- Published on
Good morning and Happy Wednesday to all of SciFiHistory.Net's readers!
One of the things I've always wanted to do is -- ahem -- catch up on my viewing of classic Science Fiction and Fantasy television. As I've mentioned many, many, many times in this space, I grew up in the small town that -- so far as you know -- is about as geographically as close to 'Hell On Earth' that one can get on this side of existence. As a consequence, our humble little television set received only a smattering of broadcast channels, the most of which were middle American affiliate stations that couldn't afford a major line-up of shows in the evening. I won't trouble you recounting what shows were heavy in rotation, but suffice it to say it really wasn't much by way of stuff that would interest audiences today. Rest assured: we had the three major networks of their day to keep us captivated after supper ... but -- as your parents and grandparents can assure you, kids, you either watched what they gave you or you didn't.
So I missed out on the two big shows so many were able to digest frequently: I could just never find The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits in syndication. When it was on, it was generally aired late at night -- I think rural stations thought it might be a bit 'heady' or even 'daring' for younger viewers, so I chucked it up as more adult fare. By the time I got into high school, shows like Star Trek (syndicated, of course) and the PBS runs of Doctor Who kept most of my TV interest, so the classic anthologies just never quite fell onto my radar.
Now that I'm older -- and definitely wiser -- I'm trying to make serious efforts to correct this, and I recently picked up the Second Season of The Outer Limits to digest as time permits. Why the Second Season first? Well, I've done some reading, and -- depending upon how one might interpret the critical assessment -- the second had some meatier stories. While I have seen snippets of a few first season entries, I figured I'd spend some time better understanding where the show went as opposed to just starting at the front and working my way to the end.
In this regard, I might be penning some episode reviews as well as making time for screencapping and whatnot. I've always wanted to do more of that with SciFiHistory.Net; it's just that -- as you can imagine -- the investment in time will be phenomenal. I can only squeeze these in when I have the legroom on my schedule (so to speak), and I just so happened to have a wee bit yesterday. 1964's "Soldier" is definitely something special, and thus I gave it a whirl. Fabulous hour. Fabulous cast. And some fabulous screencaps were taken.
If you're interested, you can find it all right here. If I get the spirit to fashion a review, I'll post that in this space as well.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
One of the things I've always wanted to do is -- ahem -- catch up on my viewing of classic Science Fiction and Fantasy television. As I've mentioned many, many, many times in this space, I grew up in the small town that -- so far as you know -- is about as geographically as close to 'Hell On Earth' that one can get on this side of existence. As a consequence, our humble little television set received only a smattering of broadcast channels, the most of which were middle American affiliate stations that couldn't afford a major line-up of shows in the evening. I won't trouble you recounting what shows were heavy in rotation, but suffice it to say it really wasn't much by way of stuff that would interest audiences today. Rest assured: we had the three major networks of their day to keep us captivated after supper ... but -- as your parents and grandparents can assure you, kids, you either watched what they gave you or you didn't.
So I missed out on the two big shows so many were able to digest frequently: I could just never find The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits in syndication. When it was on, it was generally aired late at night -- I think rural stations thought it might be a bit 'heady' or even 'daring' for younger viewers, so I chucked it up as more adult fare. By the time I got into high school, shows like Star Trek (syndicated, of course) and the PBS runs of Doctor Who kept most of my TV interest, so the classic anthologies just never quite fell onto my radar.
Now that I'm older -- and definitely wiser -- I'm trying to make serious efforts to correct this, and I recently picked up the Second Season of The Outer Limits to digest as time permits. Why the Second Season first? Well, I've done some reading, and -- depending upon how one might interpret the critical assessment -- the second had some meatier stories. While I have seen snippets of a few first season entries, I figured I'd spend some time better understanding where the show went as opposed to just starting at the front and working my way to the end.
In this regard, I might be penning some episode reviews as well as making time for screencapping and whatnot. I've always wanted to do more of that with SciFiHistory.Net; it's just that -- as you can imagine -- the investment in time will be phenomenal. I can only squeeze these in when I have the legroom on my schedule (so to speak), and I just so happened to have a wee bit yesterday. 1964's "Soldier" is definitely something special, and thus I gave it a whirl. Fabulous hour. Fabulous cast. And some fabulous screencaps were taken.
If you're interested, you can find it all right here. If I get the spirit to fashion a review, I'll post that in this space as well.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Now I ask you: which among us can't appreciate a good monster movie and -- HOLY MOTHER DRAGONS?! WHAT THE HELL AM I LOOKING AT?!
I tell you: I love my job.
Being on the cutting edge of modern entertainment has taken me years and years of building up relationships across the Information Superhighway, but I'd like to think I've expended my blood, sweat, and tears for the benefit of all mankind. That's why I do get particularly thrilled when I can bring you some late-breaking announcements involving some upcoming fare that treads near-and-dear to things that go bump in the night. Always remember: I'll do the research so that you don't have to, and we're bound to always come out on top together.
So in this spirit I'd like to bring a little something something titled The Prey: Legend Of Karnoctus to your attention today. This looks to be a debut feature for screenwriter and director Matthew Hensman -- sometimes that bodes well, sometimes not -- and it stars just genre regulars as Danny Trejo, Adrian Paul, and Nick Chinlund. And as monster movie promotions go, the movers and shakers aren't afraid to conceal this little ditty until the last minute: you'll find the creature playing prominent in the coming attraction for this genre gem that drops on demand in June.
I'll be copying and pasting the particulars below. Readers are encouraged to check them out at your leisure. I'll be reviewing this one in this space in the not-too-distant future, so keep your eyes peeled. It looks to be a doozy.
-- EZ
I tell you: I love my job.
Being on the cutting edge of modern entertainment has taken me years and years of building up relationships across the Information Superhighway, but I'd like to think I've expended my blood, sweat, and tears for the benefit of all mankind. That's why I do get particularly thrilled when I can bring you some late-breaking announcements involving some upcoming fare that treads near-and-dear to things that go bump in the night. Always remember: I'll do the research so that you don't have to, and we're bound to always come out on top together.
So in this spirit I'd like to bring a little something something titled The Prey: Legend Of Karnoctus to your attention today. This looks to be a debut feature for screenwriter and director Matthew Hensman -- sometimes that bodes well, sometimes not -- and it stars just genre regulars as Danny Trejo, Adrian Paul, and Nick Chinlund. And as monster movie promotions go, the movers and shakers aren't afraid to conceal this little ditty until the last minute: you'll find the creature playing prominent in the coming attraction for this genre gem that drops on demand in June.
I'll be copying and pasting the particulars below. Readers are encouraged to check them out at your leisure. I'll be reviewing this one in this space in the not-too-distant future, so keep your eyes peeled. It looks to be a doozy.
-- EZ
Nick Chinlund & Danny Trejo Lead a Ragtag Group
of Americans Against a Deadly Beast
Con Air Co-Stars Reunite in an Afghan Cave
Red Carpet Premiere June 2nd
Opens on Los Angeles Screens June 3rd
The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus Debuts on Cable VOD June 7th
Available on Digital Platforms July 7th
of Americans Against a Deadly Beast
Con Air Co-Stars Reunite in an Afghan Cave
Red Carpet Premiere June 2nd
Opens on Los Angeles Screens June 3rd
The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus Debuts on Cable VOD June 7th
Available on Digital Platforms July 7th
Los Angeles, CA -Stonecutter Media and Lennexe Films are excited to announce the limited theatrical and VOD release of The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus, from co-directors Eric Hensman and Matthew Hensman. The action-adventure monster movie will open in Los Angeles June 3, 2022 at the Regency Theatres Van Nuys Plant 16 for a weeklong run. On June 7, The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus will be available nationwide on all major Cable VOD platforms, including Comcast, Charter, DirecTV, Cox, and Verizon Fios.
On July 7, The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus will debut on digital platforms, including iTunes, Prime Video, Vudu, and Google Play.
The Prey: Legend of Karnoctus stars Nick Chinlund (Chronicles of Riddick, Con Air), Adrian Paul ("Highlander: The Series"), Kevin Grevioux (Underworld), Fahim Fazli (Argo, Iron Man), Adolfo de la Parra, Justin Arnold, Masika Kalisha, and Danny Trejo (Machete, From Dusk till Dawn).
Matthew Hensman and Gustavo Sainz de la Peña wrote the script, from a story by Gustavo Sainz de la Peña, in an homage to the action-adventure and monster flicks of the 1980s.
Ahead of the official release, The Prey: Legend Of Karnoctus will have an official red carpet premiere at the Regency Bruin Theatre in Westwood on June 2.
Ahead of the official release, The Prey: Legend Of Karnoctus will have an official red carpet premiere at the Regency Bruin Theatre in Westwood on June 2.
Los Angeles June 2 Premiere:
Regency Bruin Theatre
948 Broxton Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
6:00 pm Carpet
7:00 pm Screening
Q&A to Follow the Screening
Los Angeles June 3 Opening:
Regency Theatres Van Nuys Plant 16
7876 Van Nuys Blvd
Panorama City, CA 91402
Regency Bruin Theatre
948 Broxton Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90024
6:00 pm Carpet
7:00 pm Screening
Q&A to Follow the Screening
Los Angeles June 3 Opening:
Regency Theatres Van Nuys Plant 16
7876 Van Nuys Blvd
Panorama City, CA 91402
In the Afghanistan desert, a group of mercenaries out for treasure complete their greatest heist. Seeking refuge from the hunting Taliban in a nearby cave, they are soon joined by retreating US soldiers, and both groups are trapped within by a rocket explosion at the cave’s entrance. The newly joined parties need to work together to find an escape through the labyrinth but soon realize they’re being tracked by a deadly beast that local legend calls Karnoctus; and they have become… the prey.
- Published on
Folks, you know me -- some of you know me by name -- and throughout the (roughly) ten years I've been doing this whole 'entertainment blog' shtick I've been asked to pass along all kinds of stuff to my growing readership.
Honestly, there's a fair number of inquiries to my site that just doesn't quite hit the genre nail that I keep in supply. Monthly I have to do like many in this humble business do and clean up the spam (you'd be surprised the number of companies that try to park adverts within my various pages). Occasionally I'm contacting by people who seek to promote a product or two in this space, but I've honestly tried to avoid that stuff; it would require me to set up some kind of fee schedule -- the likes of which I've no way to figure out logistically -- and it would open the door understandably to more of the same. So I toil away -- still in obscurity -- hoping to maintain my focus on the kinds of content I believe you'd like to see.
Every now and then, though, something does come across the transom that does tickle my fancy, and -- lo and behold -- it happened just earlier today. The kind peeps over at HotDog.Com reached out regarding their latest creation: it's a fabulous accounting of Horror movie fascination broken down by state! What with Halloween not all that far around the corner, I thought it would be an interesting feature to share, as we're all in the market for a good scare every now and then.
For those who don't know, I'm in Arizona, and the demographics of our state have decided that our top thriller chiller is ... is ... Night Of The Comet (1984)?!?!
Folks, I'm packing up and moving back to Illinois ...
No, wait ... wait ... wait ...
Illinois' top Horror movie is ... is ... I Walked With A Zombie (1943)?!?!
Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm staying right here.
In any event, I scanned through the entertaining piece and got some chuckles over it -- along with their methodology -- and I thought that this was definitely in our sphere of influence. I'd encourage all of you to do the same, share and share alike, and find out what your neighbors think is scaring you silly. I suspect you'll be as surprised as I was.
Honestly, there's a fair number of inquiries to my site that just doesn't quite hit the genre nail that I keep in supply. Monthly I have to do like many in this humble business do and clean up the spam (you'd be surprised the number of companies that try to park adverts within my various pages). Occasionally I'm contacting by people who seek to promote a product or two in this space, but I've honestly tried to avoid that stuff; it would require me to set up some kind of fee schedule -- the likes of which I've no way to figure out logistically -- and it would open the door understandably to more of the same. So I toil away -- still in obscurity -- hoping to maintain my focus on the kinds of content I believe you'd like to see.
Every now and then, though, something does come across the transom that does tickle my fancy, and -- lo and behold -- it happened just earlier today. The kind peeps over at HotDog.Com reached out regarding their latest creation: it's a fabulous accounting of Horror movie fascination broken down by state! What with Halloween not all that far around the corner, I thought it would be an interesting feature to share, as we're all in the market for a good scare every now and then.
For those who don't know, I'm in Arizona, and the demographics of our state have decided that our top thriller chiller is ... is ... Night Of The Comet (1984)?!?!
Folks, I'm packing up and moving back to Illinois ...
No, wait ... wait ... wait ...
Illinois' top Horror movie is ... is ... I Walked With A Zombie (1943)?!?!
Nope. Nope. Nope. I'm staying right here.
In any event, I scanned through the entertaining piece and got some chuckles over it -- along with their methodology -- and I thought that this was definitely in our sphere of influence. I'd encourage all of you to do the same, share and share alike, and find out what your neighbors think is scaring you silly. I suspect you'll be as surprised as I was.
Horror Movies US States Are Most Obsessed With: The Results Are Scary!
Read more at: https://hotdog.com/blog/best-horror-movies/?off
Read more at: https://hotdog.com/blog/best-horror-movies/?off
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the immeasurable perks of being an influential member of the modern-age of media (ha!) is that I meet and greet an incredible number of folks.
Whether it be Twitter, Instragram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or elsewhere, I'm always doing my part to not only reach out and explore new worlds and new civilizations within the world of entertainment but also to give the occasional SciFi ShoutOut to friends, foes, and like-minded Muggles from all corners of the Information Superhighway. In the process, I've had actors reach out to me asking that I include them in these pages. I've had directors and screenwriters send me the occasional 'thanks' or even the occasional barb in reaction to something I've said. Why, I've even had family members of actors who've passed away that wanted to give a kind word in response to SciFiHistory.Net's desire to see nothing forgotten and how a quick Tweet elicited some memory of dear ol' dad ... and they just wanted to say thanks. And I always tell them the same: 'Nothing tickles my fancy more than being able to celebrate our shared love of SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror for anyone watching.' While I may not be as widely read as some other outlets, I find it still refreshing to do my part in championing All Things Genre whenever I get the chance.
Just the other day, I received a press release regarding genre author Deidre J. Owen and her upcoming work -- Terminal Faults. In between her bouts of creative flourish, this Florida native braves the unGodly humidity while spending time with her husband and daughter; and she's still managed to build herself a small empire of published works in Horror, Science Fiction, and more. I'll put up a few links about where to find her online presence below, along with the press release for Terminal Faults, which looks to hit the shelves this upcoming May 25th. Interested? You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Twitter: @DeidreJOwen
Website: DeidreJOwen.com
Whether it be Twitter, Instragram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or elsewhere, I'm always doing my part to not only reach out and explore new worlds and new civilizations within the world of entertainment but also to give the occasional SciFi ShoutOut to friends, foes, and like-minded Muggles from all corners of the Information Superhighway. In the process, I've had actors reach out to me asking that I include them in these pages. I've had directors and screenwriters send me the occasional 'thanks' or even the occasional barb in reaction to something I've said. Why, I've even had family members of actors who've passed away that wanted to give a kind word in response to SciFiHistory.Net's desire to see nothing forgotten and how a quick Tweet elicited some memory of dear ol' dad ... and they just wanted to say thanks. And I always tell them the same: 'Nothing tickles my fancy more than being able to celebrate our shared love of SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror for anyone watching.' While I may not be as widely read as some other outlets, I find it still refreshing to do my part in championing All Things Genre whenever I get the chance.
Just the other day, I received a press release regarding genre author Deidre J. Owen and her upcoming work -- Terminal Faults. In between her bouts of creative flourish, this Florida native braves the unGodly humidity while spending time with her husband and daughter; and she's still managed to build herself a small empire of published works in Horror, Science Fiction, and more. I'll put up a few links about where to find her online presence below, along with the press release for Terminal Faults, which looks to hit the shelves this upcoming May 25th. Interested? You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Twitter: @DeidreJOwen
Website: DeidreJOwen.com
TERMINAL FAULTS
By Deidre J Owen
Science Fiction Horror
180 pages
5×8 paperback, $9.99
ISBN: 979-8819664940
E-book, $3.99
Universal Book Link: https://books2read.com/TerminalFaults
Wandering aimlessly, nine condemned souls unknowingly circle each other: a duplicitous foursome, dysfunctional gluttons, a serial killer, and a pair of deranged mortal enemies. As they suffer the consequences of their poor decisions in life, they are unable to fully grasp how deception and self-serving motives can only lead to one’s own downfall—whether one is human or otherwise.
**BONUS**
Supplemental material included! Join the author as she provides an in-depth look at the Obsidian Rooms, the cast of characters, and their dark motivations, along with the hidden symbolism, technical aspects, inspirations, general trivia, and more!
Deidre J Owen was born in Lexington, Kentucky, but aside from a stint in the Canadian Maritimes she has spent a majority of her time in the Tampa Bay area in Florida (despite the humidity). A versatile writer, Deidre has taken joy in a variety of genres including science fiction, weird fiction, speculative fiction, horror, humor, children’s books, and Christian themes. She has a published children’s picture book series called The Heaven Zoo as well as a number of short stories, novelettes, novellas, including the popular Mannison Minibooks The Salted Cabin and The White Mannequin’s Game.
In 2019, Deidre partnered with editor and fellow indie author Ronald Linson to establish independent publishing house Mannison Press. Specializing in short-form fiction, Mannison Press publishes in a wide variety of genres of varying lengths, including flash fiction, short stories, novelettes, novellas, collections, and anthologies.
Although formerly a certified veterinary technician by trade (with a quirky history of random interests), Deidre is currently enjoying life with her husband in Lithia, Florida, as a writer, publisher, and work-from-home mother to the couple’s young daughter.
In 2019, Deidre partnered with editor and fellow indie author Ronald Linson to establish independent publishing house Mannison Press. Specializing in short-form fiction, Mannison Press publishes in a wide variety of genres of varying lengths, including flash fiction, short stories, novelettes, novellas, collections, and anthologies.
Although formerly a certified veterinary technician by trade (with a quirky history of random interests), Deidre is currently enjoying life with her husband in Lithia, Florida, as a writer, publisher, and work-from-home mother to the couple’s young daughter.
- Published on
Sigh.
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know how much I truly, madly, deeply hate politics. Yes, yes, yes, I know that I'll slip in the occasional barb in the Daily Pages (here's looking at you, Matt Damon), but I honestly do it with a sense of love, not animosity. I genuinely don't hate anyone -- though my wife will tell you I'm constantly going around saying "This is why I hate people" -- but I do operate with a general sense of distrust until proven otherwise. It might be naive or it might be modest political bias, but it's honestly served me well for the past ... well, past several decades in which I've walked God's green earth. (That's a phrase, people ... not an endorsement of any organized religion.)
Still, there are times -- like this morning -- when I can't help but venture into some mild controversy: that Liberal/Progressive entertainment stomping ground, Netflix, is bringing audiences yet one more adventure set in the world of Resident Evil. I bring this up, largely, because the trailer has dropped; and I wanted to post it ... yet, in thinking about the property and the current 'state of the economy' for the Netflix I can't help but make a few observations.
In case you missed it, they had an absolutely awful first quarter 2022 that I don't believe is fully grasped by folks who follow entertainment whatnot: at a time -- and with a set of circumstances fundamentally ripe for streaming platforms to grow exponentially (thanks to the continuing COVID-style lockdowns) -- when they should've been adding subscribers, Netflix actually lost them. Yes, that hurts ... but what hurt far more was the fact that they'd be operating on the assumption -- as well as assuring investors -- that they were adding customers when they were losing them not in a trickle but in droves. In short: you can't have a negative subscriber growth. EVER. It just can't happen. Somehow, Netflix managed it.
(FYI: here's the political part, peeps. You've been warned.)
Even though no one really wants to talk about the elephant in the room -- that being Netflix as a production entity has embraced some curiously obvious left wings ideas (like pedophilia, men getting pregnant, and other lifestyle choices I don't feel the need to mention) -- it shouldn't be understated that this aggregate loss comes on the heels of essentially the company shackling itself to such anti-American zealots as the Obamas, Harry & Meghan, and some lesser figures in the Democrat Party. (Again, feel free to disagree; I'm only penning my thoughts on the subject, not yours.) I guess when it isn't enough that your CEO goes on record calling regular Americans to be amongst the globally ignorant, then you have to double down and force feed them propaganda while advertising it as entertainment. (Here's looking at you, 'Cuties.')
Again: there's nothing wrong with Netflix making all of those decisions. It's a company, it has every right to engage in whatever form of expression -- political or otherwise -- and that's not my point. What my point is remains: when you insult your customer and then try to tell them how to think, your customer is likely going to become someone else's customer. That's just simple economics, and methinks it's caught up with Netflix.
The circumstances aren't dire, indeed, but they should open some eyes in senior management, though I doubt it will. They're still trying to prop up Stranger Things as some must-see experience -- my take is that it's a good show, one that's probably gone on too long, but that's an argument for another time and place -- and seriously trying to milk what they can from Ozark. (It's another good show -- exceptional cast -- but I had issues with how unbelievable some of it was.) And now they roll out ... Resident Evil? A property that's had a handful of semi-successsful films, a somewhat failed reboot, and now a serialized attempt?
Look, I'm all for more genre shows when the opposite is less genre shows, but hasn't this one been -- pardon the pun -- done to death?
I guess stranger things have happened. (Pun intended. Again.)
Trailer is below. You folks know what to do.
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know how much I truly, madly, deeply hate politics. Yes, yes, yes, I know that I'll slip in the occasional barb in the Daily Pages (here's looking at you, Matt Damon), but I honestly do it with a sense of love, not animosity. I genuinely don't hate anyone -- though my wife will tell you I'm constantly going around saying "This is why I hate people" -- but I do operate with a general sense of distrust until proven otherwise. It might be naive or it might be modest political bias, but it's honestly served me well for the past ... well, past several decades in which I've walked God's green earth. (That's a phrase, people ... not an endorsement of any organized religion.)
Still, there are times -- like this morning -- when I can't help but venture into some mild controversy: that Liberal/Progressive entertainment stomping ground, Netflix, is bringing audiences yet one more adventure set in the world of Resident Evil. I bring this up, largely, because the trailer has dropped; and I wanted to post it ... yet, in thinking about the property and the current 'state of the economy' for the Netflix I can't help but make a few observations.
In case you missed it, they had an absolutely awful first quarter 2022 that I don't believe is fully grasped by folks who follow entertainment whatnot: at a time -- and with a set of circumstances fundamentally ripe for streaming platforms to grow exponentially (thanks to the continuing COVID-style lockdowns) -- when they should've been adding subscribers, Netflix actually lost them. Yes, that hurts ... but what hurt far more was the fact that they'd be operating on the assumption -- as well as assuring investors -- that they were adding customers when they were losing them not in a trickle but in droves. In short: you can't have a negative subscriber growth. EVER. It just can't happen. Somehow, Netflix managed it.
(FYI: here's the political part, peeps. You've been warned.)
Even though no one really wants to talk about the elephant in the room -- that being Netflix as a production entity has embraced some curiously obvious left wings ideas (like pedophilia, men getting pregnant, and other lifestyle choices I don't feel the need to mention) -- it shouldn't be understated that this aggregate loss comes on the heels of essentially the company shackling itself to such anti-American zealots as the Obamas, Harry & Meghan, and some lesser figures in the Democrat Party. (Again, feel free to disagree; I'm only penning my thoughts on the subject, not yours.) I guess when it isn't enough that your CEO goes on record calling regular Americans to be amongst the globally ignorant, then you have to double down and force feed them propaganda while advertising it as entertainment. (Here's looking at you, 'Cuties.')
Again: there's nothing wrong with Netflix making all of those decisions. It's a company, it has every right to engage in whatever form of expression -- political or otherwise -- and that's not my point. What my point is remains: when you insult your customer and then try to tell them how to think, your customer is likely going to become someone else's customer. That's just simple economics, and methinks it's caught up with Netflix.
The circumstances aren't dire, indeed, but they should open some eyes in senior management, though I doubt it will. They're still trying to prop up Stranger Things as some must-see experience -- my take is that it's a good show, one that's probably gone on too long, but that's an argument for another time and place -- and seriously trying to milk what they can from Ozark. (It's another good show -- exceptional cast -- but I had issues with how unbelievable some of it was.) And now they roll out ... Resident Evil? A property that's had a handful of semi-successsful films, a somewhat failed reboot, and now a serialized attempt?
Look, I'm all for more genre shows when the opposite is less genre shows, but hasn't this one been -- pardon the pun -- done to death?
I guess stranger things have happened. (Pun intended. Again.)
Trailer is below. You folks know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
People just don't understand me, even when I think I couldn't be clearer.
A few years back, I got into an online debate with someone over what she insisted was a lack of quality roles for women in Science Fiction and Fantasy television shows. You know what my response was? I remember it perfectly. I said -- exactly -- "There are plenty of great roles being written for women. The problem is that they're all being played by Tatiana Maslany."
Get it? Funny? Right?
Well, she didn't get it, but (again) I thought I was spot on the money. Look at all of the quality roles Maslany played in one single show -- Orphan Black -- and you get my point.
Right? Get it now? Funny, right?
Well, I thought so then, and I still think so now.
But as I always point out, I'm not really a Marvel guy. I don't dislike the properties; rather it's that they just don't connect with me on a personal level the same way many of the DC Comics stuff does. (Don't get me wrong: I still have complaints with a lot of the DC Movies, though I won't go into them now.) Marvel's characters were just crafted with more sass than they were motivation, and -- as a story guy -- I do tend to prefer a different narrative backbone to the stuff that rings my bell.
She-Hulk is a character I've never quite understood, though. Yes, I've always dug it as being a kinda/sorta comic interpretation for the whole Hulk thing, but as a recurring character she just never meant all that much to me. However, I'm a huge fan of Maslany, so I'm definitely far more inclined to check this show out for her participation. The trailer doesn't do much for me -- she comes off more like the female Shrek than she does a bona fide hero here -- but I'll reserve judgment until I see the finished product. Tatiana deserves, at least, that much from a fan.
In any event, trailer is below. You know you want to watch it, so have at it.
A few years back, I got into an online debate with someone over what she insisted was a lack of quality roles for women in Science Fiction and Fantasy television shows. You know what my response was? I remember it perfectly. I said -- exactly -- "There are plenty of great roles being written for women. The problem is that they're all being played by Tatiana Maslany."
Get it? Funny? Right?
Well, she didn't get it, but (again) I thought I was spot on the money. Look at all of the quality roles Maslany played in one single show -- Orphan Black -- and you get my point.
Right? Get it now? Funny, right?
Well, I thought so then, and I still think so now.
But as I always point out, I'm not really a Marvel guy. I don't dislike the properties; rather it's that they just don't connect with me on a personal level the same way many of the DC Comics stuff does. (Don't get me wrong: I still have complaints with a lot of the DC Movies, though I won't go into them now.) Marvel's characters were just crafted with more sass than they were motivation, and -- as a story guy -- I do tend to prefer a different narrative backbone to the stuff that rings my bell.
She-Hulk is a character I've never quite understood, though. Yes, I've always dug it as being a kinda/sorta comic interpretation for the whole Hulk thing, but as a recurring character she just never meant all that much to me. However, I'm a huge fan of Maslany, so I'm definitely far more inclined to check this show out for her participation. The trailer doesn't do much for me -- she comes off more like the female Shrek than she does a bona fide hero here -- but I'll reserve judgment until I see the finished product. Tatiana deserves, at least, that much from a fan.
In any event, trailer is below. You know you want to watch it, so have at it.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Though I could be wrong on the timeline, I do believe it was the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that truly saw the emergence of the ‘slasher movie’ as a unique subset of the traditional Horror genre.
Fueled largely by the explosion of home video, any storyteller with a video camera could – with relative ease – string together a loose plot into something that could get financed, shot, packaged and marketed for mainstream consumption … and that’s basically what happened. Killshots were filmed over and over for no other reason than delivering vicarious thrills. Some of filmdom’s greatest Horror franchises came out of this era, including such juggernauts as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th, and Halloween. Those tentpoles survive even to this day, though audiences have had to suffer through the inevitable reboot/retool/rehash as storylines shifted from the conventional to the bit eccentric. Like Star Wars inspired a plethora of low-budget imitations, the growing slasher business was encroached by a whole host of lesser pictures, though the bulk of them had to struggle with whatever new ‘hook’ best positioned them to push audiences past their fatigue and into something just a bit fresh.
That pretty much brings us to where Girls Nite Out entered our collective consciousness.
As box office receipts had begun to recede, Girls’ producers needed to hype something different. Audiences had lost interest in death, so the decision makers opted instead on a script that would mix traditional comedy with the celebrated bloodletting, hoping such an infectious combination would interest audiences of both types of stories instead of just the dwindling Horror participants. (For clarity’s sake, the comedy here wasn’t parody – like the Scary Movie folks did much later – but it was more of an Animal House type of manic, larger-than-life characters.) Though I’ve been unable to locate any definite profit analysis of the flick, I suspect it was met with dubious results, at best, some of which is likely owed to its uneven tone.
Alas, Hollywood, take note: humor ain’t all that funny when folks are dyin’.
(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 …)
Fueled largely by the explosion of home video, any storyteller with a video camera could – with relative ease – string together a loose plot into something that could get financed, shot, packaged and marketed for mainstream consumption … and that’s basically what happened. Killshots were filmed over and over for no other reason than delivering vicarious thrills. Some of filmdom’s greatest Horror franchises came out of this era, including such juggernauts as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th, and Halloween. Those tentpoles survive even to this day, though audiences have had to suffer through the inevitable reboot/retool/rehash as storylines shifted from the conventional to the bit eccentric. Like Star Wars inspired a plethora of low-budget imitations, the growing slasher business was encroached by a whole host of lesser pictures, though the bulk of them had to struggle with whatever new ‘hook’ best positioned them to push audiences past their fatigue and into something just a bit fresh.
That pretty much brings us to where Girls Nite Out entered our collective consciousness.
As box office receipts had begun to recede, Girls’ producers needed to hype something different. Audiences had lost interest in death, so the decision makers opted instead on a script that would mix traditional comedy with the celebrated bloodletting, hoping such an infectious combination would interest audiences of both types of stories instead of just the dwindling Horror participants. (For clarity’s sake, the comedy here wasn’t parody – like the Scary Movie folks did much later – but it was more of an Animal House type of manic, larger-than-life characters.) Though I’ve been unable to locate any definite profit analysis of the flick, I suspect it was met with dubious results, at best, some of which is likely owed to its uneven tone.
Alas, Hollywood, take note: humor ain’t all that funny when folks are dyin’.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“A scavenger hunt game is planned one night for the Dewitt University sorority. The game takes the girls from graveyards to bellfrys and from beds to bathtubs. The terror begins as one by one, each girl is mysteriously murdered by a sadistic maniac …”
I can’t even begin to imagine the thought process that occurred behind-the-scenes on Girls Nite Out. Who thought it would be a good idea to mix the campus comedy with a realistic slasher film – not a Horror flick grounded in comic elements but a crazy frat-style send-up celebrating quick, easy, exploitative, gruesome murders?
Therein lies the bulk of Girls problem.
Chiefly, most of the film’s first half is dedicated to allowing these typical college students to behave with the kind of naïve and somewhat harmless debauchery undergraduates have traditionally displayed on the silver screen. They laugh. They joke. They tease. They taunt, sing, fart, frolic, and boink with the best of them, all the while not having a care in the world. Why should they? Why would they? They’re still kids, after all, so why not ‘get it on?’ Oh, sure, there are some minor bits of foreshadowing which involve some past tragedy might be coming to life again in the present, but they’ll never let that spoil a good drink-off, hook-up party, and scavenger hunt, now would they?
Tonally, this film’s two halves couldn’t be any further apart, and I think that’s what gives this story all the buoyancy of a lead anchor. The set-up to the whole affair is a perfect grand college party – completing with booze and dancing – and the payoff is a growing pile of dead young ladies. None of this was played for giggles. None of this was played for satire. All of it was meant to be part and parcel of a lesser local legend – structured to mimic the same reveal Hitchcock used in the vastly superior Psycho (1960) – but try not to notice the jokes, general apery, and downright silliness of the players! They’re really just a bunch of developing upstanding citizens … well, upstanding until they’re dead on the floor, that is.
I ask you: would you knowingly and willingly set sail on a ship you knew was going to sink?
Also, there’s this little problem with the picture’s killer. Were this a legitimate Horror/Comedy – one that kinda took the conventions of the slasher film and turned them on their head – then perhaps it wouldn’t seem unusual to have the slasher roaming around dressed as the school’s mascot. Right? The jokes about a secret identity practically write themselves when viewers are treated to the sight of this big, lovable teddy bear traipsing around campus with a set of steak knives sewn in his mitts. But Girls wants you to take this seriously – especially in its second half – though none of these sorority ladies do when being approached. I can’t believe anyone on the cast or crew failed to point out the disconnect here, though one of the secrets learned on the disc’s interview tracks is that – yeah – the producers thought the comic bits needed dialing back in the last reel.
“A scavenger hunt game is planned one night for the Dewitt University sorority. The game takes the girls from graveyards to bellfrys and from beds to bathtubs. The terror begins as one by one, each girl is mysteriously murdered by a sadistic maniac …”
I can’t even begin to imagine the thought process that occurred behind-the-scenes on Girls Nite Out. Who thought it would be a good idea to mix the campus comedy with a realistic slasher film – not a Horror flick grounded in comic elements but a crazy frat-style send-up celebrating quick, easy, exploitative, gruesome murders?
Therein lies the bulk of Girls problem.
Chiefly, most of the film’s first half is dedicated to allowing these typical college students to behave with the kind of naïve and somewhat harmless debauchery undergraduates have traditionally displayed on the silver screen. They laugh. They joke. They tease. They taunt, sing, fart, frolic, and boink with the best of them, all the while not having a care in the world. Why should they? Why would they? They’re still kids, after all, so why not ‘get it on?’ Oh, sure, there are some minor bits of foreshadowing which involve some past tragedy might be coming to life again in the present, but they’ll never let that spoil a good drink-off, hook-up party, and scavenger hunt, now would they?
Tonally, this film’s two halves couldn’t be any further apart, and I think that’s what gives this story all the buoyancy of a lead anchor. The set-up to the whole affair is a perfect grand college party – completing with booze and dancing – and the payoff is a growing pile of dead young ladies. None of this was played for giggles. None of this was played for satire. All of it was meant to be part and parcel of a lesser local legend – structured to mimic the same reveal Hitchcock used in the vastly superior Psycho (1960) – but try not to notice the jokes, general apery, and downright silliness of the players! They’re really just a bunch of developing upstanding citizens … well, upstanding until they’re dead on the floor, that is.
I ask you: would you knowingly and willingly set sail on a ship you knew was going to sink?
Also, there’s this little problem with the picture’s killer. Were this a legitimate Horror/Comedy – one that kinda took the conventions of the slasher film and turned them on their head – then perhaps it wouldn’t seem unusual to have the slasher roaming around dressed as the school’s mascot. Right? The jokes about a secret identity practically write themselves when viewers are treated to the sight of this big, lovable teddy bear traipsing around campus with a set of steak knives sewn in his mitts. But Girls wants you to take this seriously – especially in its second half – though none of these sorority ladies do when being approached. I can’t believe anyone on the cast or crew failed to point out the disconnect here, though one of the secrets learned on the disc’s interview tracks is that – yeah – the producers thought the comic bits needed dialing back in the last reel.
Without belaboring the criticism, Girls frankly had too many girls.
It seems like this had a cast of thousands – well, dozens, at least – and no single character is ever really given any moment to shine in the way that would make traditional watchers care about them. As an example, the kills of the first two Friday The 13th movies were celebrated because the victims met increasingly harsher deaths; this created a kind of narrative tension that helped to draw you in to the film. Whether you knew it or not, you were caught up in the killer’s unintentional spell. You wanted to know how Jason Voorhees was going to do it next. And next. And next. You didn’t need to get to know his victims because you weren’t there for them; you were there for the kills. But Girls’ deaths are, essentially, all the same; there is absolutely no novelty to any of them … except for the fact that they’re being committed by someone in a mascot suit. Because no effort was made in the script to differentiate the ladies from one another, I just didn’t care that Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb had her throat cut. If it wasn’t Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb this time, then sit back and wait she’ll be next.
Girls Nite Out (1982) was produced by Concepts Unlimited. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the exceptional Arrow Video Films. As for the technical specifications? There’s a disclaimer at the front of the film which addresses some weathering the source material for this 2K restoration has gone through, but outside of an occasional line vertical line here and there I thought it looked very good. Colors were bright, though a few sequences clearly photographed in heavy darkness leave a bit more to the imagination than was necessary.
As for the special features? Once again, Arrow proves why they’re one of the top contenders these days: this collection provides a brand-new commentary track, several talent interviews, a collector’s booklet (with essay, cast info, and restoration notes), and the usual extras (trailers and such). It’s a surprising thorough assortment for a rather forgettable yarn from 80’s pop culture history. Nice work, Arrow.
Mildly recommended.
In perfect honesty, I’m not a huge fan of traditional slasher films to begin with (so please take all of this with a grain of salt). Occasionally one will tickle my fancy just enough that I’ll venture out into these waters once more, which is essentially how I can across this copy of Girls Nite Out (1982). My issues with it relate entirely to the fact that it kinda/sorta straddled two (if not three) different narrative types – Comedy, Horror, and Drama – when it didn’t need to, almost behaving like it didn’t know what its writers wanted it to be when it grew up. There’s nothing wrong with mixing genres – I’m a huge fan when it’s done right – but, here, it felt like a lame gimmick, meaning not enough laughs to make it a repeat viewing and not enough bloodshed to make it endorsable.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Girls Nite Out (1982) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
It seems like this had a cast of thousands – well, dozens, at least – and no single character is ever really given any moment to shine in the way that would make traditional watchers care about them. As an example, the kills of the first two Friday The 13th movies were celebrated because the victims met increasingly harsher deaths; this created a kind of narrative tension that helped to draw you in to the film. Whether you knew it or not, you were caught up in the killer’s unintentional spell. You wanted to know how Jason Voorhees was going to do it next. And next. And next. You didn’t need to get to know his victims because you weren’t there for them; you were there for the kills. But Girls’ deaths are, essentially, all the same; there is absolutely no novelty to any of them … except for the fact that they’re being committed by someone in a mascot suit. Because no effort was made in the script to differentiate the ladies from one another, I just didn’t care that Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb had her throat cut. If it wasn’t Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb this time, then sit back and wait she’ll be next.
Girls Nite Out (1982) was produced by Concepts Unlimited. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the exceptional Arrow Video Films. As for the technical specifications? There’s a disclaimer at the front of the film which addresses some weathering the source material for this 2K restoration has gone through, but outside of an occasional line vertical line here and there I thought it looked very good. Colors were bright, though a few sequences clearly photographed in heavy darkness leave a bit more to the imagination than was necessary.
As for the special features? Once again, Arrow proves why they’re one of the top contenders these days: this collection provides a brand-new commentary track, several talent interviews, a collector’s booklet (with essay, cast info, and restoration notes), and the usual extras (trailers and such). It’s a surprising thorough assortment for a rather forgettable yarn from 80’s pop culture history. Nice work, Arrow.
Mildly recommended.
In perfect honesty, I’m not a huge fan of traditional slasher films to begin with (so please take all of this with a grain of salt). Occasionally one will tickle my fancy just enough that I’ll venture out into these waters once more, which is essentially how I can across this copy of Girls Nite Out (1982). My issues with it relate entirely to the fact that it kinda/sorta straddled two (if not three) different narrative types – Comedy, Horror, and Drama – when it didn’t need to, almost behaving like it didn’t know what its writers wanted it to be when it grew up. There’s nothing wrong with mixing genres – I’m a huge fan when it’s done right – but, here, it felt like a lame gimmick, meaning not enough laughs to make it a repeat viewing and not enough bloodshed to make it endorsable.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Girls Nite Out (1982) 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
Ah, the dark, dark days of early 1980’s Science Fiction releases!
Though Star Wars certainly served notice to the wider entertainment industry that SciFi and Fantasy were not only here to stay but also could do big business at the box office, studios and independent outlets were still reasonably slow to change. Putting up something that looked and sounded as good as that revered Luke Skywalker adventure still wasn’t cheap, so – in the meantime – producers preferred retooling stuff they already had ‘in the pipeline’ to appear thematically similar to what took place in that galaxy far, far away as opposed to rushing headfirst into new expenses. As a consequence, audiences were often treated to smaller fare that really only tried to look much bigger in whatever sequences storytellers could afford.
While some of these were interesting diversions, many more of them were – honestly – barely passable fare. Viewers largely tolerated them because they looked on them more like filler – quieter, cheaper films they could use to pass the time between the bigger and better studio releases – so it was easy to watch, laugh, cheer, and forget them instead of making a big deal out of it. Besides, the late 1970’s and early 1980’s saw a bit of an entertainment boom in the home video market; and anything that could possibly ‘make a buck’ off a video rental was given just enough budget to become a reality.
This is precisely why something like Without Warning (1980) – not a particularly good or egregiously bad feature – was probably seen (and forgotten) by more folks than a counterpart today. It flirted with audiences, teasing them about aliens and an invading force in such a way that they couldn’t resist it. Certainly, they couldn’t pass it up, what with the next big, big, big release still six months away; and, thus, it enjoyed whatever modest shelf life it got.
(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 …)
Though Star Wars certainly served notice to the wider entertainment industry that SciFi and Fantasy were not only here to stay but also could do big business at the box office, studios and independent outlets were still reasonably slow to change. Putting up something that looked and sounded as good as that revered Luke Skywalker adventure still wasn’t cheap, so – in the meantime – producers preferred retooling stuff they already had ‘in the pipeline’ to appear thematically similar to what took place in that galaxy far, far away as opposed to rushing headfirst into new expenses. As a consequence, audiences were often treated to smaller fare that really only tried to look much bigger in whatever sequences storytellers could afford.
While some of these were interesting diversions, many more of them were – honestly – barely passable fare. Viewers largely tolerated them because they looked on them more like filler – quieter, cheaper films they could use to pass the time between the bigger and better studio releases – so it was easy to watch, laugh, cheer, and forget them instead of making a big deal out of it. Besides, the late 1970’s and early 1980’s saw a bit of an entertainment boom in the home video market; and anything that could possibly ‘make a buck’ off a video rental was given just enough budget to become a reality.
This is precisely why something like Without Warning (1980) – not a particularly good or egregiously bad feature – was probably seen (and forgotten) by more folks than a counterpart today. It flirted with audiences, teasing them about aliens and an invading force in such a way that they couldn’t resist it. Certainly, they couldn’t pass it up, what with the next big, big, big release still six months away; and, thus, it enjoyed whatever modest shelf life it got.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“It’s an alien. It preys on human fear. It feeds on human flesh. It comes with flying, bloodsucking jellyfish. And it’s here! A group of teenagers, a grizzled hunter, and a crazy war veteran wage a life-and-death battle against the insidious invader …”
There’s a bit more, but methinks you get the idea: so long as there have been aliens on film they’ve had their hearts set on invading our precious big blue marble, and Greydon Clark’s Without Warning is just another in a long line of attempts to see the Earth snatched right out from under our feet. However, this time the aliens don’t so much come in droves – there’s only really one of them seen – nor do they bring along any of those fancy-pants laser weapons – all this solo invader has is a seemingly endless supply of frisbee-like suckerfish. Given this would appear to be that dreaded first assault – and it’s taking place in perhaps the smallest of the small towns in anywhere America – I think there’s plenty of time before this great nation will fall to the big-headed oppressor.
What Without Warning lacks in entertainment value it actually makes up for in potential star wattage before and behind the camera. Clark’s backwater epic gathers together an assortment of marquee names – albeit rather late in their respective careers – and tries hard to give each of them a little something to do along the way. Space:1999’s Martin Landau plays the unsettled war veteran who sees aliens everywhere he looks. Screen heavy Neville Brand – who actually got his start acting in training films during World War II – chews a bit of scenery as the hometown barfly who’s ‘had it up to here’ (!!!) with Landau’s antics. Cameron Mitchell – of TV’s The High Chaparral fame – plays a disgruntled hunter who falls prey to the alien’s earliest efforts. And the late, great Jack Palance commands a presence unlike few before him when he warns those pesky teenagers to stay away from the things that go bump in the night … erm … pond.
But why stop there?
Behind the camera is no less a glimpse into some pretty famous names. Special effects and make-up guru Rick Baker (Star Wars, Harry And The Hendersons, and Men In Black) may not have contributed much, but he did build the alien’s signature noggin that plays a huge part in the film’s finale. And perhaps the film looks as good as it does with this release is owed to the fact it was shot by Dean Cundey, a cinematographer whose name is known to Science Fiction and Fantasy fans for his work on such pictures as Escape From New York, Back To The Future, and Jurassic Park. While there may not be all that many high notes in Without Warning, I’d like to think that there’s something to be said for giving these geniuses time to ply their craft, and it shows in the smallest contributions.
Still, Warning’s biggest weakness was and will always remain a fairly routine plot, one that basically shackled itself to a shrinking group of teenagers who slowly fall prey to these deadly spinning critters. They’re given very little to do in this formulaic outing, so much so that I suspect most audiences end up wishing more time was spent with the somewhat over-the-hill crowd of smalltown irregulars. They spoke better, knew how to carry themselves, and banded together over a drink even when times were tough. At least, they had some personality; it may’ve taken them some time to get up out of their chairs and truly raise Hell against the attackers (“I’m fallen on the battlefield, and I can’t get up”), but it possibly would’ve made for greater conflict … as well as better camp than what’s delivered by these young whippersnappers and their short shorts.
“It’s an alien. It preys on human fear. It feeds on human flesh. It comes with flying, bloodsucking jellyfish. And it’s here! A group of teenagers, a grizzled hunter, and a crazy war veteran wage a life-and-death battle against the insidious invader …”
There’s a bit more, but methinks you get the idea: so long as there have been aliens on film they’ve had their hearts set on invading our precious big blue marble, and Greydon Clark’s Without Warning is just another in a long line of attempts to see the Earth snatched right out from under our feet. However, this time the aliens don’t so much come in droves – there’s only really one of them seen – nor do they bring along any of those fancy-pants laser weapons – all this solo invader has is a seemingly endless supply of frisbee-like suckerfish. Given this would appear to be that dreaded first assault – and it’s taking place in perhaps the smallest of the small towns in anywhere America – I think there’s plenty of time before this great nation will fall to the big-headed oppressor.
What Without Warning lacks in entertainment value it actually makes up for in potential star wattage before and behind the camera. Clark’s backwater epic gathers together an assortment of marquee names – albeit rather late in their respective careers – and tries hard to give each of them a little something to do along the way. Space:1999’s Martin Landau plays the unsettled war veteran who sees aliens everywhere he looks. Screen heavy Neville Brand – who actually got his start acting in training films during World War II – chews a bit of scenery as the hometown barfly who’s ‘had it up to here’ (!!!) with Landau’s antics. Cameron Mitchell – of TV’s The High Chaparral fame – plays a disgruntled hunter who falls prey to the alien’s earliest efforts. And the late, great Jack Palance commands a presence unlike few before him when he warns those pesky teenagers to stay away from the things that go bump in the night … erm … pond.
But why stop there?
Behind the camera is no less a glimpse into some pretty famous names. Special effects and make-up guru Rick Baker (Star Wars, Harry And The Hendersons, and Men In Black) may not have contributed much, but he did build the alien’s signature noggin that plays a huge part in the film’s finale. And perhaps the film looks as good as it does with this release is owed to the fact it was shot by Dean Cundey, a cinematographer whose name is known to Science Fiction and Fantasy fans for his work on such pictures as Escape From New York, Back To The Future, and Jurassic Park. While there may not be all that many high notes in Without Warning, I’d like to think that there’s something to be said for giving these geniuses time to ply their craft, and it shows in the smallest contributions.
Still, Warning’s biggest weakness was and will always remain a fairly routine plot, one that basically shackled itself to a shrinking group of teenagers who slowly fall prey to these deadly spinning critters. They’re given very little to do in this formulaic outing, so much so that I suspect most audiences end up wishing more time was spent with the somewhat over-the-hill crowd of smalltown irregulars. They spoke better, knew how to carry themselves, and banded together over a drink even when times were tough. At least, they had some personality; it may’ve taken them some time to get up out of their chairs and truly raise Hell against the attackers (“I’m fallen on the battlefield, and I can’t get up”), but it possibly would’ve made for greater conflict … as well as better camp than what’s delivered by these young whippersnappers and their short shorts.
Perhaps the coolest nugget of trivia I’ve gleamed from all of my time spent with this Warning is the fact that the late Kevin Peter Hall appeared under the robes, latex, and make-up as the film’s signature invader. For those who don’t know the name, this wouldn’t be the first time he brought some blood-thirsty extraterrestrial to life on the silver screen, but the next time he did it would be the stuff of silver screen legends. He played no less than the seminal predator sharing the screen with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the film of the same name – Predator – in 1987.
How frakking cool is that?
Without Warning (1980) was produced by Heritage Enterprises. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Wow. It’s honestly a crime for an older, forgotten flick like this to look and sound as good as it does, and I’ve got nothing but praise for this brand new 2K master. It’s fabulous. As for the special features? It’s a surprisingly good collection, including:
Mildly recommended.
Despite an impressive array of talent before and behind the camera, it’s hard to muster much praise for Without Warning (1980). It really only occasionally uses that B-Movie charm, feeling more like a failed TV Movie-Of-The-Week than it does something our parents would warn us away from, so make the most of what unintended laughs you can find in there. It’s certainly not the first (nor the last) flick Greydon Clark made, but I’ve had more fun with his workmanlike approach in lesser features elsewhere than I did with this.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Without Warning (1980) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
How frakking cool is that?
Without Warning (1980) was produced by Heritage Enterprises. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Wow. It’s honestly a crime for an older, forgotten flick like this to look and sound as good as it does, and I’ve got nothing but praise for this brand new 2K master. It’s fabulous. As for the special features? It’s a surprisingly good collection, including:
- Audio commentary from producer/director Clark;
- Interview with leads Tarah Nutter and Christopher S. Nelson;
- Interview with cinematographer Dean Cundey;
- Interview with Co-writer and Co-producer Daniel Grodnik;
- Interview with Make-up Effects creator Greg Cannom;
- Theatrical trailers; and
- Some newly commissioned artwork for the DVD slipcase.
Mildly recommended.
Despite an impressive array of talent before and behind the camera, it’s hard to muster much praise for Without Warning (1980). It really only occasionally uses that B-Movie charm, feeling more like a failed TV Movie-Of-The-Week than it does something our parents would warn us away from, so make the most of what unintended laughs you can find in there. It’s certainly not the first (nor the last) flick Greydon Clark made, but I’ve had more fun with his workmanlike approach in lesser features elsewhere than I did with this.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Without Warning (1980) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
The single greatest risk to moviemaking’s ongoing fascination with ‘twist endings’ is, largely, to the success of such television series as Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.
In both the 30-minute and 60-minute format, storytellers were able to string their audience along amiably with some narrative sleight of hand. Even though these watchers likely knew that some big surprise was lurking right around the corner, I’d argue half of their fun was staring closely enough to see the seams. They got to play the part of the amateur sleuth who’d capably deduce the big finish well before it arrived – maybe they’d even announce it to others on the couch beside them – and a good time was had by all. These episodes didn’t always just entertain, mind you: on most occasions, they dished up some good moral-to-the-story – a bit of a life lesson – and viewers could go to bed thinking about what they learned in a modest investment.
Because this formula worked so well, a whole host of screenwriters and directors nudged it from the small screen to the big one; but selling a two-hour opus of misdirection hasn’t always met with quality box office receipts. In fact, one need only examine the ups-and-downs of M. Night Shyamalan’s career to see how big a risk it can be. Though he’s squeezed in a few solid blockbusters across a few decades, he’s also been criticized for being unable to ‘think outside this box,’ so much so that several of his features have been silver screen duds. When the audience knows what they’re getting, they’re not always pay good money to be fooled … unless the trickery is just that good.
Monstrous (2022) tries to break similar ground, wrapping up a tale of a mother’s grief and her son’s troubled existence in the framework of a kinda/sorta 1950’s monster movie. While period details and lead performances are good (not great), in the end I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this creature feature had enough bite. For my tastes, it fell a bit shy.
(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 citation:
“Story centers on a traumatized woman fleeing from her abusive ex-husband with her 7-year-old son. In their new remote sanctuary they find they have a bigger, more terrifying monster to deal with.”
Christina Ricci is an actress I’ve always admired.
Essentially, I think she roared onto the screen with some exceptional work in genre projects. Her work in The Addams Family (1991) and Addams Family Values (1993) is particular fetching, mostly because as a young talent she certainly displayed the propensity for taking a supporting role into the big leagues, captivating viewers with a pitch perfect ‘Wednesday Adams.’ In 1999, she crossed over into more adult fare in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow – starring opposite Hollywood wunderkind Johnny Depp – a role that even saw her take home the 2000 Saturn Award for ‘Best Actress.’ And though most critics dismiss 2008’s Speed Racer as a major blow to the Wachowskis hold on their big screen clout in Hollywood, I actually enjoyed this kid-friendly flick which saw the actress transform ‘Trixie’ from a small screen animated sidekick to her big screen incarnation.
In both the 30-minute and 60-minute format, storytellers were able to string their audience along amiably with some narrative sleight of hand. Even though these watchers likely knew that some big surprise was lurking right around the corner, I’d argue half of their fun was staring closely enough to see the seams. They got to play the part of the amateur sleuth who’d capably deduce the big finish well before it arrived – maybe they’d even announce it to others on the couch beside them – and a good time was had by all. These episodes didn’t always just entertain, mind you: on most occasions, they dished up some good moral-to-the-story – a bit of a life lesson – and viewers could go to bed thinking about what they learned in a modest investment.
Because this formula worked so well, a whole host of screenwriters and directors nudged it from the small screen to the big one; but selling a two-hour opus of misdirection hasn’t always met with quality box office receipts. In fact, one need only examine the ups-and-downs of M. Night Shyamalan’s career to see how big a risk it can be. Though he’s squeezed in a few solid blockbusters across a few decades, he’s also been criticized for being unable to ‘think outside this box,’ so much so that several of his features have been silver screen duds. When the audience knows what they’re getting, they’re not always pay good money to be fooled … unless the trickery is just that good.
Monstrous (2022) tries to break similar ground, wrapping up a tale of a mother’s grief and her son’s troubled existence in the framework of a kinda/sorta 1950’s monster movie. While period details and lead performances are good (not great), in the end I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not this creature feature had enough bite. For my tastes, it fell a bit shy.
(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 citation:
“Story centers on a traumatized woman fleeing from her abusive ex-husband with her 7-year-old son. In their new remote sanctuary they find they have a bigger, more terrifying monster to deal with.”
Christina Ricci is an actress I’ve always admired.
Essentially, I think she roared onto the screen with some exceptional work in genre projects. Her work in The Addams Family (1991) and Addams Family Values (1993) is particular fetching, mostly because as a young talent she certainly displayed the propensity for taking a supporting role into the big leagues, captivating viewers with a pitch perfect ‘Wednesday Adams.’ In 1999, she crossed over into more adult fare in Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow – starring opposite Hollywood wunderkind Johnny Depp – a role that even saw her take home the 2000 Saturn Award for ‘Best Actress.’ And though most critics dismiss 2008’s Speed Racer as a major blow to the Wachowskis hold on their big screen clout in Hollywood, I actually enjoyed this kid-friendly flick which saw the actress transform ‘Trixie’ from a small screen animated sidekick to her big screen incarnation.
So I’d be a fool if I didn’t admit to sitting through Monstrous’ tiresome pace for no other reason than to watch this lady work her magic in the film’s meatier moments, though they are few and far between. Director Chris Sivertson made a solid choice in casting her here; Ricci’s beauty is decidedly old school – with classic trim features and the face of a screen pixie – so having her inhabit this 50’s era psychological drama (or is it?) was a stroke of pure genius. That’s why I find it a bit disappointing that Carol Chrest’s script didn’t give the actress all that much to work with.
Without divulging too many of the film’s secrets, what viewers are treated to here is intended to be more of a character study – especially given the final reel’s reveal. The horror element is really part and parcel of that magical misdirection required to keep the audiences invested so that they’re distracted enough away from what’s really taking place. For that reason, Chrest should’ve invested more in helping us understand Ricci’s Laura; the few clues dropped here and there are so vague that nothing can be truly gleaned from them, and I can’t help but wonder if some who showed up expecting something scarier are bound for major disappointment.
Still, it’s a tricky business to mislead anyone – much less the folks who paid to see this – but Monstrous works efficiently when it veers seriously into the supernatural. Relative newcomer Santino Barnard (as Cody) manages to straddle the childlike wonder of coming face-to-face with a monster and the ‘holy-crap-it’s-a-monster’ responses quite well, and his work here makes it easy to forgive the storytellers for maybe kinda/sorta botching the finish when reality intercedes. Its real-world focus does end up feeling a bit of a disappointment because we never got to know these characters all that well, so the conclusion feels a bit gimmickier than was probably intended. Leaving a film caring more about the monster isn’t anything new – certainly not for fans of genre entertainment – but I should’ve had a much stronger reaction to learning more of Laura’s ‘hole in her heart’ than I did.
Monstrous (2022) was produced by Burning Sky Films, Willow Pictures, Tip-Top Productions, and a few other participants.
Mildly recommended.
What Monstrous offers is definitely a mixed bag of tricks, one that would probably be better received were this a 45–60-minute standalone episode of a solid anthology television series instead of a 90-minute major motion picture. Alas, Carol Chrest’s script is somewhat razor-thin on development – what matters most in films built around the ‘twist ending’ is, in fact, the twist, and this one’s been done (to death!) before – and Ricci’s work, excellent period detail, and some rather obvious misdirection can only carry this idea so far. Those showing up for the advertised monster movie are likely to be disappointed, but perhaps that’s what everyone involved intended, after all.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Burning Sky Films provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Monstrous (2022) 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
Without divulging too many of the film’s secrets, what viewers are treated to here is intended to be more of a character study – especially given the final reel’s reveal. The horror element is really part and parcel of that magical misdirection required to keep the audiences invested so that they’re distracted enough away from what’s really taking place. For that reason, Chrest should’ve invested more in helping us understand Ricci’s Laura; the few clues dropped here and there are so vague that nothing can be truly gleaned from them, and I can’t help but wonder if some who showed up expecting something scarier are bound for major disappointment.
Still, it’s a tricky business to mislead anyone – much less the folks who paid to see this – but Monstrous works efficiently when it veers seriously into the supernatural. Relative newcomer Santino Barnard (as Cody) manages to straddle the childlike wonder of coming face-to-face with a monster and the ‘holy-crap-it’s-a-monster’ responses quite well, and his work here makes it easy to forgive the storytellers for maybe kinda/sorta botching the finish when reality intercedes. Its real-world focus does end up feeling a bit of a disappointment because we never got to know these characters all that well, so the conclusion feels a bit gimmickier than was probably intended. Leaving a film caring more about the monster isn’t anything new – certainly not for fans of genre entertainment – but I should’ve had a much stronger reaction to learning more of Laura’s ‘hole in her heart’ than I did.
Monstrous (2022) was produced by Burning Sky Films, Willow Pictures, Tip-Top Productions, and a few other participants.
Mildly recommended.
What Monstrous offers is definitely a mixed bag of tricks, one that would probably be better received were this a 45–60-minute standalone episode of a solid anthology television series instead of a 90-minute major motion picture. Alas, Carol Chrest’s script is somewhat razor-thin on development – what matters most in films built around the ‘twist ending’ is, in fact, the twist, and this one’s been done (to death!) before – and Ricci’s work, excellent period detail, and some rather obvious misdirection can only carry this idea so far. Those showing up for the advertised monster movie are likely to be disappointed, but perhaps that’s what everyone involved intended, after all.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Burning Sky Films provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Monstrous (2022) 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
A show about mysteries doesn’t do itself any favors by creating a cast with few or no answers.
Audiences are willing to suspend disbelief for a time. They’re willing to sit back and enjoy the ride, especially when the puzzles presented are so inviting, so captivating that they dare not look away for fear of missing some fatal clue, some principle reveal that helps bring everything into a new perspective. I suspect that the trick – so far as storytellers are concerned – is properly balancing that waiting game against a relative drip-drip-drip of information long enough to maintain interest without creating unhelpful chaos. Viewers need to be rewarded – even in small ways – if they’re to hang around for a wild ride.
That said, Outer Range managed to squeeze in a pretty significant reveal into its eighth hour – “The West” – even though it’s one close watchers had suspected since very early: the episode confirmed that Autumn Rivers is, in fact, the grown slightly older – and much crazier – Amy Abbott. (I don’t recall when I first began wondering as such, but it was definitely much earlier in this first season.) Creator and screenwriter Brian Watkins also slipped in a little something extra with that surprise that may’ve gone over most folks heads: things are not – as Autumn has contended – set in stone.
How do we know?
Well, it’s a delicate supposition, at best, but when the Range first introduced Autumn – that fresh-faced traveler who seemingly happened across the Abbott Ranch in the beginning – there was no scar on her forehead. (For the uninitiated, Amy was cut by glass flying about when the Abbott family started exchanging blows in the final moments of hour six.) Now – when Royal’s kneeling over Autumn’s injured body after the buffalo stampede – he sights the scar, and realization washes over him by way of the narrative flashback. No scar. Now scarred. This confirms to the man that (finally) he’s on the right track by seeking to change those events he’s seen of his own future.
Still, the question remains: what more might Royal know?
Actor Brolin has mustered a helluva lot of anger in his portrayal opposite Ms. Wacky Rivers. (!!!) That might be the understand of the season’s review, especially given the fact that the man (whose past secret we now know) has grown downright homicidal in the process. “The West” truly culminated in the modern version of an old West style showdown – complete with appropriate Sergio Leone style music cues – and saw Royal, Billy Tillerson, and Autumn racing one another down not so much as on horseback as they were by pickup trucks. Though Billy’s demise looked certain, Autumn was left crawling away as Royal approached to deliver the kill shot when …
A herd of buffalo changed the course of time.
Audiences are willing to suspend disbelief for a time. They’re willing to sit back and enjoy the ride, especially when the puzzles presented are so inviting, so captivating that they dare not look away for fear of missing some fatal clue, some principle reveal that helps bring everything into a new perspective. I suspect that the trick – so far as storytellers are concerned – is properly balancing that waiting game against a relative drip-drip-drip of information long enough to maintain interest without creating unhelpful chaos. Viewers need to be rewarded – even in small ways – if they’re to hang around for a wild ride.
That said, Outer Range managed to squeeze in a pretty significant reveal into its eighth hour – “The West” – even though it’s one close watchers had suspected since very early: the episode confirmed that Autumn Rivers is, in fact, the grown slightly older – and much crazier – Amy Abbott. (I don’t recall when I first began wondering as such, but it was definitely much earlier in this first season.) Creator and screenwriter Brian Watkins also slipped in a little something extra with that surprise that may’ve gone over most folks heads: things are not – as Autumn has contended – set in stone.
How do we know?
Well, it’s a delicate supposition, at best, but when the Range first introduced Autumn – that fresh-faced traveler who seemingly happened across the Abbott Ranch in the beginning – there was no scar on her forehead. (For the uninitiated, Amy was cut by glass flying about when the Abbott family started exchanging blows in the final moments of hour six.) Now – when Royal’s kneeling over Autumn’s injured body after the buffalo stampede – he sights the scar, and realization washes over him by way of the narrative flashback. No scar. Now scarred. This confirms to the man that (finally) he’s on the right track by seeking to change those events he’s seen of his own future.
Still, the question remains: what more might Royal know?
Actor Brolin has mustered a helluva lot of anger in his portrayal opposite Ms. Wacky Rivers. (!!!) That might be the understand of the season’s review, especially given the fact that the man (whose past secret we now know) has grown downright homicidal in the process. “The West” truly culminated in the modern version of an old West style showdown – complete with appropriate Sergio Leone style music cues – and saw Royal, Billy Tillerson, and Autumn racing one another down not so much as on horseback as they were by pickup trucks. Though Billy’s demise looked certain, Autumn was left crawling away as Royal approached to deliver the kill shot when …
A herd of buffalo changed the course of time.
Now, I’ve read elsewhere that they’re not “buffalo,” but I’m not going to mince words on this point. (It’s really a small difference anyway, and I’m still inclined to think of them as buffalo.) Of course, we could all argue until the cows come home about what that uncontrolled herd might symbolize, and I’m happy to admit that I think of it as the unstoppable passage of time. Much like Brolin’s narration in a few of the show’s opening sequences, time cannot and will not be stopped, under any circumstances, though evidence suggests it can be changed. While others might engage in the silly pursuits of symbolism, I’m going to leave it at that.
Why?
Well, because Watkins treated us once again to a significant scene that others may’ve overlooked: after the stampede has moved away, that lone buffalo – the one with the arrows? – shows up once more. An episode of two back, Autumn plucked one of the arrows from its hide, and – in this moment – Royal removes the other, allowing the beast to then wander off yet again into the wild. An injured beast is now (somewhat) injury free thanks to the separate but related assistance from the show’s mortal enemies: Autumn and Royal. Together, they’ve changed time, yet neither know it. Their individual acts have now been united, and the rancher is rewarded with the revelation that she’s his granddaughter.
But from when?
And how?
“The West” – that expansive territory mankind is still trying to tame – chucked in a few other surprises of note.
Sheriff Hawk quite literally walked herself out of her present existence and into something long ago, all without any explanation. Billy not only confessed to naming a stuffed owl after brother Luke, but also he promised his elder that he’s happily sign over the ranch to him if dear ol’ dad Wayne kicks the bucket. In response, Luke seemingly commits his life to finding the portal, which has seemingly vanished, and has begun digging holes across the Abbott’s west pasture. Rhett Abbott makes peace with his anger, wins the rodeo bull-riding contest, and promptly leaves town with the love of his life, Maria. Cecilia Abbott officially loses her farm and her mind. And Rebecca Abbott magically returns, somehow knowing exactly when and where to find her young daughter Amy at just the right moment, explaining curiously that she had to disappear … until now.
The way most shows do these days, Outer Range closed with a series of small(ish) cliffhangers, tempting viewers that there’s more to come … should Amazon Prime pick up the option for renewal. No word has been forthcoming as of yet. I, for one, would welcome a return to the place as I think it’s now poised to truly show us something a bit more special than Season 1 did.
-- EZ
Why?
Well, because Watkins treated us once again to a significant scene that others may’ve overlooked: after the stampede has moved away, that lone buffalo – the one with the arrows? – shows up once more. An episode of two back, Autumn plucked one of the arrows from its hide, and – in this moment – Royal removes the other, allowing the beast to then wander off yet again into the wild. An injured beast is now (somewhat) injury free thanks to the separate but related assistance from the show’s mortal enemies: Autumn and Royal. Together, they’ve changed time, yet neither know it. Their individual acts have now been united, and the rancher is rewarded with the revelation that she’s his granddaughter.
But from when?
And how?
“The West” – that expansive territory mankind is still trying to tame – chucked in a few other surprises of note.
Sheriff Hawk quite literally walked herself out of her present existence and into something long ago, all without any explanation. Billy not only confessed to naming a stuffed owl after brother Luke, but also he promised his elder that he’s happily sign over the ranch to him if dear ol’ dad Wayne kicks the bucket. In response, Luke seemingly commits his life to finding the portal, which has seemingly vanished, and has begun digging holes across the Abbott’s west pasture. Rhett Abbott makes peace with his anger, wins the rodeo bull-riding contest, and promptly leaves town with the love of his life, Maria. Cecilia Abbott officially loses her farm and her mind. And Rebecca Abbott magically returns, somehow knowing exactly when and where to find her young daughter Amy at just the right moment, explaining curiously that she had to disappear … until now.
The way most shows do these days, Outer Range closed with a series of small(ish) cliffhangers, tempting viewers that there’s more to come … should Amazon Prime pick up the option for renewal. No word has been forthcoming as of yet. I, for one, would welcome a return to the place as I think it’s now poised to truly show us something a bit more special than Season 1 did.
-- EZ