing to kill Neville because they believe this will ultimately give way to a new era, one wherein they will be at the top of the food chain.  1972’s Silent Running (Universal Pictures, Douglas Trumbull directed) portrayed a dire future wherein endless wars had all but destroyed our planet’s ecosystem, and the various governments of the world opted to preserve what flora they could aboard a series of greenhouse spaceships.  Bruce Dern played astronaut Freeman Lowell, a specialist who decides the plants are too good for us so he sets out to destroy the fleet rather than give his fellow man a second chance at survival.  1973’s Soylent Green (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Richard Fleischer directed) was, perhaps, one of the darkest yet: Detective Thorn (Charlton Heston again) inadvertently uncovers a conspiracy involving a powerful company providing food to our overpopulated society … but what that food is might very well be solving the population crisis without our knowledge!
​

There are others, but I think these three aptly demonstrate the trend within Science Fiction that pointed the finger squarely at every one of us: we were the cause of the world’s greatest ills, and if we didn’t get our appetites under control then extinction would be the necessary outcome.
 
Into this mix was introduced a 1968 best-seller – “The Population Bomb” by Paul R. Ehrlich – a popular yet wildly inaccurate prediction of just how quickly we were heading into this Apocalypse.  While I won’t get into the particulars of not just how wrong but how deeply wrong Ehrlich’s forecasts were, I think what matters most is that for a time his dire rhetoric filled just the right ears to actually give license to a modest measure of his suggested behavioral modifications.  Because he amply fueled a media sensation with his prognostications, director Michael Campus joined screenwriters Max Ehrlich and Frank De Felitta in bringing one interpretation of these visions to life for the silver screen.
 
Z.P.G. – Zero Population Growth postulates a future wherein manmade ills – gluttony, greed, lust, pollution, and you name it else – have left our world a shell of its former self.  Governments of the world have combined, forcing survivors into population centers wherein they can be properly managed and/or eliminated based on the willingness to abide by martial law.  Those willing to abide by the strictest requirements might even benefit from special exemptions, earning either more rations or a better home in exchange for subservience.  Yet – most of all – no births will be allowed … under the penalty of death for all those involved.  Father.  Mother.  And child.  No exceptions.
 
As you can imagine, this is a construct that makes for interesting drama as some would argue that it’s part and parcel of the human experience to create a legacy, whether this be a lasting reputation, some service to mankind, or starting a family.  Science has shown us that women have an innate need to birth and nurture children, and men participate in the act of rearing the child through adolescence into maturity.  Because of this biological need, the ‘WorldGov’ (as its called) has created a series of cybernetic children; couples wishing to apply might receive a robotic youngster to call their very own.  (Don’t worry: it’s equipped with a ‘bonding’ interface to give it that ‘real kid’ feel.)
​

After an obligatory set-up, this is exactly where ZPG begins: Russ (Oliver Reed) and Carol (Geraldine Chaplin) stand waiting in what seems an endless line to receive their government-sponsored childbot.  Once they get to the front, Carol sees the plastic robot for what it is – synthetic hair, doll eyes, and a mechanical gait and speech – and refuses to go through with it.  Her desire is for a real offspring – one grown inside her as an expression of her love for her husband – and she rushes from the establishment.  Russ quickly follows, and – though he’s a bit exasperated with her emotional outburst – he leads her back to their domicile.
 
As one might guess, Carol’s desire won’t be thwarted.  One night after coupling with her husband, she silently refuses the home’s abortion machine, and their dramatic nightmare begins.
 
Though ZPG toys with a few related ideas, the script eventually reaches a point wherein most of the action revolves around the secret newborn and the lengths our lead couple have to go to both keep it healthy and alive.  There’s a subplot involving their neighbors George and Edna (Don Gordon and Diane Cilento) who’ve also had the ‘baby itch’ and work to turn the tables of the new parents in order to abscond with the child as their own.  It backfires – to a degree, but I won’t spoil it – but sets the film on course for its last reel, one that explores just how far a family’s love might push them when the government state stands in the way of its very existence.
 
As a story, ZPG has probably bitten off just enough that it can effectively chew.  The script pretty much sticks to a single track, so the developing scenes all have their own necessity.  Director Campus makes solid use of some minimalist decor as well as the occasional crowd control, showing us a world that reminds us of where we were as well as projecting one possible road to our future.  A few sequences have a delicious claustrophobia to them, giving audiences the anticipation of the very walls slowly closing in on our two leads.  There’s a solid milieu established consistently in the picture; a lesser steward might’ve given way to a bit of excess but most of the scenes function on their own inherent effectiveness.  He definitely keeps things moving once the tale’s central conflict is introduced, but the flick does lag in a few places wherein Chaplin’s wanton gazes or Reed’s undefinable stares are given a bit too much screen exposure.
 
Still, I was a bit let down with its conclusion.
 
Given the circumstances of their ostracization, it’s entirely understandable why Russ and Carol (and baby makes three!) engage their final course of action.  This isn’t to suggest in any way that they had a lot of options; but fleeing into the great beyond – or what’s left of one – might’ve been the only authentic possibility to the world as they’ve come to know it.  Dare I suggest that it’s the easiest way out?  Where Campus ultimately deposits these characters, though, begs the question as to whether or not they’ll truly survive – one could even argue that there’s the hint of a sequel at play – and I thought audiences deserved a stronger answer, one that might’ve resounded with even a cheer rather than a whimper.
​

Alongside George Orwell’s 1984, I’d also argue that ZPG certainly shows the authentic fascist dangers of institutional overreach on the part of centralized government.  The characters who populate this world do so only with their full subservience to an unseen yet omnipresent overlord; this is one of cinema’s better depictions of a chief administration that no longer serves the individual but vice versa.  Authorities – even your family doctor – appear via massive television screens, and they speak in tones of power, severity, and finality.  (Carol’s visit with her personal physician regarding her unquenchable desire to have a baby is particularly chilling, aided by a brief but effective performance by Aubrey Woods as the not-so-nice physician.)  Aircraft hover over the city dispensing daily instruction to its citizens, telling them not only the how and why of their existence but also encouraging some to report on their neighbors’ unwillingness to comply with federal edicts.  You’ve heard of ‘see something, say something?’  This is that on steroids, and you just might earn your next meal ticket for ratting out your brother.
 
Dark times, indeed.
 
Z.P.G. – Zero Population Growth (1972) was produced by Sagittarius Productions, Inc.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) was coordinated by the good people at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  This 2017 release doesn’t show that the sound and/or video were upgraded, so I’m working from the assumption that this was a standard release.  As for the special features?  Well, there’s an audio commentary track provided by film historian Steve Ryfle that’s definitely worth a listen.  Sadly, I didn’t think the track gave much information on this particular film so much as it tried to balance the expert’s reflections on Science Fiction of its era with recounting an awful lot of facts and figures related to the wider cast and crew.  It’s a good listen; I just don’t recall all that much being film specific.
 
Recommended.
 
Because so very much of Z.P.G. – Zero Population Growth’s overall aesthetic is decidedly dour, it’s the kind of experience that might be considered a one-timer.  Repeat watching – unless you’re really, really, really into this kind of thing – is negligible at best.  Still, I think the film rather efficiently makes use of its grim circumstances in enough small and palatable ways that it deserves to be discovered by fans of such flicks as Planet Of The Apes (1968), THX 1138 (1971), Silent Running (1972), and Logan’s Run (1976).  In fact, I thought the film thematically was very similar to Logan’s Run – it might even make a great double bill for enthusiasts who want to enjoy them back-to-back – except it doesn’t end with the same upbeat tone as does Run.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that this review was penned entirely as a result of my personal purchase of Z.P.G. – Zero Population Growth from Amazon.com (the 2017 Kino Lorber release).

​-- EZ

Zombies never go out of style. 
 
Sure, they may change from slow-moving zombies to fast-moving zombies, but the undead will always be the undead.  I guess you could say that – to borrow a phrase from fashion – zombies are the new black.  Where I don’t much care for the new wave of zombie features is that they don’t entirely respect the science behind the creation of these walking dead, and Zombie Massacre kinda/sorta jumps onto that bandwagon.  These zombies aren’t so much traditional zombies as they are ‘zombified’ monsters that share some of the typical characteristics of our beloved animated corpses.  That’s a’right, I suppose, because Massacre is the kind of flick that probably has a very short life span … much like any of its lumbering beasties heading face-first toward our well-armed heroes.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters.  If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
Some kind of military toxin gets loose from a secret Romanian government installation.  It’s absorbed into the air and, inevitably, produces a black rain that infects anything it touches.  Voila!  An entire Romanian city is gone (would that really be such a bad thing?), as its populace becomes ravaged by the manmade illness.  Of course, this is somehow a United States’ facility (???), which only implies that there’s bound to be some crooked military officers desperate to cover Uncle Sam’s arse, and that almost always involves mercenaries.
 
No expense is spared – well, this is a Uwe Boll production, after all, so some expense is spared – to hire the best: a Schwarzenegger wannabe named Jack Stone (played with little appeal or charisma by Christian Boeving) and a handful of others, including a samurai sword wielding chick (Tara Cardinal) only because samurai sword wielding chicks are hot, get dispatched to do the unthinkable: detonate an explosion that’ll nuke the dead city, thereby disposing of the dead and any incriminating evidence.
 
On that front, much of Zombie Massacre – written and directed by Marco Ristori and Luca Boni – is a respectable twist of the tried-and-true formula of employing soldiers of fortune to do a government’s bidding.  Sure, none of them can really act worth a damn; why they’re always shot in ridiculous close-ups denies a suitable narrative explanation; and the fact that the professional sniper appears really awkward and (dare I say?) unschooled in using a rifle are inconvenient truths even Al Gore could spot without the help of bloated science.  The problem – often the case with many of Boll’s low budget disasters – is that when you look too close you realize how little sense all of it makes.
 
Such as why is there a redneck vacationing in Romania?  Why is it that, after Stone orders his commandos to conserve ammo, they start firing willy-nilly into crowds of zombies blocks away?  Why hang so many unnecessary flashbacks on a story best told in present time?  What’s the deal with the tacked on coda featuring the most voluptuous zombie-women ever filmed?  And where in the Sam Hill did this Zombie King from the big finish come from?
 
Look, anyone who’s followed me even modestly will tell you that I have no problem with B movies.  I grew up on B movies.  Love ‘em.  Some of my favorite flicks happen to be B movies.  Zombie Massacre is the kind of film Michael Pare or even Jean-Claude Van Damme would’ve made in the late ‘80’s.  There’s nothing wrong with C-grade actors trying for B-movie sainthood.  But – next time – could someone at least put a bit more thought into it?
 
Zombie Massacre (2012) (aka Apocalypse Z) is produced by 1988 Games, Boll Kino Beteiligungs GmbH & Co. KG, Event Film Distribution, and Extreme Video Snc.  DVD distribution is being handled through Entertainment One (EOne).  As for the technical specifications, the picture looks and sounds pretty respectable, and – outside of the practical creature/monster/zombie effects – it’s all been assembled with the best Apps money can buy.  And, to its credit, the disc boasts a few special features, including a making-of featurette, some interesting storyboard comparisons, and the theatrical teaser and trailers: a nice package if you’re interested, but it won’t change the way you see the world of Uwe Boll.
 
(Mildly) Recommended … and I do mean “mildly.”
 
For a straight-to-DVD B movie, Zombie Massacre could’ve been an awful lot worse, and, realistically, it isn’t until the latter half that the wheels come off entirely when it seems like writer/directors Marco Ristori and Luca Boni threw away the script and started making it up as they went.  I’ve seen bad schlock, and this one honestly had a respectable chance to garner some modest praise (of which I’ve tried to provide), but, in the end, one man’s massacre is another man’s Uwe Boll production.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Entertainment One (EOne) provided me with a DVD copy of Zombie Massacre by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

​-- EZ

​It’s been said that, in space, no one can hear you scream, and that’s probably a good thing.
 
When it comes to SciFi/Horror hybrids, it’s actually quite difficult to get the mix just right.  Too much of any one thing overwhelms the other half, and the end result often feels uneven.  More often than not, it ends up being one-sided, much more in favor of Horror than it is SciFi, and the mismatch kills the possibility for building an audience of any notable size.  Why is that?  Well, that’s probably because most hardcore SciFi fans aren’t as fond of Horror as they could, should, or would be … and I’ve been told the opposite is true as well.
 
On that point, Stranded tries very hard to walk that fine line, but, as you’ve probably already guessed if you’re here reading the review about it, I think it fails.  However, I don’t think it failed as badly as it could have – the end result is that all too often the film feels vastly derivative of other better works.  When you’re, say, “inspired” to do something in the vein of Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) or John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), that’s a great place to start.  If you’re not equipped to do that derivation justice, then maybe you should’ve hung it all up before you started.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters.  If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
The Ark Moonbase – under command of Colonel Gerard Brauchman (the increasingly forgettable Christian Slater, which is very, very sad) – finds itself cut off from all communications with Earth due to an unexpected meteor shower.  The four-man crew does what it can to save themselves, but when a vicious alien lifeform finds its way onto the station, they’ll risk life and limb to evacuate before becoming the beast’s dinner!
 
My initial problems with Stranded really do stem from what I’d have to call its cookie-cutter plot.  While I certainly can’t prove how Christian Piers Betley and Roger Christian wrote their film, I’m still inclined to believe that they approached it like a cook does a recipe: put in one dash of Alien (1979), put in two cups The Thing (1982), add just a dash of Sunshine (2007), and sprinkle it liberally with two teaspoons of Das Boot (1981) just for seasoning.  Everything – and I do mean everything – in here feels as though it was pieced together based entirely on their respective inspirations.  On the surface, one might conclude that, with all of those terrific flavors, they’d end up as a real winner.  Instead what director Christian delivers feels only half-baked.
 
I mean … did this project even have a science advisor?  I would honestly have to guess that – since there was science all over it – they should have.  Well, if they did, that advisor probably should be taken out and drawn-and-quartered for good measure as so very, very, very little of it makes even common sense, nor is much of it practical.  Things like “how is it they have gravity on a moonbase?” shouldn’t be just a passing fancy.  How is it that one astronaut/scientist visually detects a spore on the surface of a downed meteor when spores are commonly microscopic and require a certain amount of scientific examination … and then, in the next scene, the audience is shown that the spores are, in fact, inside the rock?  How did he see it on the outside, then?  And how is that fire burning inside the cargo bay that you just said has no air?  And when the station loses all power, how is it that the gravity and life support are sustained?  And why do the chairs on a moonbase – a fixed and immovable installation – have safety belts if you’ve visually established that they have gravity?
 
And don’t even get me started on the “massively accelerated space pregnancy” that the station’s physician detects!
 
In any event, Stranded may not be very smart, but what it does have is some nice elements.  For example, the special effects team delivered up some nice practical miniatures that serve as the space station and the lunar surface; despite being readily identifiable as miniatures, they’re still quite good.  Furthermore, the station’s interiors do feel largely claustrophobic, much like contemporary spacecraft and space station modules are.  Those are some nice touches, and no doubt they were made by folks who have an established appreciation for Science Fiction.  When you’re delivering cinema of this type on a budget, it pays for you to get a few things right; at the very least, Stranded did.
 
Stranded (2013) is produced by Gloucester Place Films, International Pictures Three, Minds Eye Entertainment, and Moving Pictures Media.  DVD distribution is being handled through RLJ Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds mostly very solid – certainly as good as most direct-to-DVD releases go.  To my surprise, the disc does boast a few special features – nothing all that grand – but they’re worth a quick look: the ‘Making Of Stranded’ and ‘Life on the Moon: The FX of Stranded.’  They’re short, but they’re quite nice compared to some other special features I’ve had the misfortune of watching.
 
(Mildly) Recommended.
 
As I’m sure most will disagree with me, even the smallest, weirdest, and/or worst films can have some merit, and Stranded – despite a plethora of scientific, logistical, and narrative shortcomings – had a solid chance to be something greater than what it was.  From a nostalgia standpoint, I loved the fact that they used practical miniatures – damn near unheard of in science fiction these days – for the Ark Moonbase, and I thought the set direction was better-than-average with some nice claustrophobic moments captured within its interiors.  Otherwise, yes, it’s a mostly forgettable spin on material we’ve seen explored to vastly greater effect elsewhere.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD copy of Stranded by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

​-- EZ

​Stuart Gordon’s Re-Animator is one of those rare films I’ve taken over thirty years to have something to finally say about it.
 
I first saw the thing all the way back in the great 1980’s, and – though I could be wrong about the location – I’m pretty sure it was at a college friend’s home where I stayed over school break.  If I remember correctly, it had come out on home video (VHS) fairly recently, and one of the clerks in the corner video store strongly recommended it to us when we were searching for something different.  We took the suggestion, and – again, I may have the particulars a bit off here – I’m pretty certain we sat through it not once but twice.  That’s what young minds used to do back in the day, folks, when there was absolutely nothing else within thirty miles of desolate farmland for entertainment – we watched things twice.
 
As I recall, my buddy loved the thing through and through, but I was a bit guarded.  I recall having a whole lot of questions the first time the screen faded to black.  While the picture clearly had a great mash-up of ideas – both gratuitous and cerebral – there was still something that kept me from warmly embracing it.  I agreed it was likely going to become a huge, huge, huge cult hit (which it most definitely has), but I argued that those who liked to think a bit more about stories would stumble over its storytelling deficiencies here and there.  However, we both liked it enough to rent it once more for its screening at our fraternity house once school resumed … and, yes, it had just the right appeal for a college-aged audience to moan and groan over in the proper measure.
 
Still, it was a picture that stuck in the back of my mind as the years went by.  I’d stumble across references to it in my reading on films, and I definitely kept an eye out for the subsequent projects of writer/director Stuart Gordon, actor Jeffrey Combs, and scream queen Barbara Crampton.  Yes, their involvement in other properties encouraged me to pick up and watch something that otherwise wouldn’t have appealed to me, and the respect I hold for each of them has finally prompted me to sit down and pen a reflection on my first experience with them.

(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 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:
“After an odd new medical student arrives on campus, a dedicated local and his girlfriend become involved in bizarre experiments centering around the re-animation of dead tissue.”
 
Folks, it goes without saying that I’ve always (always!) been afflicted with a singular curse: I think too much about stories.
 
As one who has dabbled quite a bit in the weaving of my own fictional tapestries, I’ve always gone to great pains to try to make absolutely certain that every piece within a broader tale makes sense.  A story is, mostly, the assembly of pieces; and – like anything disassembled – it can be put together a variety of ways.  For me, each component should have a time and a place.  It should be given the proper amount of attention needed in order to establish both its existence and, ultimately, its purpose; and when these various fragments aren’t clearly defined for the audience the resulting confusion is owed to an inferior storyteller.
 
This isn’t a complaint.  It’s a fact.  Everything in any given story both has and should make sense.  If it doesn’t, then it’s either a distraction or unnecessary … and it should go.
 
For a number of reasons, there have been multiple edits of Re-Animator over the years.  Chiefly, this is owed to the fact that – early in its release – there were rated and unrated prints (anyone interested can do a bit of research to know more about this, and the Arrow Films release discusses it in solid detail).  I’ve no way of knowing with absolute certainty which incarnation of the flick I saw back in the great 1980’s, but I can say it’s a bit different from the one I’ve seen recently.  Both do have similar narrative problems (as I see it), so I do feel a bit vindicated in confessing my reasons for not fully embracing all of its magic decades later.
​

As I mentioned in my intro, I found Re-Animator a bit confusing at first blush.  Events both happened and things were said by various characters in the film that didn’t quite make sense.  While I’ll refrain from a full accounting of unanswered bits, I can’t help but write down a few of them.  Like … what’s with Dr. Hans Gruber’s exploding eyes?  What could possibly have caused that?  Like … why is third year medical student Dan Cain (played by Bruce Abbott) so creeped out in dealing with dead bodies?  Hasn’t he seen any before?  Like … why would a hospital morgue both have a security guard and a freezer that locks from the inside?  Did anyone think that the bodies were going anywhere?  Like … if Herbert West’s singular reagent only works on the brain, why does he demonstrate it to Dr. Hill on cat tissue?  And … where in Holy Hell did Dr. Hill’s apparent psychic powers come from, and why do they work on some folks and not others?
 
All right, haters.  Calm down.  I never said I disliked the movie because that would be far from the truth.  I find so very much of Re-Animator endearingly horrific, but – as I’ve already said – I do tend to think about story.  These questions – and there are many, many others, folks – are the kind of things that crept into my consciousness while watching this release only just yesterday (twice again!), and just as they percolated to the surface three decades ago they did so then.  Such glaringly obvious stumbling should’ve been cleaned up at some point … but I can say that – by partaking of Arrow’s special features – a good number of these queries were answered, meaning that perhaps my occasionally disjointed mind was correct in seizing upon them originally.
 
The differing cuts is only one of the guilty culprits, and director Gordon explains both in the commentary track as well as the accompanying documentary on the film’s making that Dr. Hill (David Gale) had been experimenting with perfecting mind control.  That one admission cleared up a great number of the shortcomings involving both his characterization as well as the entire zombie-fueled big finish (and it is a big finish); and I can’t believe that so many suggestions were actually left in the original film.  There were enough indications to warrant the genius had some kind of hidden ability, and I think it was a huge disservice to audiences that some explanation – even one that could’ve been part of a quick reshoot – wasn’t provided.  It could’ve been small.  It could’ve been quick.  That one small tweak could’ve honestly worked wonders … at least for me.
 
Setting aside any of the other narrative hiccups, Re-Animator is still a visual treat, and I say this well into its fourth decade.
 
Abbott plays the flick’s ‘everyman’ with a good sense of humor.  He makes his and Megan’s relationship work to the point wherein the audience roots for the couple, hoping they can eventually iron out the complications keeping them apart.  I’d argue that the script perhaps weakened his resolve a bit too dramatically in a few spots, giving him a bout of shock when it all turns to blood a bit too quickly, but – as they say – it is what it is.
​

Crampton?  I think it’s safe to suggest that Re-Animator definitely put the actress on the figurative map.  Fans have flocked to watching both this film and From Beyond (1986) – Gordon’s follow-up but not a sequel – to behold both her physical and intellectual charms.  The woman oozes of not only sex appeal but also her innate ability to command a scene with convincing emotional weight.  She can be the victim or she can be the aggressor, and she knows how to handle damn near anything in between.  I’m also refreshed to see that she’s still in the Horror business, and I’m thrilled that her career has been earning the accolades she so much deserves.
 
And … where would cult and genre villains be without the skills of Jeffrey Combs?  Granted, he’ll likely never be employed as a babysitter, but the man possesses his own villainous charisma that can both be turned on/off in an instant or given the kind of layers a more dynamic premise/plot might require.  He’s been a part of so many projects throughout the years, and what I find so refreshing about his work is that even if he’s in a small role he never “phones it in.”  He’s always w-o-r-k-i-n-g.  He’s always emoting.  He's always giving audiences something to see – even if it’s in passing – and that’s admirable, to say the least.
 
Though he’s gone now, writer/director Gordon leaves behind an incredible resume that genre fans should continue exploring.  Re-Animator was his debut production, and its reception no doubt helped usher other opportunities his way in the years that followed.  He’s credited with crafting the story behind Walt Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk The Kids (1989) as well as directing such projects as Robot Jox (1989), Fortress (1992), Space Truckers (1996), and Dagon (2001).  If my words in this space accomplish nothing more than encouraging a few others to seek out and explore his work, then I’ve done my job … and that’d bring a smile to my face.
 
Re-Animator (1985) was produced by Empire Pictures and Re-animator Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Video.
 
Highly recommended.
 
I’m glad that I went back and revisited Re-Animator all these years later.  While that first viewing so many years back wasn’t the perfect experience, the film still found some comfortable corner in my mind, took root, and continued to grow – entirely without my permission!  It stuck with me – the way some formative events do – and the revisitation helped me to finally resolve some questions lingering in those recesses of my gray matter.  And – if I do say so myself – this Arrow Video release is spectacular: while I’m usually no big fan of deleted scenes I’d encourage every single person reading this to watch these 20+ minutes excised from the final print as they do go a long way toward filling in several potholes and fleshing out the relationships between all of Re-animator’s central players.  Yes, yes, yes: I understand why they were cut … but seeing them demonstrates why some of the narrative unfolds a certain way, whether or not it all makes perfect sense. 

-- EZ

​Where do I begin to discuss my admiration for Frankenstein (1931), the Universal Studios monster classic that in 1991 was selected for preservation in the United States Library Of Congress’ National Film Registry?
 
Sigh.
 
It’s a difficult prospect.  I can’t even begin to imagine when I first saw the picture or just how old I might’ve been.  In my youth, I scoured the weekly (freebie) TV broadcast schedule that came printed with our local newspaper so that way I’d know reasonably in advance when any Science Fiction, Fantasy, and/or Horror films were airing.  Given that this was well before the advent of home video recorders, I’d even circle an upcoming movie (in pen, no less), and I’d check and recheck the guide regularly.  Also, as these movies were edited for television, I wasn’t even aware that I’d never even seen Frankenstein in its entirety.  Years later, I remember watching it on VHS and realizing that the film had so many smaller bits and pieces I’d never seen, and this is why I’m forever grateful that film companies and distributors have gone to great pains to re-release these classic movies with so many wonderful special features.  Fans like me can never get enough of that extra content, and I’ll go to my grave forever jealous of just how lucky you young Turks these days are but don’t know it.
 
In any event …
 
Having something to say about Frankenstein isn’t even a subject I approach easily.  It’s the kind of project that has been written about since its inception and up through today.  As an intellectual property, Frankenstein continues to both move and shake storytellers who either wish to re-interpret for the modern age or entirely re-invent it with their own narrative spin.  While there are there are countless imitators, there’s really only one true original, so bear with me as I organize my thoughts around one of the seminal viewing experiences of my youth.  I’ll try to tell you why a picture nearly one hundred years old today still deserves your undivided attention.
 
(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:
“Dr. Frankenstein dares to tamper with life and death by creating a human monster out of lifeless body parts.”
 

It’s both been long written and accepted by many ‘in the know’ that Universal Pictures’ Frankenstein was – quite possibly – once of the first authentic Science Fiction films on record.  In fact, the novel upon which the film was ultimately based – Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – is likewise considered one of the very first authentic Science Fiction novels.  Some fans might argue that the property is closer to Fantasy if not even outright Horror, but I prefer to avoid splitting hairs: I’ll accept the premise that the depicted science of bringing life to lifelessness deserves to be considered SciFi.  Certainly, one cannot remove “the science” from the story as presented and still have a tale that could stand on its own, so those parameters do make perfect sense.
 
Still, a film is only as good an experience as are the – snicker snicker – sum of its own parts; and – in that respect – I think Frankenstein still rises to the occasion.
 
From what I’ve come to know, its screenplay – chiefly attributed to Peggy Webling, Garrett Fort, and Francis Edward Faragoh – is actually an adaptation that combines characters, elements, and circumstances from multiple stage play incarnations all stemming from the original Shelley novel.  (While I’ll admit that I’ve not yet read the book, I’ve been told that the story is vastly different from many of the theatrical interpretations.)  As a story, it certainly gives each of the main players – Henry Frankenstein, Elizabeth, Victor Moritz, and The Monster – their respective set of characteristics and motivations; and it rather deftly pits them all against one another in big ways and small from start-to-finish.  Curiously, Baron Frankenstein (as played by Frederick Kerr) enjoys a good amount of screen time, is a likeable enough blowhard, and makes the most of his scenes only then to completely disappear from the film during its second half.  (Yes, yes, yes: he does show up briefly in the very last scene of the picture, but one would think he would’ve been shown either during the pre-wedding sequences or the town’s call-to-action once the threat of The Monster is very real.)  So – while not perfect – it’s a fabulously lean-and-mean 70-minute adventure that delivers on its every promise.
 
Director James Whale – who originally passed on the project for reasons I’ve not satisfactorily verified – does a masterful job staging the bulk of the monstrous affair.  He rather deftly keeps the picture unfolding on a fairly even keel, giving balanced amounts of division between spectacle and subtlety.  In fact, he stages a few scenes artistically so that the camera can pan through multiple rooms on a single pass, following the characters as they both move through the action as either tension mounts or development necessitate.  He definitely tackled several scenes with specific goals in mind, be it mesmerizing audiences with the fantastic spread of Frankenstein’s laboratory set (the rise of the gurney through the ceiling skylight) or The Monster’s very first full body reveal (having him back through the door and turn).  I think he proved without question that he approached the subject matter with the proper measure of seriousness but wasn’t above throwing in something light (for visual comedy) in the right context.
 
As for the players?
​

Mae Clarke plays Elizabeth – Frankenstein’s betrothed for reasons that aren’t quite clear – and she delivers her lines of dialogue very stylistically similar to what was being done in the era.  There’s a somewhat pronounced bit of melodrama – typically attached to the women – and she certainly works what emotion she can into every captured moment.  The script very lightly develops a love triangle between her, Henry, and Victor – a family friend – but it never wallows in that territory the way so many other pictures do.  A scene or two that might’ve more deeply followed up on the circumstances and her recovery from attack by The Monster would’ve been nice, but – alas – it just wasn’t meant to be.
 
Colin Clive plays Henry Frankenstein – not ‘Victor Frankenstein,’ as many other incarnations have written – and clearly his best moments are in the first half of the picture.  In the guise of the man who would eventually come to know how God felt (in creating life), he gives a pretty commanding performance.  Once he’s accomplished the unimaginable, the script even gives the actor a scene where he can kinda/sorta wax on the mindset necessary to achieve great results – the daring, the boldness – and in Clive’s hands it feels as if he’s both pleased if not a bit shocked with what he’s done.  Since he spends the latter half of the picture chasing down his creation only to find himself being pummeled by it, there just isn’t as much substance in it for the actor to do much other than go with the flow.
 
Saving the best for last, genre legend Boris Karloff is truly the steward who made so very much of this work.  Without his talents being fully centered under the makeup and in the limelight here, I’m not so sure that Frankenstein – as a picture – would’ve endured as long as it has.  Some moments, there’s a vacancy behind his eyes – when the creature has yet to form his thoughts clearly and is merely responding to commands like a trained pet – and others are lit up with an animal frenzy.  While the script kinda/sorta stacks the deck against him (the whole idea of the abnormal brain is not something part and parcel of the original novel), Karloff perseveres through the good, the bad, and the ugly, always staying true to the demands of the scene.  Audiences might’ve felt sorry for him – up to a point – and that’s owed to the man’s abilities to convey a limited set of emotions while all the while looking like something spawned by the dark arts.
 
Frankenstein (1931) was produced by Universal Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Universal Studios.  I viewed the film as part of their Frankenstein: Complete Legacy Collection released in 2016.
 
Highest recommendation possible.
 
While I’d stop short of calling Frankenstein the perfect film, I’d still happily call it a pretty damn near perfect viewing experience.  Though its run time is a bit short, I think the film still moves at a appreciable pace, one that gives the principle players just enough time to hit their marks and maybe even spend a few wonderful moments talking about life as they know it against the backdrop of evolving Horror.  Of course, the real magic starts when The Monster arrives, and anyone who considers himself (or herself) a fan of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and/or Horror deserves to experience the feature uncut as Universal Pictures (and God himself, maybe) intended.

​-- EZ

For those of you who haven’t thought all that much about it, there are a couple of quality ways a storyteller could capture the Apocalypse on film.
 
One way is the road followed by the usual studio big budget blockbusters.  You render it all with glorious special effects and glowing CGI, detailing city after city being bombarded with explosive forces while spectacularly ground into particles of glimmering, shimmering dust.  The other way?  That would be to go with a vastly lower budget and leave all of the pyrotechnics to the imagination of the viewing audience.  Instead, populate your film with close-up after dingy close-up of the people, their faces, and the rags they wear on their shoulders as they fight not only the elements but also one another in close, personal, and oft-times psychological battles to the finish.
 
This is the road travelled by Aftermath … and it’s a dark, dirty, desolate road, indeed.
 
(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 product packaging:
“The devastating horror of a nuclear apocalypse is now reality, and nine desperate strangers find themselves clinging to life in a farmhouse cellar, while radioactive fallout descends on the darkened world above.”
 
To be fair, there’s more, but methinks you get the idea.  And – if you’ve seen the slipcase – then you’ve probably already made up your mind if Aftermath is your type of film.  As I detailed above, this isn’t a big box office spectacle; rather, this is probably the way the world will end … not with a bang but with a lingering whimper.  It’s stark.  It’s unforgiving.  And it’s relentlessly depressing.
 
It would seem that life hasn’t taught us very well if this film is any indication.  These strangers – forced together out of circumstance – find themselves having to trust one another only because of their predicament and not because they’re trying to be stewards to their fellow man.  As the tension mounts, they argue, fight, and unnerve each other, trapped as they are in the confines of what amounts to an old-style home basement.  The upside to their isolation?  The house actually is fairly well stocked with items that afford them a greater opportunity than others to survive (short wave radio, old-timer transistor radios, foodstuffs, etc.), so the script by Christian McDonald makes clever use of what other Hollywood types would probably describe as a modern day militia setting.
 
However, kudos to director Peter Engert for the staging and the cinematography.  These folks are definitely closed in figuratively and symbolically no matter which way he sheds light on their collective space, and it’s all done so well (after the initial set-up) that it effectively brings a doomed sense of claustrophobia to the production.  When they sleep, they’re nearly up against one another.  When they fight, they’re practically already up in another’s face.  Just as their world outside has been obliterated, any sense of space has gone out the cellar window as well.
 
Sadly, there isn’t much character development, and I found that a shame.  With all of these folks closed in close quarters for so long, one thinks McDonald could’ve come up with a bit more than what he did – essentially, he serves up nice yet somber moments that detail how these leftovers refuse at all costs to give up their innate humanity.  A few of them even have small arcs (for example, there’s a moment when the young doctor finds himself studying a picture from his wallet, but we learn absolutely nothing of relevance about the woman he’s with) that would’ve allowed some room for more.  Naturally, the same won’t be said for those who come hunting them, but still I would’ve liked to have seen a bit more in the growth department.  Instead, everyone settles in rather comfortably for what the audience is probably certain is going to be a rough ride indeed.
 
Aftermath (2012) is produced by Eastlake Films and LightWave Entertainment.  DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  Well, Aftermath boasts some mostly good cinematography, but the set-up sequences that account for the film’s first twenty minutes (or so) were photographed in extremely dark settings; in fact, one could argue that it’s so dark at times it’s nearly impossible to tell fully what’s going on.  That was a bit of a mess … but after those opening moment (basically once the group settles into the home’s cellar) the lighting improves immeasurably.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then here’s your subtle reminder: it’s the Apocalypse, silly!  There aren’t any!
 
Recommended.
 
Granted, Aftermath is without a doubt relentlessly depressing.  (And I do mean “relentlessly depressing,” folks.)  After a cautionary (and poorly lit) set-up, the film settles in to detailing what a grim fate awaits those who are unfortunate enough to survive the Apocalypse … if you really want to call this ‘surviving.’  Engert’s cinematography and the film’s set production go a long way toward selling the premise; and – if you’re still with it come the desperate finale – then hopefully you’ve learned something from this drearily foreboding tale.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD copy of Aftermath 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

Now, for the record, I can appreciate a good and bloody Zombie comedy as much as the next horror fan.
 
The marketplace has been full of so many appreciable Zombie films for the last decade or so that I think it’s only fitting that a few Zombie ‘laughers’ have come out on television or in general release.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong with poking fun at the obvious conventions of the traditional Zombie story … but I think comedies work best when there’s one overriding comedic slant.  Pick a lane and stay in it.  Bobbing and weaving between styles gets frustrating, and it may have audiences running for the exits much earlier than expected.  When you drift between mainstream comedy to satire to farce to all-out Three Stooges-style lunacy, you’re really only asking for trouble as the only man who has ever pulled that off successfully (and lived to talk about it) remains the incomparable Mel Brooks.
 
Despite some unevenness in Zombieworld, I still managed to have some fun with it.  You might, too.
 
(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 product packaging:
“There is nowhere to hide … nowhere to run … the Zombie Apocalypse has come, and our world now belongs to the dead!  From Ireland, Canada, Australia, Europe and all over the U.S., the bone-chilling news reports tell the same gruesome tale – walking corpses terrorize and devour the living.  Only a few desperate humans find the courage to stand and fight for their last chance at survival.  But the hordes of undead keep coming, and there’s only one thing on the menu – us.”
 
Pay attention, folks, or else I figure a great many of you diehard Horror enthusiasts are likely to be really peeved: Zombieworld is not a Horror film.
 
I’m gonna repeat that: Zombieworld is not a Horror film.
 
Yes, like any Zombie movie, it has elements of Horror.  The workable DNA is clearly in place, but it isn’t meant to send shudders up your spine.  Make no mistake: this Zombieworld – much like Ruben Fleischer’s Zombieland (2009) with Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg – is meant to satirize the traditional Zombie genre.  Nothing in here is presented with the intent for you to keep a straight face … so as much as I’m doing my job making you aware of the above synopsis I’m also going to tell you to swallow it with a few grains of salt.  Yes, those far off lands of Ireland and Australia and the like do factor in the greater story – but the main idea behind all of this is that Zombieworld is best considered a series of interconnected short stories all linked together by a central newscast … and it’s that newscast that remains the film’s most predictable and least satisfying piece.
 
But the problems don’t quite stop there.
 
See, Zombieland – much like its smaller stories – are all over the map.  As a feature, it’s arguably directionless, save for the whole concept of poking fun at … well … zombies.  For example, one story might make it look like the Apocalypse has arrived … and imagine your confusion when you arrive at the next story, which features a regular ol’ mailman going about his daily task of – you guessed it – delivering the mail.  During the Apocalypse?  Well, it hasn’t quite happened in this story, if you follow.  It’s this kind of overall disconnect that causes more than a few narrative burps to folks like me – people who insist on watching even bad films closely.
 
Still, Zombieworld isn’t a bad film.  It is, nevertheless, wildly uneven.
 
The comic approach is used much in the same way it was tried previously in the cult flick, Amazon Women On The Moon (1987).  In that feature, audiences were treated to a narrator constant “switching channels,” and this basically delivered up a handful of shorter, less cohesive stories served up in stylized vignettes.  Zombieworld uses a similar construct – the film’s main character (if there is one) is a newscaster struggling to keep his humanity while slowly succumbing to the obvious bite on his neck as these stories progress.  But the script (as the way it’s built here) would have you believe that there was a news team present back in the days when Christ first raised the dead, and – while that may be a funny idea – it falls flat as a storytelling gimmick.
 
What does Zombieworld do well?
 
It keeps switching gears, all for comedic effect, which can be as invigorating as it is mildly frustrating.  It keeps rushing forward even when one short sequence misses the mark.  And it dishes up some of the coolest, hippest, yet most laughable practical in-camera special effects since the days of Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1981), Evil Dead II (1987), and Army Of Darkness (1992).  It gushes with buckets of blood when it wants to, and – on that front – Zombieworld has ‘cult’ written all over it … for better or for worse.
 
Zombieworld (2015) is produced by Dread Central Media and Ruthless Pictures.  DVD distribution is being coordinated by the reliable Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  The sound quality remained quite good throughout most of the run-time (100 minutes), and the picture maintained a relatively smart bit of cinematography despite the fact that its individual segments were handled by different directors.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, there’s a short film – “Marathon Apocalypse” – that basically includes some of the flick’s footage along with bits truncated, but it’s only a few minutes in length and it really wasn’t anything all that ‘special.’
 
Recommended, but …
 
If you like Zombie films, then there’s definitely something to love in Zombieworld.  In fact, if you like Zombie-comedies (of which there have been more than a few as of late), then you’re probably in store for a few good natured chuckles.  Unfortunately, the feature never quite settles comfortably into any single comedic tone, and it vacillates too strongly between farce and sheer lunacy to fit into any comfortable niche for my tastes.  Still, it’s an affable job performed by an array of affable characters.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD copy of Zombieworld 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