- Published on
Oh, good gravy!
In the summer of 1985, I was the type of hungry movie goer that normally would’ve flocked to something that looked like Lifeforce. I couldn’t tell you why I didn’t – I honestly don’t recall any specific reason – but I do remember asking a friend of mine who had taken a date of his to go and see it. “It really isn’t any good,” he told me, “but it does have this gal with massive boobs who pops up every now and then when the plot slows to a halt.”
LOL!
Now, years later, that simple comment has stuck with me ever since. So when I saw that Scream Factory was headlining an all-new Blu-ray release that promised an all-new cut approved by director Tobe Hooper himself, I figured it’s never too late – not even after thirty-plus years of thinking about it and the promise of those massive boobs (his words, not mine, folks) – to take in this sprawling B-movie and give it a fair shake.
What could possibly go wrong, eh?
(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 …)
A mission to investigate the passing Halley’s Comet finds something no scientist inspected: in the heart of the phenomenon lies an alien spacecraft! Col. Tom Carlsen (played with agreeable stoicism by Steve Railsback) commands a spaceborne crew to investigate the foreign vessel, and he’s alarmed to find three human-like aliens in suspended animation. He orders the men to ferry them back to the shuttle, unknowingly setting Earth on a course to total annihilation by … you guessed it … space vampires!
Now … I say again … oh, good gravy! In spite of itself, Lifeforce is a bomb of epic proportions that, yes, deserves to be celebrated. Why? How could that possibly be? Well, the answer is never easy.
It could be that Lifeforce is one of those rare failures – it had a respected director, and the cast isn’t without talent – that inspires others to follow in its footsteps. I’ve always maintained that no one – not a director, not a screenwriter, not a studio exec or even actors – sets out with deliberate intentions to capture a disaster on film. After all, the risks to their respective careers and their employers make it an entirely implausible suggestion. Still, it somehow happens – probably more often that creatives would like to admit – and I like to think that it’s due to an all-out consuming breakdown in the creative process. I suspect that harsh cold reality is somewhere near the heart – or ‘life force’ – of Lifeforce.
For example, the disc’s longer cut (116 minutes) really doesn’t add much substance to the theatrical release (101 minutes), but there are some small character moments that help flesh out these otherwise fairly conventional creations. In the 1980s, it was no secret that theatre owners preferred films pretty close to that much-praised 90 minutes run-time – it gave them the best chance to get the biggest audience into their business day, hence the best return – so I wonder if some of the tinkering contributed to a balkanization of the plot. (Rest assured, even at 116 minutes this film makes little sense!)
But the truth is that the problems really don’t stop there.
Lifeforce’s shooting script is quite probably as anomalous as everything chocked into it – mysterious disappearances, supernatural science, boobs that defy gravity – and even a cursory glance at it reveals a score of problems. For starters, what is the story? Is this something being told from the point of view of the astronauts, or are these space vampires intended to be the main characters? Just whose story is it, and why does it belong to them? Thirty minutes into it, there still appears no central conflict – things just ‘happen,’ while, in the meantime, characters seem to come and go with greater frequency. About halfway through, the narrative finally cleans up a bit when Carlsen kinda/sorta returns from the dead (not really, but don’t bother, because he’s not the only one who kinda/sorta does); with him, he brings some answers, but he also introduces several other new questions?
What to do now but … well, introduce even more characters!
Seriously, I’ve no idea how this script with these ideas could’ve seen its way into production except as a Golan and Globus production. (Google it, kids … it’ll all make sense with some Googling.) The end result is like that car wreck – you really should drive past, though you can’t help but keep looking. That’s the best way to describe Lifeforce – a catastrophe you can’t help but watch. It’s that intoxicating.
Plus, newcomer Mathilda May really does have great posture.
Recommended entirely because it’s so bizarre to behold! Lifeforce is that rare sci-fi schlockfest that’s worth seeing entirely because it is so mind-blowingly bad. The script by Dan O’Bannon & Don Jakoby – an adaptation of the novel “The Space Vampires” by Colin Wilson – doesn’t even really try to make sense of any of it probably because it would’ve been an entirely exhaustive affair. To its credit, Lifeforce raised far more questions that it or quite possibly any film could ever answer, so it’s best to go into this one with an open mind and an open heart … ‘cause if you leave it with any measure of affection then it has to be love!
-- EZ
In the summer of 1985, I was the type of hungry movie goer that normally would’ve flocked to something that looked like Lifeforce. I couldn’t tell you why I didn’t – I honestly don’t recall any specific reason – but I do remember asking a friend of mine who had taken a date of his to go and see it. “It really isn’t any good,” he told me, “but it does have this gal with massive boobs who pops up every now and then when the plot slows to a halt.”
LOL!
Now, years later, that simple comment has stuck with me ever since. So when I saw that Scream Factory was headlining an all-new Blu-ray release that promised an all-new cut approved by director Tobe Hooper himself, I figured it’s never too late – not even after thirty-plus years of thinking about it and the promise of those massive boobs (his words, not mine, folks) – to take in this sprawling B-movie and give it a fair shake.
What could possibly go wrong, eh?
(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 …)
A mission to investigate the passing Halley’s Comet finds something no scientist inspected: in the heart of the phenomenon lies an alien spacecraft! Col. Tom Carlsen (played with agreeable stoicism by Steve Railsback) commands a spaceborne crew to investigate the foreign vessel, and he’s alarmed to find three human-like aliens in suspended animation. He orders the men to ferry them back to the shuttle, unknowingly setting Earth on a course to total annihilation by … you guessed it … space vampires!
Now … I say again … oh, good gravy! In spite of itself, Lifeforce is a bomb of epic proportions that, yes, deserves to be celebrated. Why? How could that possibly be? Well, the answer is never easy.
It could be that Lifeforce is one of those rare failures – it had a respected director, and the cast isn’t without talent – that inspires others to follow in its footsteps. I’ve always maintained that no one – not a director, not a screenwriter, not a studio exec or even actors – sets out with deliberate intentions to capture a disaster on film. After all, the risks to their respective careers and their employers make it an entirely implausible suggestion. Still, it somehow happens – probably more often that creatives would like to admit – and I like to think that it’s due to an all-out consuming breakdown in the creative process. I suspect that harsh cold reality is somewhere near the heart – or ‘life force’ – of Lifeforce.
For example, the disc’s longer cut (116 minutes) really doesn’t add much substance to the theatrical release (101 minutes), but there are some small character moments that help flesh out these otherwise fairly conventional creations. In the 1980s, it was no secret that theatre owners preferred films pretty close to that much-praised 90 minutes run-time – it gave them the best chance to get the biggest audience into their business day, hence the best return – so I wonder if some of the tinkering contributed to a balkanization of the plot. (Rest assured, even at 116 minutes this film makes little sense!)
But the truth is that the problems really don’t stop there.
Lifeforce’s shooting script is quite probably as anomalous as everything chocked into it – mysterious disappearances, supernatural science, boobs that defy gravity – and even a cursory glance at it reveals a score of problems. For starters, what is the story? Is this something being told from the point of view of the astronauts, or are these space vampires intended to be the main characters? Just whose story is it, and why does it belong to them? Thirty minutes into it, there still appears no central conflict – things just ‘happen,’ while, in the meantime, characters seem to come and go with greater frequency. About halfway through, the narrative finally cleans up a bit when Carlsen kinda/sorta returns from the dead (not really, but don’t bother, because he’s not the only one who kinda/sorta does); with him, he brings some answers, but he also introduces several other new questions?
What to do now but … well, introduce even more characters!
Seriously, I’ve no idea how this script with these ideas could’ve seen its way into production except as a Golan and Globus production. (Google it, kids … it’ll all make sense with some Googling.) The end result is like that car wreck – you really should drive past, though you can’t help but keep looking. That’s the best way to describe Lifeforce – a catastrophe you can’t help but watch. It’s that intoxicating.
Plus, newcomer Mathilda May really does have great posture.
Recommended entirely because it’s so bizarre to behold! Lifeforce is that rare sci-fi schlockfest that’s worth seeing entirely because it is so mind-blowingly bad. The script by Dan O’Bannon & Don Jakoby – an adaptation of the novel “The Space Vampires” by Colin Wilson – doesn’t even really try to make sense of any of it probably because it would’ve been an entirely exhaustive affair. To its credit, Lifeforce raised far more questions that it or quite possibly any film could ever answer, so it’s best to go into this one with an open mind and an open heart … ‘cause if you leave it with any measure of affection then it has to be love!
-- EZ
- Published on
It's been my long-stated position that those of you who don't unabashedly love the 1980 incarnation of Flash Gordon simply don't understand it.
Simply put, it was a film never made to be taken seriously. Clearly, its performances, effects, and production design were all a bit over-the-top -- much in the tradition from the comic strip's original look -- and maybe even in some small way was meant to poke fun at the tropes all captured within the wildly imaginative universe. Coming as it did on the not-too-distant heels of George Lucas' Star Wars and a host of studio imitations, I guess it was just easy to dismiss Gordon's cartoonish sensibilities as a creative misfire, but I think the flick looks and behaves exactly as it was designed.
And what about the casting of the much-revered musical legend Topol in the role of Dr. Hans Zarkov?
Well, the decorated actor's inclusion might've been part of what threw folks off a bit. Given his reputation for appearing in the realm of the stage and theatrical movie musical could've had some anticipating something a bit different from the flick. (Not that there's anything wrong with musicals, folks, but I personally can't stand them ... but that's just me.) With the man's pedigree, I can't help but wonder if audiences expected something a bit more -- erm -- highbrow? I was in my high school years at the time of this one's release -- saw it more than once on the big screen -- and I unabashedly loved it, so I can't speak for any confusion.
Still, this isn't to say that the actor was entirely perfect for the role. I think while the part was written reasonably well, it's hard to hear the man deliver lines and not think of him singing them instead; his deep, rich voice does kinda/sorta have that effect in a few places. I can't even begin to imagine that's what was intended, but maybe -- just maybe -- producers thought Topol's inclusion might've somehow elevated the film's reputation and/or reception upon release to the critical community. I mean -- after all -- who's going to criticize Topol?
But because the picture is a bit of a legend in certain genre-laden circles, I think it's safe to say that the man has enjoyed a life well beyond the scope of singing and dancing.
Alas, none of us lives forever -- even Prince Vultan cries out "Who wants to live forever?" in the film -- and word has reached SciFiHistory.Net's news desk this morning of the man's passing.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Topol. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
Simply put, it was a film never made to be taken seriously. Clearly, its performances, effects, and production design were all a bit over-the-top -- much in the tradition from the comic strip's original look -- and maybe even in some small way was meant to poke fun at the tropes all captured within the wildly imaginative universe. Coming as it did on the not-too-distant heels of George Lucas' Star Wars and a host of studio imitations, I guess it was just easy to dismiss Gordon's cartoonish sensibilities as a creative misfire, but I think the flick looks and behaves exactly as it was designed.
And what about the casting of the much-revered musical legend Topol in the role of Dr. Hans Zarkov?
Well, the decorated actor's inclusion might've been part of what threw folks off a bit. Given his reputation for appearing in the realm of the stage and theatrical movie musical could've had some anticipating something a bit different from the flick. (Not that there's anything wrong with musicals, folks, but I personally can't stand them ... but that's just me.) With the man's pedigree, I can't help but wonder if audiences expected something a bit more -- erm -- highbrow? I was in my high school years at the time of this one's release -- saw it more than once on the big screen -- and I unabashedly loved it, so I can't speak for any confusion.
Still, this isn't to say that the actor was entirely perfect for the role. I think while the part was written reasonably well, it's hard to hear the man deliver lines and not think of him singing them instead; his deep, rich voice does kinda/sorta have that effect in a few places. I can't even begin to imagine that's what was intended, but maybe -- just maybe -- producers thought Topol's inclusion might've somehow elevated the film's reputation and/or reception upon release to the critical community. I mean -- after all -- who's going to criticize Topol?
But because the picture is a bit of a legend in certain genre-laden circles, I think it's safe to say that the man has enjoyed a life well beyond the scope of singing and dancing.
Alas, none of us lives forever -- even Prince Vultan cries out "Who wants to live forever?" in the film -- and word has reached SciFiHistory.Net's news desk this morning of the man's passing.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Topol. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve said it before, and I find myself saying it again: Giallo films – Italian features highlighting some particularly gruesome bloodletting captured by stylish camerawork and punctuated by uncharacteristic musical choices – are an acquired taste.
Newcomers exploring their first Giallo might come away more than a bit confused if not downright disgusted. Chillers unfold at a smoldering pace not seen typically outside of Italy as these directors and screenwriters don’t often follow the same framework in both presenting and solving the central mysteries. Certainly, repeat exposures to similar fare helps a viewer reach a greater understanding of this unique sub-genre; but the real treat often comes when repeated viewings of the same film gradually open one’s eyes to some of the hidden moments of genius that escaped an earlier screening. I’ve often said that – in the U.S. – Horror audiences will watch a domestic release over and over again solely to recapture the resulting visceral thrill; by contrast, Giallo fans endure their flicks over and over again in order to see what they missed previously. That’s not exactly two sides of the same coin.
And I’ve really only recently had the good fortune to explore some of the pictures in noted Giallo master Dario Argento’s catalogue, of which Phenomena (1985) has landed on my desk from Synapse Films. While many reviewers have christened the feature as one of Argento’s very best theatrical ventures, I’d definitely stop short on suggesting that this be your very first dalliance with the genre. (Again, please keep in mind that I say this while admitting I’m somewhat of a novice myself!) In short, it’s fairly tame – there’s very little bloodshed and occasionally a bit confusing. But it does boast a terrific performance by Donald Pleasence alongside a somewhat muddled job from a young Jennifer Connelly that makes it worth its weight in blood … so I suppose that might be all that matters in the big finish.
(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 …)
Newcomers exploring their first Giallo might come away more than a bit confused if not downright disgusted. Chillers unfold at a smoldering pace not seen typically outside of Italy as these directors and screenwriters don’t often follow the same framework in both presenting and solving the central mysteries. Certainly, repeat exposures to similar fare helps a viewer reach a greater understanding of this unique sub-genre; but the real treat often comes when repeated viewings of the same film gradually open one’s eyes to some of the hidden moments of genius that escaped an earlier screening. I’ve often said that – in the U.S. – Horror audiences will watch a domestic release over and over again solely to recapture the resulting visceral thrill; by contrast, Giallo fans endure their flicks over and over again in order to see what they missed previously. That’s not exactly two sides of the same coin.
And I’ve really only recently had the good fortune to explore some of the pictures in noted Giallo master Dario Argento’s catalogue, of which Phenomena (1985) has landed on my desk from Synapse Films. While many reviewers have christened the feature as one of Argento’s very best theatrical ventures, I’d definitely stop short on suggesting that this be your very first dalliance with the genre. (Again, please keep in mind that I say this while admitting I’m somewhat of a novice myself!) In short, it’s fairly tame – there’s very little bloodshed and occasionally a bit confusing. But it does boast a terrific performance by Donald Pleasence alongside a somewhat muddled job from a young Jennifer Connelly that makes it worth its weight in blood … so I suppose that might be all that matters in the big finish.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A young girl who has an amazing ability to communicate with insects is transferred to an exclusive Swiss boarding school, where her unusual capability might help solve a string of murders.”
For what it’s worth, Phenomena evolved as a particularly tantalizing idea from the mind of director Argento (who also collaborated with Franco Ferrini on the script): personally interested in the field of forensic entomology – the study of insects as associated to crime – the storyteller set out to show just how a bunch of flies and maggots ultimately serve as nature’s greatest detectives. For those unaware, these bugs dine on our flesh once we’ve expired, so pathologists will examine these arthropods found at crime scenes in hopes of piecing together elements like the time and place of death.
Months after a stranded Danish teenager is viciously murdered and left for dead in the Swiss countryside, revered entomologist John McGregor (played by Pleasence) is finally consulted by local authorities. His assistant had also gone missing and was presumed to have been a victim of the same senseless butcher, so he’s all too happy to lend his expertise to Inspector Rudolf Geiger (Patrick Bauchau). Still, at this point, the police have exhausted all leads.
At the same time, young Jennifer Corvino (Connolly) is arriving for a protracted stay at the nearby Richard Wagner Academy for Girls, shipped off to the exclusive institution by her wealthy actor/father whose career has him off trotting the globe for work. Lo and behold, we soon learn that Jennifer has a secret affinity for bugs, so much so that she’s crafted a telepathic connection with them, one that has them responding to protect her when she’s in any moments of distress. Thus, it shouldn’t take anyone with a degree in screenwriting to predict that these two insect aficionados will ultimately find and befriend one another because that’s exactly what happens in the world of cinema relationships!
Oh, but were that where Argento and Ferrini’s constructs stopped!
Young Jennifer is also plagued by unexplained sleepwalking, an act that Argento preternaturally stages like some out-of-body experiences. It’s during this pivotal nocturnal outing that she both witnesses an all-new murder, falls out a building, and is nearly mowed down in traffic! After being briefly kidnapped by a pair of Swiss teens, she finds herself awake in the forest, now in the arms of McGregor’s chimpanzee/assistant Inga. Of course, the chimp takes the young lady home, thus finally uniting bugman with bugwoman, and their friendship is born.
“A young girl who has an amazing ability to communicate with insects is transferred to an exclusive Swiss boarding school, where her unusual capability might help solve a string of murders.”
For what it’s worth, Phenomena evolved as a particularly tantalizing idea from the mind of director Argento (who also collaborated with Franco Ferrini on the script): personally interested in the field of forensic entomology – the study of insects as associated to crime – the storyteller set out to show just how a bunch of flies and maggots ultimately serve as nature’s greatest detectives. For those unaware, these bugs dine on our flesh once we’ve expired, so pathologists will examine these arthropods found at crime scenes in hopes of piecing together elements like the time and place of death.
Months after a stranded Danish teenager is viciously murdered and left for dead in the Swiss countryside, revered entomologist John McGregor (played by Pleasence) is finally consulted by local authorities. His assistant had also gone missing and was presumed to have been a victim of the same senseless butcher, so he’s all too happy to lend his expertise to Inspector Rudolf Geiger (Patrick Bauchau). Still, at this point, the police have exhausted all leads.
At the same time, young Jennifer Corvino (Connolly) is arriving for a protracted stay at the nearby Richard Wagner Academy for Girls, shipped off to the exclusive institution by her wealthy actor/father whose career has him off trotting the globe for work. Lo and behold, we soon learn that Jennifer has a secret affinity for bugs, so much so that she’s crafted a telepathic connection with them, one that has them responding to protect her when she’s in any moments of distress. Thus, it shouldn’t take anyone with a degree in screenwriting to predict that these two insect aficionados will ultimately find and befriend one another because that’s exactly what happens in the world of cinema relationships!
Oh, but were that where Argento and Ferrini’s constructs stopped!
Young Jennifer is also plagued by unexplained sleepwalking, an act that Argento preternaturally stages like some out-of-body experiences. It’s during this pivotal nocturnal outing that she both witnesses an all-new murder, falls out a building, and is nearly mowed down in traffic! After being briefly kidnapped by a pair of Swiss teens, she finds herself awake in the forest, now in the arms of McGregor’s chimpanzee/assistant Inga. Of course, the chimp takes the young lady home, thus finally uniting bugman with bugwoman, and their friendship is born.
In case missed it, yes, the forward momentum of Phenomena requires an awful lot of helpful coincidences in order for these events to align in the same script. The entomologist just happens to live near the elite school, and Jennifer just happens to have been sent there. Jennifer just happens to suffer from sleepwalking, and she just happens to wind up in the forest where Inga just happens to be hanging out in wait. See how that works? Why, it’s almost magical … if that stuff just happens. Alas, the correlations don’t stop there, and Jennifer’s new roommate Sophie (Federica Mastroianni) becomes the very next victim in the killer’s suddenly fast-growing roster of victims. Now the young lady has a vested interest in getting to the bottom of all this … and that’s when the headmistress (the stunning Dalila Di Lazzaro) and the whole student body just happen to discover that the lady talks to insects!
Sigh.
Without tarnishing anything further, Phenomena continues down this path of incessant good fortune all the way up until it’s last shocking kill (I won’t spoil it). The fact that luck alone – or is that bad luck? – propels so much of what happens in this world definitely puts this one in fairly predictable territory, but I will say that Pleasence alone – right up until his sad (but foreseeable) demise – is reason enough to endure the picture. The man rather effortlessly moves through each and every scene, giving the film some authentic, welcome, and believable gravitas in places where it’s needed most. Argento might be a master with visual finesse – blood or not – but films are still stories about people … and it takes a human the caliber of Pleasence to give substance to so much of this one’s shadows and light.
Connelly, by comparison, seems lost, some of which is likely owed to her age and inexperience.
A quick look at IMDB.com suggests that this was her first big theatrical break; and – at the ripe age of fourteen – carrying a picture as much as she’s required to do here was a daunting challenge. (Once she arrives in the flick, she’s in quite a bit of it.) There are moments when she delivers – her moments with Sophie in their dormitory room are quite good, and she shares the screen with Pleasence in their collaborative moments quite well. Theirs is a kinship that’s entirely plausible (well, except for the coincidences), and he becomes an almost surrogate father for the displaced child. But because far too much of Phenomena’s Horrors feel somewhat formulaic, the resulting thrills, spills, and chills she endures just don’t quite resonate the way other scream queens (in their respective youth) performed.
Lastly, the picture feels like one of those efforts that just missed its mark, much of which is owed to the fact that perhaps its central player – Argento – bit off more than he could chew. Writing and directing are very personal endeavors, at times so intensive and exhaustive that they can no doubt blind one to the weaknesses inherent in poor writing, underplayed moments, or sloppy plotting. Perhaps the services of a script doctor – another pair of eyes who could’ve taken a stab (pun intended) at a few key scenes – might’ve helped the film’s overall tone. Maybe even trimmed some fat in a few places. (There’s a sequence involving a forced EEG that seems kinda/sorta wildly out of place.) At times, Phenomena seemed like it was lightly poking fun at itself – maybe even mocking some of the tropes required of the genre – and I don’t think that was intentional.
Or perhaps I should say I hope that wasn’t intentional.
Sigh.
Without tarnishing anything further, Phenomena continues down this path of incessant good fortune all the way up until it’s last shocking kill (I won’t spoil it). The fact that luck alone – or is that bad luck? – propels so much of what happens in this world definitely puts this one in fairly predictable territory, but I will say that Pleasence alone – right up until his sad (but foreseeable) demise – is reason enough to endure the picture. The man rather effortlessly moves through each and every scene, giving the film some authentic, welcome, and believable gravitas in places where it’s needed most. Argento might be a master with visual finesse – blood or not – but films are still stories about people … and it takes a human the caliber of Pleasence to give substance to so much of this one’s shadows and light.
Connelly, by comparison, seems lost, some of which is likely owed to her age and inexperience.
A quick look at IMDB.com suggests that this was her first big theatrical break; and – at the ripe age of fourteen – carrying a picture as much as she’s required to do here was a daunting challenge. (Once she arrives in the flick, she’s in quite a bit of it.) There are moments when she delivers – her moments with Sophie in their dormitory room are quite good, and she shares the screen with Pleasence in their collaborative moments quite well. Theirs is a kinship that’s entirely plausible (well, except for the coincidences), and he becomes an almost surrogate father for the displaced child. But because far too much of Phenomena’s Horrors feel somewhat formulaic, the resulting thrills, spills, and chills she endures just don’t quite resonate the way other scream queens (in their respective youth) performed.
Lastly, the picture feels like one of those efforts that just missed its mark, much of which is owed to the fact that perhaps its central player – Argento – bit off more than he could chew. Writing and directing are very personal endeavors, at times so intensive and exhaustive that they can no doubt blind one to the weaknesses inherent in poor writing, underplayed moments, or sloppy plotting. Perhaps the services of a script doctor – another pair of eyes who could’ve taken a stab (pun intended) at a few key scenes – might’ve helped the film’s overall tone. Maybe even trimmed some fat in a few places. (There’s a sequence involving a forced EEG that seems kinda/sorta wildly out of place.) At times, Phenomena seemed like it was lightly poking fun at itself – maybe even mocking some of the tropes required of the genre – and I don’t think that was intentional.
Or perhaps I should say I hope that wasn’t intentional.
Phenomena (1985) was produced by DACFILM Rome. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Synapse Films. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this 4K Ultra HD edition were nothing short of spectacular: I only noticed one small sequence with an awful lot of obvious grain, so I can only guess that the snippet was flawed in production.
As for the technical specifications?
Wowsa! This two-disc collection contains not one, not two, but three different cuts of the big show (the Italian version, the International version, and the U.S. “Creepers” version). The Italian version (Disc 1) hosts an audio commentary by author Troy Howarth (it’s particular entertaining and actually helps make a second watching of the flick very enlightening). There’s also a feature-length documentary on the making of Phenomena along with a music video and other associated publicity materials. Disc 2 houses the alternate versions along with a different audio commentary with authors Derek Botelho and David Del Valle. There’s also a visual essay, alternate audio/stereo mixes, and some additional publicity bits from around the world. It’s a fabulous collection, one that’ll keep fans focused for some time.
Recommended.
As I’ve always tried to be clear, I’m neither an expert on Giallo films nor that big a fan of them. What I do like is stories that are compellingly constructed with characters that are engagingly performed; and – on that respect – Phenomena kinda/sorta ebbs and flows a bit too much. Its highs are great, but its lows are almost painstakingly banal. Argento was a fan of some slow building, simmering tension; in here, it works more often than it fails, but when it fails it’s pretty obvious. Some takes are just too long, and – once again – I can’t help but wonder if another pair of eyes might’ve tightened this one up in places wherein some tidying could’ve been more effective.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Synapse Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD of Phenomena (1985) 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
As for the technical specifications?
Wowsa! This two-disc collection contains not one, not two, but three different cuts of the big show (the Italian version, the International version, and the U.S. “Creepers” version). The Italian version (Disc 1) hosts an audio commentary by author Troy Howarth (it’s particular entertaining and actually helps make a second watching of the flick very enlightening). There’s also a feature-length documentary on the making of Phenomena along with a music video and other associated publicity materials. Disc 2 houses the alternate versions along with a different audio commentary with authors Derek Botelho and David Del Valle. There’s also a visual essay, alternate audio/stereo mixes, and some additional publicity bits from around the world. It’s a fabulous collection, one that’ll keep fans focused for some time.
Recommended.
As I’ve always tried to be clear, I’m neither an expert on Giallo films nor that big a fan of them. What I do like is stories that are compellingly constructed with characters that are engagingly performed; and – on that respect – Phenomena kinda/sorta ebbs and flows a bit too much. Its highs are great, but its lows are almost painstakingly banal. Argento was a fan of some slow building, simmering tension; in here, it works more often than it fails, but when it fails it’s pretty obvious. Some takes are just too long, and – once again – I can’t help but wonder if another pair of eyes might’ve tightened this one up in places wherein some tidying could’ve been more effective.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Synapse Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD of Phenomena (1985) 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
Confession: I love B-movies when (and usually only when) they’re well made.
What that means to me is that all of the particulars associated to said B-movie – the writer, the cast, the crew – are “in” on it. They’re in on the joke. They’re in on the vibe. From the outset, they realize that their movie may not have the chance to legitimately compete with the latest Michael Bay gloss-fest, the next effects-laden miracle from Peter Jackson, or anything Steven Spielberg chooses to put his name on (even when he’s phoning it in). Well-made B-movies are works of genius: they’re a celebration of exactly what film could be when everyone in it decides to just ‘have fun with it.’ To just ‘roll with it.’ It doesn’t mean that the material gets disrespected; rather, it means that the various players realize their only shot at greatest is breaking through the glass ceiling of critics in favor of finding that soft, soft place in the hearts of movie fans everywhere.
With a name like Big Ass Spider!, one really should know what one’s getting into right away. Thankfully, it delivers almost everything it could: a celebration of things that go bump in the night with a handful of laughs along the way.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
L.A. – aka Los Angeles – is about to face its most dire challenge yet. No, it isn’t an earthquake. It isn’t a tsunami. It isn’t the Obama Administration. Rather, a secret government project has somehow been outsmarted (why does that always happen?); and a giant, hungry spider is roaming the streets. When all else fails – when our government can’t even begin to get things back under control – mankind’s only hope takes the shape of Alex Mathis (played to near-perfection by a goofy Greg Grunberg), a crack exterminator, and his wise-cracking sidekick Jose Ramos, an armed hospital security guard. Together, they’ll do what the United States military can’t … or they’ll die trying!
Look. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. As I said, the name of the flick – Big Ass Spider! – really should tell you everything about this motion picture that you need to know. It’s all wry, sly, and witty from start to finish. The special effects? Well, they’re not Star Wars quality, but they work just fine for what they were intended to do. They’re good CGI, not grand. The story? Oh, of course, it isn’t perfect, but it’s probably fairly close to what scribe Gregory Gieras intended with some modest ad-libs by everyone on the set.
What that means to me is that all of the particulars associated to said B-movie – the writer, the cast, the crew – are “in” on it. They’re in on the joke. They’re in on the vibe. From the outset, they realize that their movie may not have the chance to legitimately compete with the latest Michael Bay gloss-fest, the next effects-laden miracle from Peter Jackson, or anything Steven Spielberg chooses to put his name on (even when he’s phoning it in). Well-made B-movies are works of genius: they’re a celebration of exactly what film could be when everyone in it decides to just ‘have fun with it.’ To just ‘roll with it.’ It doesn’t mean that the material gets disrespected; rather, it means that the various players realize their only shot at greatest is breaking through the glass ceiling of critics in favor of finding that soft, soft place in the hearts of movie fans everywhere.
With a name like Big Ass Spider!, one really should know what one’s getting into right away. Thankfully, it delivers almost everything it could: a celebration of things that go bump in the night with a handful of laughs along the way.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
L.A. – aka Los Angeles – is about to face its most dire challenge yet. No, it isn’t an earthquake. It isn’t a tsunami. It isn’t the Obama Administration. Rather, a secret government project has somehow been outsmarted (why does that always happen?); and a giant, hungry spider is roaming the streets. When all else fails – when our government can’t even begin to get things back under control – mankind’s only hope takes the shape of Alex Mathis (played to near-perfection by a goofy Greg Grunberg), a crack exterminator, and his wise-cracking sidekick Jose Ramos, an armed hospital security guard. Together, they’ll do what the United States military can’t … or they’ll die trying!
Look. I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. As I said, the name of the flick – Big Ass Spider! – really should tell you everything about this motion picture that you need to know. It’s all wry, sly, and witty from start to finish. The special effects? Well, they’re not Star Wars quality, but they work just fine for what they were intended to do. They’re good CGI, not grand. The story? Oh, of course, it isn’t perfect, but it’s probably fairly close to what scribe Gregory Gieras intended with some modest ad-libs by everyone on the set.
But the experience?
Anyone who celebrates B movies should recognize a quality effort, and that’s what Spider is: hands down, it’s probably some of the most fun that a cast, crew, and audience had together.
Grunberg – who’s had solid cameo works in more than a handful of major productions – is clearly the ringleader here, and he attacks it all with a kinda/sorta chunky Bill Murray quality. He manages to lift every scene he’s in to a level higher probably because of his goofiness. And Boyar – as his quick-witted partner – only lets a few good opportunities escape a witticism from him. And veteran character actor Ray Wise as Major Braxton Tanner – ultimately the man responsible for both letting the spider get away as well as marshaling the effort to see it stopped – is about as brilliant as casting work one could expect from B-movie greatness.
All in all, this is a wonderful time at the movies. It’s the kind of flick that isn’t too long (80 minutes) and is best served with a bowl of popcorn and a couple of beers. Leave your brain at the door. You’re not going to need it.
Big Ass Spider! (2013) is produced by Epic Pictures Group, Wittgenstein Entertainment, Film Entertainment Services, ICE Animations, and Snowfort Pictures. DVD distribution is being handled by Epic Pictures. As for the technical specifications, I’m going to be perfectly honest: this is a B movie, and, as such, you can expect for very high quality B movie sights and sounds to dictate your experience – there were some minor instances of audio varying on the dialogue track that became a bit distracting in the first half, but it did seem to work itself out in the latter. (It could’ve used a better mixer.) And – say it isn’t so! – there’s actually an assortment of special features including cast interviews, TV spots, trailers, a SXSW featurette, and something resembling a commentary track.
Highly recommended.
B-movie patrons and makers could all benefit from a quick study: watch Big Ass Spider! and take its sensibilities to heart. Clearly, everyone associated with this film (the screenwriter, the director, the cast and crew, etc.) knew precisely what they were doing, understood precisely what they wanted to achieve, and then delivered on their collective promise to deliver exactly the kind of movie that a network like SyFy Channel would benefit from following. Everything is tongue-in-cheek, from the established movie science right down to the winning performances by Greg Grunberg and Lombardo Boyar. There’s no doubt in my mind all associated with this had a blast making it; it’s the kind of satisfying experience lesser movies should strive for! Bravo, director Mendez, for bringing it all together! Now … let’s see a sequel!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Epic Pictures provided me with an advance DVD copy of Big Ass Spider! by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
Anyone who celebrates B movies should recognize a quality effort, and that’s what Spider is: hands down, it’s probably some of the most fun that a cast, crew, and audience had together.
Grunberg – who’s had solid cameo works in more than a handful of major productions – is clearly the ringleader here, and he attacks it all with a kinda/sorta chunky Bill Murray quality. He manages to lift every scene he’s in to a level higher probably because of his goofiness. And Boyar – as his quick-witted partner – only lets a few good opportunities escape a witticism from him. And veteran character actor Ray Wise as Major Braxton Tanner – ultimately the man responsible for both letting the spider get away as well as marshaling the effort to see it stopped – is about as brilliant as casting work one could expect from B-movie greatness.
All in all, this is a wonderful time at the movies. It’s the kind of flick that isn’t too long (80 minutes) and is best served with a bowl of popcorn and a couple of beers. Leave your brain at the door. You’re not going to need it.
Big Ass Spider! (2013) is produced by Epic Pictures Group, Wittgenstein Entertainment, Film Entertainment Services, ICE Animations, and Snowfort Pictures. DVD distribution is being handled by Epic Pictures. As for the technical specifications, I’m going to be perfectly honest: this is a B movie, and, as such, you can expect for very high quality B movie sights and sounds to dictate your experience – there were some minor instances of audio varying on the dialogue track that became a bit distracting in the first half, but it did seem to work itself out in the latter. (It could’ve used a better mixer.) And – say it isn’t so! – there’s actually an assortment of special features including cast interviews, TV spots, trailers, a SXSW featurette, and something resembling a commentary track.
Highly recommended.
B-movie patrons and makers could all benefit from a quick study: watch Big Ass Spider! and take its sensibilities to heart. Clearly, everyone associated with this film (the screenwriter, the director, the cast and crew, etc.) knew precisely what they were doing, understood precisely what they wanted to achieve, and then delivered on their collective promise to deliver exactly the kind of movie that a network like SyFy Channel would benefit from following. Everything is tongue-in-cheek, from the established movie science right down to the winning performances by Greg Grunberg and Lombardo Boyar. There’s no doubt in my mind all associated with this had a blast making it; it’s the kind of satisfying experience lesser movies should strive for! Bravo, director Mendez, for bringing it all together! Now … let’s see a sequel!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Epic Pictures provided me with an advance DVD copy of Big Ass Spider! by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
- Published on
For whatever the reason, Robert Louis Stevenson's novel "The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" certainly made an impact with storytellers of a bygone era and even continues to resonate well into modern day.
I have read some commentary seeking to both explain and explore the incredible number of filmed versions -- silent and talkie -- as well as the number of theatrical incarnations of the Jekyll/Hyde yarn (Wikipedia.org suggests that it's presently well over one hundred different ones), but so far as I'm concerned there's been no solid explanation that truly solves the mystery. I suppose the whole 'duality of man' is probably the single greatest hook for those seeking to give it a narrative whirl; and, of course, it equally explores themes of how mankind might inadvertantly use science in some sick and twisted way to ultimately get what it wants from the world-at-large. Some might suggest that the Stevenson tale says something about the inevitability of violence as it relates to the removal of man's inhibitions (via the central concoction), and there's no doubt a wealth of other creative angles -- big and small -- that figure into the mix. Whatever the case, let's just agree that the work's popularity is nothing short of staggering and be about our business.
In point of fact, I'd long overlooked this 1913 version of the landmark Horror tale mostly because I'd honestly confused it with one that was released only months previous -- in 1912. Some of the websites where I do a bit of my own reading on these older releases have even used stills from them interchangeably, and, yes, as you can imagine this also led to my confusion. The modern era has had its share of studios competing to get their respective interpretations of some big story on the silver screen in the same scope of time, so this isn't anything new. But it's still nothing short of astonishing to imagine that this 1886 novel has inspired so many interpretations that -- dare I say -- it's practically an annual affair with creatives?
As popular as the central story is, I'd argue that the 1913 version had one thing that the others didn't, and that was it cast a king in the big role: actor King Baggot was -- for a time -- referred to as the "King Of The Movies" by not only his contemporaries but by audiences who frequented his pictures. His resume on IMDB.com boasts an incredible 361 different screen appearances, all clocked in between the years of 1909 thru 1947. Anyone good at math can tell you that's a gobsmacking average of ten films per year ... and that's a lot of flicks! With credentials like that, it's easy to see why (as per Wikipedia.org), the man was also called "The Most Photographed Man In The World."
Here's this version's plot summary as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself."
Other than that, I've found very little written about the picture. Its citation on Wikipedia.org does indicate that reviewers and audiences were definitely smitten with the Jekyll/Hyde transformation sequence; apparently, this was a very effective use of dissolves that helped illustrate physically that change from good to evil. One other interesting tidbit (found on Scifist 2.0) states that this version was produced by Carl Laemmle who would go on to found Universal Pictures ... making this incarnation of the Jekyll/Hyde story debatedly the beginning of the whole Universal Pictures Movie Monsters Universe!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I have read some commentary seeking to both explain and explore the incredible number of filmed versions -- silent and talkie -- as well as the number of theatrical incarnations of the Jekyll/Hyde yarn (Wikipedia.org suggests that it's presently well over one hundred different ones), but so far as I'm concerned there's been no solid explanation that truly solves the mystery. I suppose the whole 'duality of man' is probably the single greatest hook for those seeking to give it a narrative whirl; and, of course, it equally explores themes of how mankind might inadvertantly use science in some sick and twisted way to ultimately get what it wants from the world-at-large. Some might suggest that the Stevenson tale says something about the inevitability of violence as it relates to the removal of man's inhibitions (via the central concoction), and there's no doubt a wealth of other creative angles -- big and small -- that figure into the mix. Whatever the case, let's just agree that the work's popularity is nothing short of staggering and be about our business.
In point of fact, I'd long overlooked this 1913 version of the landmark Horror tale mostly because I'd honestly confused it with one that was released only months previous -- in 1912. Some of the websites where I do a bit of my own reading on these older releases have even used stills from them interchangeably, and, yes, as you can imagine this also led to my confusion. The modern era has had its share of studios competing to get their respective interpretations of some big story on the silver screen in the same scope of time, so this isn't anything new. But it's still nothing short of astonishing to imagine that this 1886 novel has inspired so many interpretations that -- dare I say -- it's practically an annual affair with creatives?
As popular as the central story is, I'd argue that the 1913 version had one thing that the others didn't, and that was it cast a king in the big role: actor King Baggot was -- for a time -- referred to as the "King Of The Movies" by not only his contemporaries but by audiences who frequented his pictures. His resume on IMDB.com boasts an incredible 361 different screen appearances, all clocked in between the years of 1909 thru 1947. Anyone good at math can tell you that's a gobsmacking average of ten films per year ... and that's a lot of flicks! With credentials like that, it's easy to see why (as per Wikipedia.org), the man was also called "The Most Photographed Man In The World."
Here's this version's plot summary as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself."
Other than that, I've found very little written about the picture. Its citation on Wikipedia.org does indicate that reviewers and audiences were definitely smitten with the Jekyll/Hyde transformation sequence; apparently, this was a very effective use of dissolves that helped illustrate physically that change from good to evil. One other interesting tidbit (found on Scifist 2.0) states that this version was produced by Carl Laemmle who would go on to found Universal Pictures ... making this incarnation of the Jekyll/Hyde story debatedly the beginning of the whole Universal Pictures Movie Monsters Universe!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Believe it or not, Hollywood has not always been in favor of scientific progress, folks.
With the emergence of atomic power -- along with its incredibly destructive potential -- the storytellers and mythmakers in Hollywood and beyond went to work right away, capitalizing an awful lot of creative potential around stories to display the ills of splitting the atom. While Godzilla (1954) probably remains the biggest of the bunch (pun intended), there are an incredible number of films that either directly or indirectly attempted to persuade audiences away from pursuing such dangerous science. In fact, when the Science Fiction and Fantasy films of the 1950's weren't convincing enough, the rabble-rowsers turned to much more conventional but equally frightening dramas in the late 50's and throughout the 1960's, hoping to minimally shine a light on the eventual dark fate awaiting all of mankind at the cost of going nuclear.
For all intents and purposes, The Giant Behemoth (aka Behemoth, The Sea Monster) pretty much follows in Godzilla's already trod footsteps. oceanic atomic testing brings this dormant monster back to life, and London winds up being terrorized as a result of mankind's hubris.
Precisely where the idea came from, however, is a bit of a mystery.
IMDB.com shows the original story as being credited to both Allen Adler and Robert Abel. Diving into Wikipedia.org, Adler's biography is a bit slim, but the database does show that he was a screenwriter tied curiously back to 1956's landmark Forbidden Planet (with Irving Block). Apparently, Adler spent his last days blacklisted from Hollywood for having been linked somehow with Communist sympathizers exposed during the McCarthy hearings. Furthermore, Adler is cited as being an author of Science Fiction works on Wikipedia.org, but the only listing I can see is for a 1957 novel titled "Terror On Planet Ionus" (or "Mach 1: A Story Of Planet Ionus"). The novel is cited as having several publications on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, so there's that.
Sadly, I'm unable to locate any meaningful information on Robert Abel. He is listed on IMDB.com, but just how he's tied directly back to the story for Behemoth is unclear. In fact, his citation implies that he perhaps wasn't originally included with the project and has since been added after-the-fact. What that means is entirely up to anyone's speculation. Perhaps his participation is a bit shrouded with mystery for good reason. Who can tell?
The film's screenplay shows attributed to both Daniel James and director Eugène Lourié. Again, the supporting details on James are light, but Lourié appears to have enjoyed a reasonable fruitful career as both a director and art director in the industry. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953) is cited as his first directorial effort, but he went on to bring other genre properties to the silver screen including Behemoth, The Colossus Of New York (1958), Gorgo (1961), and Godzilla (1977). From that resume it looks like 'big things' may've been his specialty! Interestingly enough, his work on 20,000 Fathoms had him -- along with others -- receiving a 1954 Hugo Award nomination in the category of 'Best Dramatic Presentation,' an award whose trophy was ultimately awarded to 1953's The War Of The Worlds.
With the emergence of atomic power -- along with its incredibly destructive potential -- the storytellers and mythmakers in Hollywood and beyond went to work right away, capitalizing an awful lot of creative potential around stories to display the ills of splitting the atom. While Godzilla (1954) probably remains the biggest of the bunch (pun intended), there are an incredible number of films that either directly or indirectly attempted to persuade audiences away from pursuing such dangerous science. In fact, when the Science Fiction and Fantasy films of the 1950's weren't convincing enough, the rabble-rowsers turned to much more conventional but equally frightening dramas in the late 50's and throughout the 1960's, hoping to minimally shine a light on the eventual dark fate awaiting all of mankind at the cost of going nuclear.
For all intents and purposes, The Giant Behemoth (aka Behemoth, The Sea Monster) pretty much follows in Godzilla's already trod footsteps. oceanic atomic testing brings this dormant monster back to life, and London winds up being terrorized as a result of mankind's hubris.
Precisely where the idea came from, however, is a bit of a mystery.
IMDB.com shows the original story as being credited to both Allen Adler and Robert Abel. Diving into Wikipedia.org, Adler's biography is a bit slim, but the database does show that he was a screenwriter tied curiously back to 1956's landmark Forbidden Planet (with Irving Block). Apparently, Adler spent his last days blacklisted from Hollywood for having been linked somehow with Communist sympathizers exposed during the McCarthy hearings. Furthermore, Adler is cited as being an author of Science Fiction works on Wikipedia.org, but the only listing I can see is for a 1957 novel titled "Terror On Planet Ionus" (or "Mach 1: A Story Of Planet Ionus"). The novel is cited as having several publications on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, so there's that.
Sadly, I'm unable to locate any meaningful information on Robert Abel. He is listed on IMDB.com, but just how he's tied directly back to the story for Behemoth is unclear. In fact, his citation implies that he perhaps wasn't originally included with the project and has since been added after-the-fact. What that means is entirely up to anyone's speculation. Perhaps his participation is a bit shrouded with mystery for good reason. Who can tell?
The film's screenplay shows attributed to both Daniel James and director Eugène Lourié. Again, the supporting details on James are light, but Lourié appears to have enjoyed a reasonable fruitful career as both a director and art director in the industry. The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953) is cited as his first directorial effort, but he went on to bring other genre properties to the silver screen including Behemoth, The Colossus Of New York (1958), Gorgo (1961), and Godzilla (1977). From that resume it looks like 'big things' may've been his specialty! Interestingly enough, his work on 20,000 Fathoms had him -- along with others -- receiving a 1954 Hugo Award nomination in the category of 'Best Dramatic Presentation,' an award whose trophy was ultimately awarded to 1953's The War Of The Worlds.
It looks like the good people at Warner Archive released a Blu-ray of The Giant Behemoth in early 2019, but a quick scan of the Information Superhighway doesn't show that it received an awful lot of attention from reviewers. In fact, I'm seeing more substantive information (and reviews) regarding the film's 2007 DVD release (where it was packaged alongside other like-minded fare) as part of the Warner Bros. Cult Classics Volume 1 set. Publicity materials indicate that all three films in the collection come with feature-length commentaries, so that might be the one for consumers to pick up if they're so inclined to make the purchase.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
In the 1960's, just how popular were the James Bond movies?
Well, one way of looking at the level of popularity surrounding England's best secret service agent is Hollywood's response to it: producers sought to capitalize on worldwide audiences hunger for it with not one but two like-minded imitators. Dean Martin was cast to bring Matt Helm to the big screen, and James Coburn became Derek Flint for Our Man Flint in 1966. Our Man Flint proved so powerful that 20th Century Fox immediately demanded a follow-up, thus ushering the first and only sequel to the spy franchise ... In Like Flint ... which premiered on this day in Puerto Rico back in 1967. (Its U.S. launch would follow roughly two weeks later.)
While I have vague recollections of watching the Flint films on television back in my youth, I honestly didn't think too much of them. Series star James Coburn never quite seemed as impressive as, say, Sean Connery was in his feats of derring-do; and I'd also suggest that some of the franchise's humor was probably lost on me (being so young and innocent). The Matt Helm films, by comparison, are much bigger and broader with their parodic strokes, so it's easy to see that neither Dean Martin nor the audience was probably taking any of it all that serious. That was patently obvious to even my impressionable brain.
But back to Flint ...
I've read that -- ahem -- not a lot of effort and originality was extended on the sequel. As can happen with some properties, studio suits saw the returns on the first flick and figured they had a Golden Goose with which to lay a few more Golden Eggs, but In Like Flint's reviews weren't all that flattering. While Coburn has stated in interviews that the studio was interested in having him return for a third, he killed that possibility by refusing to do another one, thus ended Flint's true terms of service, allowing the superspy to finally relax in retirement.
Directed by Gordon Douglas from a script by Hal Fimberg, the picture also starred Lee J. Cobb, Jean Hale, Andrew Duggan, Anna Lee, and Hanna Landy. Viewers watching closely will spot the lovely Yvonne Craig who would soon light up small screens with her portrayal of Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl) aboard the campy Batman television serial.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Flint is again called out of retirement when his old boss finds that he seems to have missed three minutes while golfing with the president. Flint finds that the president has been replaced by an actor (Flint's line [with a wistful look] is "An Actor as President?") Flint finds that a group of women have banded together to take over the world through subliminal brainwashing in beauty salons they own."
Well, one way of looking at the level of popularity surrounding England's best secret service agent is Hollywood's response to it: producers sought to capitalize on worldwide audiences hunger for it with not one but two like-minded imitators. Dean Martin was cast to bring Matt Helm to the big screen, and James Coburn became Derek Flint for Our Man Flint in 1966. Our Man Flint proved so powerful that 20th Century Fox immediately demanded a follow-up, thus ushering the first and only sequel to the spy franchise ... In Like Flint ... which premiered on this day in Puerto Rico back in 1967. (Its U.S. launch would follow roughly two weeks later.)
While I have vague recollections of watching the Flint films on television back in my youth, I honestly didn't think too much of them. Series star James Coburn never quite seemed as impressive as, say, Sean Connery was in his feats of derring-do; and I'd also suggest that some of the franchise's humor was probably lost on me (being so young and innocent). The Matt Helm films, by comparison, are much bigger and broader with their parodic strokes, so it's easy to see that neither Dean Martin nor the audience was probably taking any of it all that serious. That was patently obvious to even my impressionable brain.
But back to Flint ...
I've read that -- ahem -- not a lot of effort and originality was extended on the sequel. As can happen with some properties, studio suits saw the returns on the first flick and figured they had a Golden Goose with which to lay a few more Golden Eggs, but In Like Flint's reviews weren't all that flattering. While Coburn has stated in interviews that the studio was interested in having him return for a third, he killed that possibility by refusing to do another one, thus ended Flint's true terms of service, allowing the superspy to finally relax in retirement.
Directed by Gordon Douglas from a script by Hal Fimberg, the picture also starred Lee J. Cobb, Jean Hale, Andrew Duggan, Anna Lee, and Hanna Landy. Viewers watching closely will spot the lovely Yvonne Craig who would soon light up small screens with her portrayal of Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl) aboard the campy Batman television serial.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Flint is again called out of retirement when his old boss finds that he seems to have missed three minutes while golfing with the president. Flint finds that the president has been replaced by an actor (Flint's line [with a wistful look] is "An Actor as President?") Flint finds that a group of women have banded together to take over the world through subliminal brainwashing in beauty salons they own."
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Like any film freak, there was a time in my life wherein I'd see practically anything that looked like it fit the mold of an acceptable Science Fiction and/or Fantasy release ... and, sure, I had a stable of actors and actresses I followed whose films always tweaked my interest. One of those ladies -- for a time -- was the talented Milla Jovovich.
Now, I couldn't say why her films intrigued me exactly. Sure, she's attractive in that Maybelline movie face way -- I mean that as no disrespect -- so I can be visually wooed just as much as the next guy. But I recall thinking that she had kinda/sorta inherited the mantle of 'Genre Queen' from so many other talented actresses in the past; and she was doing a respectable job trying to seek out and explore any and all scripts that put her in like-minded fare. While I wasn't a fan of the film The Fifth Element (1997), I did love her work in the picture; and -- so far as I'm concerned -- she's really one of the chief reasons to see that flick even now, decades later. (That, and some very, very, very good production values. But -- ugh -- it's story is kinda hot garbage.) And, yes, I think I've sat through all of the Resident Evil franchise; even though I likely couldn't distinguish one or the other of those stories in a police line-up if my life depended on it, I still went back to appreciate what Milla was doing in them.
What can I say? Some faces -- and forces -- deserve some appreciation, and she's always been dynamic and watchable in my book.
That said, I've only seen her Ultraviolet (2006) once, and that was during its theatrical run. I vaguely recall walking out of the theater and turning to my lovely wife to ask, "What the Hell did I just watch?" It seemed more than a bit contrived, void of any real central intriguing narrative, and a bit of a mess, so far as characters go. (I've since learned to not be so hard on B-Movies, but back then I remember expecting a bit more from flicks.) So this one-timer was something that came and went, easily and quickly forgotten mostly because it just didn't resonate in any manageable way. This can happen, and methinks Ultraviolet deserved a better fate.
From what I've since come to understand, both its top star and writer/director Kurt Wimmer have pretty much disowned the property. As best as I can explain it, the storyteller delivered a two-hour hard R final cut to Sony, an incarnation of the tale that apparently confused the suits. They were smitten -- quite obviously -- with the female action star premise and thus expected a bit more frenetic action, something the studio had hoped to release to fans hungry for much of the same. As executives will do from time-to-time, they locked both Milla and Wimmer out of the project, trimmed it down to something like 90-minutes, and shoved that into theaters ... even without all special effects sequences being fully completed!
As you can imagine, the film mostly crashed and burned at the box office. I have read that it actually made very good money with a subsequent home video release -- I think I've also noticed that some of the cut footage was re-installed -- but as I've never seen it since I can't speak to whether or not the surviving incarnation is any better than the confusing lot I witnessed with my own two eyes.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A beautiful hæmophage infected with a virus that gives her superhuman powers has to protect a boy in a futuristic world, who is thought to be carrying antigens that would destroy all hæmophages."
Now, I couldn't say why her films intrigued me exactly. Sure, she's attractive in that Maybelline movie face way -- I mean that as no disrespect -- so I can be visually wooed just as much as the next guy. But I recall thinking that she had kinda/sorta inherited the mantle of 'Genre Queen' from so many other talented actresses in the past; and she was doing a respectable job trying to seek out and explore any and all scripts that put her in like-minded fare. While I wasn't a fan of the film The Fifth Element (1997), I did love her work in the picture; and -- so far as I'm concerned -- she's really one of the chief reasons to see that flick even now, decades later. (That, and some very, very, very good production values. But -- ugh -- it's story is kinda hot garbage.) And, yes, I think I've sat through all of the Resident Evil franchise; even though I likely couldn't distinguish one or the other of those stories in a police line-up if my life depended on it, I still went back to appreciate what Milla was doing in them.
What can I say? Some faces -- and forces -- deserve some appreciation, and she's always been dynamic and watchable in my book.
That said, I've only seen her Ultraviolet (2006) once, and that was during its theatrical run. I vaguely recall walking out of the theater and turning to my lovely wife to ask, "What the Hell did I just watch?" It seemed more than a bit contrived, void of any real central intriguing narrative, and a bit of a mess, so far as characters go. (I've since learned to not be so hard on B-Movies, but back then I remember expecting a bit more from flicks.) So this one-timer was something that came and went, easily and quickly forgotten mostly because it just didn't resonate in any manageable way. This can happen, and methinks Ultraviolet deserved a better fate.
From what I've since come to understand, both its top star and writer/director Kurt Wimmer have pretty much disowned the property. As best as I can explain it, the storyteller delivered a two-hour hard R final cut to Sony, an incarnation of the tale that apparently confused the suits. They were smitten -- quite obviously -- with the female action star premise and thus expected a bit more frenetic action, something the studio had hoped to release to fans hungry for much of the same. As executives will do from time-to-time, they locked both Milla and Wimmer out of the project, trimmed it down to something like 90-minutes, and shoved that into theaters ... even without all special effects sequences being fully completed!
As you can imagine, the film mostly crashed and burned at the box office. I have read that it actually made very good money with a subsequent home video release -- I think I've also noticed that some of the cut footage was re-installed -- but as I've never seen it since I can't speak to whether or not the surviving incarnation is any better than the confusing lot I witnessed with my own two eyes.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A beautiful hæmophage infected with a virus that gives her superhuman powers has to protect a boy in a futuristic world, who is thought to be carrying antigens that would destroy all hæmophages."
Now, wouldn't it be grand if there were some way to find all of that unseen footage, bring Wimmer back into the fold, and -- years later -- give his original tale a proper airing? That's exactly the kind of thing that I find so grand about a few home video distributors like Kino Lorber, Arrow Films, and others: these outlets are actually investing some time and money into helping mythmakers go about resolving some issues that tanked a project here and there, giving light to slightly different versions of earlier releases and thereby granting them new life. Maybe -- someday -- the same could happen for Ultraviolet ... as it would be exciting to see a story that made a bit more sense.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
The pulpier SciFi and Fantasy films rarely – if ever – shy away from taking complete visual advantage of – ahem – sensual attributes of their players. Jane Fonda rather famously banked the success of Barbarella (1968) on her sex appeal, a role that I’ve read almost went to Raquel Welch for the exact same reason. Flesh Gordon (1974) dialed up the – ahem – Bawd Factor perhaps a bit more, giving audiences a dose of camp cheesery with glints of male and female skin; though the end product was inevitably toned down in order to meet the Puritanical requirements of police and a seated judge. But even flicks like Cherry 2000 (1987) and Hell Comes To Frogtown feature plots that take advantage of exploring that long-fought ‘battles of the sexes’ wherein love and lust blur the line between good and bad taste.
Now, keep in mind, folks, that even the revered George Lucas ultimately threw Carrie Fisher (aka Princess Leia Organa) into a metal bikini perhaps as a way of paying homage to Science Fiction’s singular fascination with the female form. Decades later, John Carter (2012) didn’t shy away from parading its very own Barsoom princess – Dejia Thoris (played deliciously by Lynn Collins – as the sculpted beauty she is. And that was produced by Walt Disney! Even the Mouse House kinda/sorta admitted that sex sells in the consumer marketplace. Misogyny be damned, genre entities respond to the demands of their audiences, even when that means the best these projects might achieve is direct-to-DVD stardom.
So … forgive me if I suggest that I’m very confident that Galaxina’s writer/director William Sachs knew exactly what he wanted when he cast a budding Playboy Playmate in a lead role playing a female robot both soaring the heavens and searching for love.
(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 two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Cornelius Butt (played by veteran funnyman Avery Schreiber) captained the police starship Infinity, but he spends more time belittling his officers, Thor (Stephen Macht) and Buzz (J.D. Hinton). Still, the hours spent away from Earth are hard on all of the men, but no one struggles more than Thor. His problems are tied to the fact that he’s head-over-heels in love with the ship’s resident android, Galaxina (a lovely Dorothy Stratten). However, after he spends 27 years in cryosleep on a deep space mission to find a new power source, the female automaton will reprogram herself so that not only can the two of them touch without restraint but also they might be able to find love … so long as it’s in the catalogue!
Like it or not, Galaxina actually comes from a fairly long and relatively distinguished list of reasonably well-made B-movies that titillate mildly while really dishing up no real skin. (As the film introduced the Playboy Playmate Stratten to celluloid, methinks many have sought out a copy hoping to survey her assets.) However, Stratten kept it all on here, though she does appear in a few provocative outfits. I’m guessing those who show up only for a flash of her bosoms or hindquarters are apt to leave disappointed; those of us who don’t mind a little ‘cheese’ with our movies know there’s just enough of the right stuff to make this worth a single viewing but probably no return visit.
Now, keep in mind, folks, that even the revered George Lucas ultimately threw Carrie Fisher (aka Princess Leia Organa) into a metal bikini perhaps as a way of paying homage to Science Fiction’s singular fascination with the female form. Decades later, John Carter (2012) didn’t shy away from parading its very own Barsoom princess – Dejia Thoris (played deliciously by Lynn Collins – as the sculpted beauty she is. And that was produced by Walt Disney! Even the Mouse House kinda/sorta admitted that sex sells in the consumer marketplace. Misogyny be damned, genre entities respond to the demands of their audiences, even when that means the best these projects might achieve is direct-to-DVD stardom.
So … forgive me if I suggest that I’m very confident that Galaxina’s writer/director William Sachs knew exactly what he wanted when he cast a budding Playboy Playmate in a lead role playing a female robot both soaring the heavens and searching for love.
(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 two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Cornelius Butt (played by veteran funnyman Avery Schreiber) captained the police starship Infinity, but he spends more time belittling his officers, Thor (Stephen Macht) and Buzz (J.D. Hinton). Still, the hours spent away from Earth are hard on all of the men, but no one struggles more than Thor. His problems are tied to the fact that he’s head-over-heels in love with the ship’s resident android, Galaxina (a lovely Dorothy Stratten). However, after he spends 27 years in cryosleep on a deep space mission to find a new power source, the female automaton will reprogram herself so that not only can the two of them touch without restraint but also they might be able to find love … so long as it’s in the catalogue!
Like it or not, Galaxina actually comes from a fairly long and relatively distinguished list of reasonably well-made B-movies that titillate mildly while really dishing up no real skin. (As the film introduced the Playboy Playmate Stratten to celluloid, methinks many have sought out a copy hoping to survey her assets.) However, Stratten kept it all on here, though she does appear in a few provocative outfits. I’m guessing those who show up only for a flash of her bosoms or hindquarters are apt to leave disappointed; those of us who don’t mind a little ‘cheese’ with our movies know there’s just enough of the right stuff to make this worth a single viewing but probably no return visit.
For those who are unfamiliar with Stratten’s story, I’d recommend a Google search.
Her time in the limelight was tragically cut short when she was murdered by an obsessively possessive boyfriend she was trying to part ways with at the time; as a consequence of being stricken down before her time, a bit of a legend grew in the days following her demise. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the film Star 80 tells her sad story, though I’ve read that it took some liberties when recounting the more positive memories of those who knew her best. My only complaint with the film is that it kinda/sorta tries to blend a traditional drama with a faux documentary (actors play both fictional and documentary roles), so the narrative feels a bit too ‘theatrical’ for my tastes.
As a film, there’s nothing all that much wrong with Galaxina. There may not be a lot right with it, either, but it is what it is.
It’s clearly meant to parody the popular SciFi films of the day – even a casual moviegoer will spot obvious jabs at Star Wars (notice the opening scroll) and Star Trek (Capt. Butt keeps a relatively humorous “captain’s log”) – and, on that front, I suppose it works well enough. It isn’t big, bold, or brash comedy; instead it’s bawdy and predictable, maybe even a bit too juvenile in places. The men spend an awful lot of time aping for the camera, spoiling even small moments with their endless exaggerations (FYI: Schreiber built an entire career around such shtick). The laughs largely appeal to pre-pubescent males, who unfortunately couldn’t get in due to the film’s R rating. But as often happens, there’s also very little done ‘right’ in there, leaving the film mired in less-than-mediocre storytelling with jokes that feel rejected from one of the lesser Mel Brooks’ features.
Macht has a few nice moments in there, and Stratten is certainly easy on the eyes. You might find yourself rooting for them to get together, and, when they do, you’re probably left wondering, “Seriously, is that all there is?” A forgettable flick that probably would’ve disappeared to history if it hadn’t been for the Playmate’s brief flirtation with superstardom.
Galaxina (1980) is produced by Marimark Productions. DVD distribution for this release (the Blu-ray double feature includes The Crater Lake Monster) is being handled through Mill Creek Entertainment. As for the technical specifications, the film holds up surprisingly well here; while the sights are sounds are acceptable quality, there’s certainly a fair amount of grain in many images. Lastly, if it’s special features you want, then you’re about to be severely disappointed as there’s not a single one.
Mildly recommended.
Odds are if you’ve heard of Galaxina, then you’re destined to watch Galaxina. While I’ll agree that there’s no better reason than to witness the stunningly beautiful Stratten in her glorious prime, there’s also a mild attempt at humor here, all served up in a B-movie package. Sadly, it’s so ill-conceived and goofily performed that Galaxina as a legitimate feature never really had a chance to be anything more than a curiosity. Don’t expect big things – rest assured, fellahs, that the lovely Ms. Stratten keeps her clothes on despite the R rating – and you might have a little fun with it.
-- EZ
Her time in the limelight was tragically cut short when she was murdered by an obsessively possessive boyfriend she was trying to part ways with at the time; as a consequence of being stricken down before her time, a bit of a legend grew in the days following her demise. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the film Star 80 tells her sad story, though I’ve read that it took some liberties when recounting the more positive memories of those who knew her best. My only complaint with the film is that it kinda/sorta tries to blend a traditional drama with a faux documentary (actors play both fictional and documentary roles), so the narrative feels a bit too ‘theatrical’ for my tastes.
As a film, there’s nothing all that much wrong with Galaxina. There may not be a lot right with it, either, but it is what it is.
It’s clearly meant to parody the popular SciFi films of the day – even a casual moviegoer will spot obvious jabs at Star Wars (notice the opening scroll) and Star Trek (Capt. Butt keeps a relatively humorous “captain’s log”) – and, on that front, I suppose it works well enough. It isn’t big, bold, or brash comedy; instead it’s bawdy and predictable, maybe even a bit too juvenile in places. The men spend an awful lot of time aping for the camera, spoiling even small moments with their endless exaggerations (FYI: Schreiber built an entire career around such shtick). The laughs largely appeal to pre-pubescent males, who unfortunately couldn’t get in due to the film’s R rating. But as often happens, there’s also very little done ‘right’ in there, leaving the film mired in less-than-mediocre storytelling with jokes that feel rejected from one of the lesser Mel Brooks’ features.
Macht has a few nice moments in there, and Stratten is certainly easy on the eyes. You might find yourself rooting for them to get together, and, when they do, you’re probably left wondering, “Seriously, is that all there is?” A forgettable flick that probably would’ve disappeared to history if it hadn’t been for the Playmate’s brief flirtation with superstardom.
Galaxina (1980) is produced by Marimark Productions. DVD distribution for this release (the Blu-ray double feature includes The Crater Lake Monster) is being handled through Mill Creek Entertainment. As for the technical specifications, the film holds up surprisingly well here; while the sights are sounds are acceptable quality, there’s certainly a fair amount of grain in many images. Lastly, if it’s special features you want, then you’re about to be severely disappointed as there’s not a single one.
Mildly recommended.
Odds are if you’ve heard of Galaxina, then you’re destined to watch Galaxina. While I’ll agree that there’s no better reason than to witness the stunningly beautiful Stratten in her glorious prime, there’s also a mild attempt at humor here, all served up in a B-movie package. Sadly, it’s so ill-conceived and goofily performed that Galaxina as a legitimate feature never really had a chance to be anything more than a curiosity. Don’t expect big things – rest assured, fellahs, that the lovely Ms. Stratten keeps her clothes on despite the R rating – and you might have a little fun with it.
-- EZ
- Published on
If one knows where to look, then there's a reasonable amount involving the history and making of Alraune (1930). Otherwise, I'll admit that it's a tough nut to crack!
In short, the picture was greenlit at a time when filmmakers and studios were quickly transitioning between the silent era and the addition of sound to motion pictures. The 1928 version of the existing story of Alraune -- which had already enjoyed two previous silent productions -- was quickly dusted off and prepped for a remake to hit theaters two years later ... and with the same lady (Brigitte Helm) in the starring role.
Why keep the exact same actress?!
Well, Helm -- a bit of a cinema sensation since breaking through in Fritz Lang's groundbreaking Metropolis (1927) -- had made her mark starring as the Horror/Fantasy creation of Alraune, a kinda/sorta female version of Frankenstein (depending upon one's interpretation of that myth), so why not give her another chance ... this time with sound? Think what you may, I suspect it was as risky as it was an obvious choice. Helm returned to the limelight, and director Richard Oswald also brought aboard such talent as Albert Basserman, Harald Paulsen, Agnes Straub, and Bernhard Goetzke.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A scientist, Professor Jakob ten Brinken, interested in the laws of heredity, impregnates a prostitute in a laboratory with the semen of a hanged murderer. The prostitute conceives a female child who has no concept of love, whom the professor adopts. The girl, Alraune, suffers from obsessive sexuality and perverse relationships throughout her life. She learns of her unnatural origins and she avenges herself against the professor."
But because these two productions are only separated by a few years and headlined the same lady in the central role, I'll admit that it's been a bit difficult to distinguish between them for what little research I've been able to slip into my schedule this morning. In a few cases, I've been halfway through an article or blurb here and there only to discover that I'm actually gathering info from the earlier as opposed to the latter, which is why I'm pretty much inclined to leave it at this for the release. I will add that the good folks at SciFiList do point out that the franchise of Alraune is one that's been curiously set aside in film history -- we have seen it kinda/sorta revisited from different angles -- but this female-led Horror property could truly benefit from some distributor picking it up, fine tuning these old prints, and getting all-new high definition versions out for consumption. It would be nice if I could find a copy to view ... but at present that's just not the case.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
In short, the picture was greenlit at a time when filmmakers and studios were quickly transitioning between the silent era and the addition of sound to motion pictures. The 1928 version of the existing story of Alraune -- which had already enjoyed two previous silent productions -- was quickly dusted off and prepped for a remake to hit theaters two years later ... and with the same lady (Brigitte Helm) in the starring role.
Why keep the exact same actress?!
Well, Helm -- a bit of a cinema sensation since breaking through in Fritz Lang's groundbreaking Metropolis (1927) -- had made her mark starring as the Horror/Fantasy creation of Alraune, a kinda/sorta female version of Frankenstein (depending upon one's interpretation of that myth), so why not give her another chance ... this time with sound? Think what you may, I suspect it was as risky as it was an obvious choice. Helm returned to the limelight, and director Richard Oswald also brought aboard such talent as Albert Basserman, Harald Paulsen, Agnes Straub, and Bernhard Goetzke.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A scientist, Professor Jakob ten Brinken, interested in the laws of heredity, impregnates a prostitute in a laboratory with the semen of a hanged murderer. The prostitute conceives a female child who has no concept of love, whom the professor adopts. The girl, Alraune, suffers from obsessive sexuality and perverse relationships throughout her life. She learns of her unnatural origins and she avenges herself against the professor."
But because these two productions are only separated by a few years and headlined the same lady in the central role, I'll admit that it's been a bit difficult to distinguish between them for what little research I've been able to slip into my schedule this morning. In a few cases, I've been halfway through an article or blurb here and there only to discover that I'm actually gathering info from the earlier as opposed to the latter, which is why I'm pretty much inclined to leave it at this for the release. I will add that the good folks at SciFiList do point out that the franchise of Alraune is one that's been curiously set aside in film history -- we have seen it kinda/sorta revisited from different angles -- but this female-led Horror property could truly benefit from some distributor picking it up, fine tuning these old prints, and getting all-new high definition versions out for consumption. It would be nice if I could find a copy to view ... but at present that's just not the case.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ