- Published on
Well, well, well ...
I've mentioned before that I do tend to think of myself as one of the web's oldest fans of DC Comics' Batman character. I read my first comic book circa 1970/1971 -- indeed, a Batman tale -- and I was hooked as a young guy. I read the Batbooks fairly regulary for quite some time, but the rising costs of the multitude of titles eventually pushed me out of collecting, though I do still pick up the occasional graphic novel. I could probably pen a piece or two about how the evolution of storytelling eventually drove me (and countless others) away from that industry, but I've really no interest in such cultural examinations. What matters really is that the character endures -- the caped crusader continues to resonate with audiences in any medium he inhabits -- and I still think that's grand.
In any event ...
I saw The Batman on the silver screen. I mentioned what I thought was good about it and what I thought was bad. While it wasn't my cup of tea (surprised?), I did think that it was finally one of the versions to truly get the world's greatest detective proper for the movies. In fact, I believe I wrote that the first 15-20 minutes of the flick are damn legendary ... but then I thought it devolved rather quickly into an emo-based yarn that spent too much time in endless subplots that ultimately didn't make as much sense as the central premise ... and I got bored real quick.
I know, I know. I hear you out in cyberspace crying, "Dammit, do you like anything?"
Still, I am surprised by the flick's ongoing business at the box office and beyond. DC titles are thematically vastly different from Marvel's, and I didn't think audiences would embrace it the way they have ... so go figure. I'm glad they did because it was announced just yesterday that Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson will be returning for a theatrical follow-up, though I'm really unclear on the dates. (2024 would seem to be the most reported year, but some folks are speculating the change in ownership at Warner Bros. and the continuing search for a head executive behind the DC properties might prove otherwise.) I'll be watching, and I'll happily report more details as they become available.
So even though The Batman wasn't the film I thought it would be, I do think it makes for a great experience. It's just too long and too unfocused in its second half for my tastes. I applaud the effort, and I'll sit through a sequel. Here's hoping the second go-round surpasses the first.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I've mentioned before that I do tend to think of myself as one of the web's oldest fans of DC Comics' Batman character. I read my first comic book circa 1970/1971 -- indeed, a Batman tale -- and I was hooked as a young guy. I read the Batbooks fairly regulary for quite some time, but the rising costs of the multitude of titles eventually pushed me out of collecting, though I do still pick up the occasional graphic novel. I could probably pen a piece or two about how the evolution of storytelling eventually drove me (and countless others) away from that industry, but I've really no interest in such cultural examinations. What matters really is that the character endures -- the caped crusader continues to resonate with audiences in any medium he inhabits -- and I still think that's grand.
In any event ...
I saw The Batman on the silver screen. I mentioned what I thought was good about it and what I thought was bad. While it wasn't my cup of tea (surprised?), I did think that it was finally one of the versions to truly get the world's greatest detective proper for the movies. In fact, I believe I wrote that the first 15-20 minutes of the flick are damn legendary ... but then I thought it devolved rather quickly into an emo-based yarn that spent too much time in endless subplots that ultimately didn't make as much sense as the central premise ... and I got bored real quick.
I know, I know. I hear you out in cyberspace crying, "Dammit, do you like anything?"
Still, I am surprised by the flick's ongoing business at the box office and beyond. DC titles are thematically vastly different from Marvel's, and I didn't think audiences would embrace it the way they have ... so go figure. I'm glad they did because it was announced just yesterday that Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson will be returning for a theatrical follow-up, though I'm really unclear on the dates. (2024 would seem to be the most reported year, but some folks are speculating the change in ownership at Warner Bros. and the continuing search for a head executive behind the DC properties might prove otherwise.) I'll be watching, and I'll happily report more details as they become available.
So even though The Batman wasn't the film I thought it would be, I do think it makes for a great experience. It's just too long and too unfocused in its second half for my tastes. I applaud the effort, and I'll sit through a sequel. Here's hoping the second go-round surpasses the first.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Stories built around central mysteries run the risk of trying the patience of their viewers.
ABC TV’s Lost is probably the defining example, at least so far as the current generation is concerned. The serial came from a team put together by – ahem – wunderkind JJ Abrams, and it ran on the network for six seasons between 2004 and 2010. Over the course of its life, the cast grew and changed just bit – central players remained, however, up until the end – and, along the way, audiences were introduced to a smothering layer of mysteries, so much so that methinks everyone knew there was no way a single answer would ever account for every possibility. Eventually, a finale was delivered – one not without a wealth of controversy – and many of the show’s essential questions remain unanswered (yes, depending upon your perspective).
When asked about the gaping holes in their narrative, Lost’s showrunners insisted that viewers never turned in for the mysteries; rather what kept bringing people back – in their opinion – were the characters.
Huh.
I bring this up today not to throw a bucket of cold water on Amazon’s Outer Range. For clarity’s sake, the program is only in its third hour – this one titled “The Time” – and we’re still being modestly introduced to many of the players. We’ve only really spent time with Josh Brolin’s ‘Royal Abbott’ and his family, though there have certainly been sequences with the Tillerson family and a few regulars from the Wyoming town. But showrunner Brian Watkins (this is his very first property according to IMDB.com) has rather deftly begun moving around the various pieces tied to his central mystery … that being little more than a magical hole in the ground in the Abbott’s west pasture.
ABC TV’s Lost is probably the defining example, at least so far as the current generation is concerned. The serial came from a team put together by – ahem – wunderkind JJ Abrams, and it ran on the network for six seasons between 2004 and 2010. Over the course of its life, the cast grew and changed just bit – central players remained, however, up until the end – and, along the way, audiences were introduced to a smothering layer of mysteries, so much so that methinks everyone knew there was no way a single answer would ever account for every possibility. Eventually, a finale was delivered – one not without a wealth of controversy – and many of the show’s essential questions remain unanswered (yes, depending upon your perspective).
When asked about the gaping holes in their narrative, Lost’s showrunners insisted that viewers never turned in for the mysteries; rather what kept bringing people back – in their opinion – were the characters.
Huh.
I bring this up today not to throw a bucket of cold water on Amazon’s Outer Range. For clarity’s sake, the program is only in its third hour – this one titled “The Time” – and we’re still being modestly introduced to many of the players. We’ve only really spent time with Josh Brolin’s ‘Royal Abbott’ and his family, though there have certainly been sequences with the Tillerson family and a few regulars from the Wyoming town. But showrunner Brian Watkins (this is his very first property according to IMDB.com) has rather deftly begun moving around the various pieces tied to his central mystery … that being little more than a magical hole in the ground in the Abbott’s west pasture.
Essentially, I think it’s safe to say that not a lot happens in the first half of “The Time.” In its opening shot, we’re greeted to what may be the least appetizing shot of beloved ice cream possibly ever captured on film – for what it’s worth, it looks more like cow manure than it does a sweet confection – with Royal spooning a bit for himself out of the carton. He’s shortly interrupted by Amy – she can’t sleep – and the two share a rather sweet moment between a grandfather and a granddaughter that’s entirely authentic.
Lo and behold, the hour also ends with the two of them (along with the rest of the Abbott family) in the same kitchen: Amy’s returned quickly from her daily hike with news that she’s discovered the body of Trevor Tillerson dead on the trail. Royal makes the best logical move possible, calling the sheriff and reporting the find, which has the end result of casting ever more suspicion on the family to begin with.
In between the opening and the (modest) cliffhanger, the forty-five minutes bends and weaves in some predictable ways. Perry Abbott finds a bit of redemption on the back of a bucking bronco when he achieves a new record time at the rodeo. Deputy Sheriff Joy makes a bit of progress in the investigation of Trevor’s disappearance, only to lose a critical piece of evidence by way of kinda/sorta mishandling it. Cecilia Abbott begins to confront a ‘loss of faith’ in her spiritual life, casting her perception of reality into a bit of disarray. And Royal and Autumn Rivers attempt to restart their tenuous relationship, an event that just might make a mole hill out of a mountain.
Yes, as the show has demonstrated in hours one and two, there are a few oddities that take place – a convenience store thief seems awfully invested in disappearing people; a rancher wants to know what the sheriff’s going to do about magical mastodons; and just where did that mountain in the west pasture hide away for a few seconds – but it’s difficult to make anything of these events. Much like the aforementioned Lost, freakish happenings take place … and the showrunners (in the end) insisted they weren’t important (what mattered was the characters) … so I’ve learned not to invest all that much in said freaking happenings. Sure, they’re cool … but, in the end, they may mean nothing.
But in the meantime, Outer Range continues to plug along like any good procedural, giving these actors some great small moments to cement their territory into a lasting foundation. These players are all very, very good at what they’re doing … so let’s keep our fingers crossed that Watkins knows exactly where all of this is headed.
-- EZ
Lo and behold, the hour also ends with the two of them (along with the rest of the Abbott family) in the same kitchen: Amy’s returned quickly from her daily hike with news that she’s discovered the body of Trevor Tillerson dead on the trail. Royal makes the best logical move possible, calling the sheriff and reporting the find, which has the end result of casting ever more suspicion on the family to begin with.
In between the opening and the (modest) cliffhanger, the forty-five minutes bends and weaves in some predictable ways. Perry Abbott finds a bit of redemption on the back of a bucking bronco when he achieves a new record time at the rodeo. Deputy Sheriff Joy makes a bit of progress in the investigation of Trevor’s disappearance, only to lose a critical piece of evidence by way of kinda/sorta mishandling it. Cecilia Abbott begins to confront a ‘loss of faith’ in her spiritual life, casting her perception of reality into a bit of disarray. And Royal and Autumn Rivers attempt to restart their tenuous relationship, an event that just might make a mole hill out of a mountain.
Yes, as the show has demonstrated in hours one and two, there are a few oddities that take place – a convenience store thief seems awfully invested in disappearing people; a rancher wants to know what the sheriff’s going to do about magical mastodons; and just where did that mountain in the west pasture hide away for a few seconds – but it’s difficult to make anything of these events. Much like the aforementioned Lost, freakish happenings take place … and the showrunners (in the end) insisted they weren’t important (what mattered was the characters) … so I’ve learned not to invest all that much in said freaking happenings. Sure, they’re cool … but, in the end, they may mean nothing.
But in the meantime, Outer Range continues to plug along like any good procedural, giving these actors some great small moments to cement their territory into a lasting foundation. These players are all very, very good at what they’re doing … so let’s keep our fingers crossed that Watkins knows exactly where all of this is headed.
-- EZ
- Published on
As I mentioned yesterday (link), on the ever-reliable Twitter I've found myself -- as the steward of SciFiHistory.Net -- part of a string of tweets promoting folks who either love Science Fiction and Fantasy and/or various related and asundry podcast properties.
Essentially, the purpose behind the Tweet is to do a bit of promotion for folks who do speak their mind, generally across the podiverse with any number of topics. Folks like me who dabble in the alternative media? Well, we don't have a lot of money with which to advertise our wares and bring folks to our outlets, so Tweeting has become a cost effective way to increase the likelihood that we'll eventually find riches, fortune, and fame somewhere along the Information Superhighway. Since I don't pod (though I am thinking about it), I thought I'd do my part to promote these folks in this space -- with some SciFi ShoutOuts, much like I've done with indie authors -- with the hopes that maybe they'll throw out a casual mention on their shows about my site.
In any event ...
Today's SciFi ShoutOut goes to the Science Fiction Remnant podcast, which can be found online right here. Very likely, it's available in other locations; I'm just plugging the one I've located. If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like the team is into their second season of discussing any number of SciFi and Fantasy properties from television to movies. The wonderful thing about their programming is that its available for you to scroll through, find something that interests you, and give it a listen. I've waded through their talk about The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: being somewhat unfamiliar with it personally, I found it chocked full of facts and trivia that make for a good experience.
Highly recommended!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Essentially, the purpose behind the Tweet is to do a bit of promotion for folks who do speak their mind, generally across the podiverse with any number of topics. Folks like me who dabble in the alternative media? Well, we don't have a lot of money with which to advertise our wares and bring folks to our outlets, so Tweeting has become a cost effective way to increase the likelihood that we'll eventually find riches, fortune, and fame somewhere along the Information Superhighway. Since I don't pod (though I am thinking about it), I thought I'd do my part to promote these folks in this space -- with some SciFi ShoutOuts, much like I've done with indie authors -- with the hopes that maybe they'll throw out a casual mention on their shows about my site.
In any event ...
Today's SciFi ShoutOut goes to the Science Fiction Remnant podcast, which can be found online right here. Very likely, it's available in other locations; I'm just plugging the one I've located. If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like the team is into their second season of discussing any number of SciFi and Fantasy properties from television to movies. The wonderful thing about their programming is that its available for you to scroll through, find something that interests you, and give it a listen. I've waded through their talk about The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: being somewhat unfamiliar with it personally, I found it chocked full of facts and trivia that make for a good experience.
Highly recommended!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve often remarked that after watching Ridley Scott’s seminal Blade Runner (1982) in theatres, my friends and I left the place more than a little disappointed.
It’s hard to transport myself back to those days oh so many moons ago and explain exactly what it was that failed to inspire us to rave about the film – the way we did – as we munched pizza and drank sodas afterward. Arguably, the story is vastly deeper than other fare that tickles the fancy of some teenaged minds; and Scott’s visuals – no matter how grand they were – can only carry any flick so far. At some point, we felt, there needed to be a more compelling central story – or, perhaps, some more compelling circumstances – to draw folks in; and we just didn’t think (in our youth) there was enough there.
Years later – and with a helluva lot more life experience under our belts – I’m more inclined to suggest “we get it now.” The script’s ruminations of existence and what that means to each of us just didn’t connect with the young Turks back then; I suspect we were so full of “piss and vinegar” that Roy Batty’s trials and tribulations registered as only a clever idea, not a premise with the kind of sticking energy young minds aspire to. Now, most of us view the story as a deserved classic it’s become, and I just like to think we took the long road to that conclusion.
2022’s Expired (aka Loveland) tries to hit a lot of the same thematic notes (to a degree), but it’s even more languid by comparison and lacks a performance to ground viewers ‘in the moment.’ Suffice it to say that – although I’ve always liked the work of Ryan Kwanten – he’s no Harrison Ford or Rutger Hauer.
(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:
“In an uncharted future, two hardened souls meet and confront each other with the things they have done and what they have become.”
It’s hard to transport myself back to those days oh so many moons ago and explain exactly what it was that failed to inspire us to rave about the film – the way we did – as we munched pizza and drank sodas afterward. Arguably, the story is vastly deeper than other fare that tickles the fancy of some teenaged minds; and Scott’s visuals – no matter how grand they were – can only carry any flick so far. At some point, we felt, there needed to be a more compelling central story – or, perhaps, some more compelling circumstances – to draw folks in; and we just didn’t think (in our youth) there was enough there.
Years later – and with a helluva lot more life experience under our belts – I’m more inclined to suggest “we get it now.” The script’s ruminations of existence and what that means to each of us just didn’t connect with the young Turks back then; I suspect we were so full of “piss and vinegar” that Roy Batty’s trials and tribulations registered as only a clever idea, not a premise with the kind of sticking energy young minds aspire to. Now, most of us view the story as a deserved classic it’s become, and I just like to think we took the long road to that conclusion.
2022’s Expired (aka Loveland) tries to hit a lot of the same thematic notes (to a degree), but it’s even more languid by comparison and lacks a performance to ground viewers ‘in the moment.’ Suffice it to say that – although I’ve always liked the work of Ryan Kwanten – he’s no Harrison Ford or Rutger Hauer.
(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:
“In an uncharted future, two hardened souls meet and confront each other with the things they have done and what they have become.”
More than any other genre, Science Fiction and Fantasy often benefit thematically from serving audiences up a look that isn’t way, way, way off into our distant future but instead they shine just a little bit of light on what’s right around the corner. These films tend to be a bit predictive – in a good way – about the psychological challenges awaiting ‘the common man’ with all of our fast-changing technology. While some features do it big – I’m thinking the Jurassic Park series is probably one of the grandest of this type – others take an up-close-and-personal look in more reflective ways – the aforementioned Blade Runner comes to mind, as does Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) or maybe even Christopher Caldwell and Zeek Earl’s Prospect (2018).
These films tend to be more about character, thus the special effects – while impressive – tend to get pushed a bit into the background so that audiences get the full measure of a man against the evolving complexities of how science might push us to become different. We’ll have to adapt. We’ll have to make concessions. We’ll have to decide what’s truly important and what matters. Will we want to get ‘microchipped’ to embrace this brave new world or will we cling to our bibles and our guns (as Barack Obama once famously chastised middle Americans)? Will it be out with the old and in with the new … or vice versa?
Writer/director Ivan Sen’s Expired (2022) (aka Loveland) tries in some small way to tap into that whole ‘Tech Noir’ vibe created at the cineplex back in the 1980’s when James Cameron took audiences on a wild ride with his The Terminator (1984). The film kinda/sorta remains a highwater mark on the subject of how machines and humans might inevitably come into conflict; and Expired turns the screw a bit further as it postulates the character of Jack (played by Ryan Kwanten) to be a kinda/sorta next level of evolution of our species (or, at least, an obvious by-product of genetic tinkering). Science has finally found a means to do away with those pesky emotions; and it’s even postulated that removing them from our make-up might very well put us on the road to immortality.
However, Jack’s problems truly begin when the questioning of his own existence (and its intrinsic value or lack thereof) introduces hormones into his body, an act which begins to deconstruct that which he has become, along with his all-too-human flesh. He’s begun to see life and his actions differently, and he’s even lowered some defenses to the point that he’s started falling in love with April (Jillian Nguyen), a very special kind of ‘companion’ whose services he buys. All of this forces him to seek out the advice of famed scientist Dr. Bergman (Hugo Weaving), who just might hold the key to Jack’s future in his private research.
These films tend to be more about character, thus the special effects – while impressive – tend to get pushed a bit into the background so that audiences get the full measure of a man against the evolving complexities of how science might push us to become different. We’ll have to adapt. We’ll have to make concessions. We’ll have to decide what’s truly important and what matters. Will we want to get ‘microchipped’ to embrace this brave new world or will we cling to our bibles and our guns (as Barack Obama once famously chastised middle Americans)? Will it be out with the old and in with the new … or vice versa?
Writer/director Ivan Sen’s Expired (2022) (aka Loveland) tries in some small way to tap into that whole ‘Tech Noir’ vibe created at the cineplex back in the 1980’s when James Cameron took audiences on a wild ride with his The Terminator (1984). The film kinda/sorta remains a highwater mark on the subject of how machines and humans might inevitably come into conflict; and Expired turns the screw a bit further as it postulates the character of Jack (played by Ryan Kwanten) to be a kinda/sorta next level of evolution of our species (or, at least, an obvious by-product of genetic tinkering). Science has finally found a means to do away with those pesky emotions; and it’s even postulated that removing them from our make-up might very well put us on the road to immortality.
However, Jack’s problems truly begin when the questioning of his own existence (and its intrinsic value or lack thereof) introduces hormones into his body, an act which begins to deconstruct that which he has become, along with his all-too-human flesh. He’s begun to see life and his actions differently, and he’s even lowered some defenses to the point that he’s started falling in love with April (Jillian Nguyen), a very special kind of ‘companion’ whose services he buys. All of this forces him to seek out the advice of famed scientist Dr. Bergman (Hugo Weaving), who just might hold the key to Jack’s future in his private research.
There’s a subplot or two strung loosely throughout Expired that tries very hard to give more credence to the film’s climax; but – for what it’s worth – so little time is spent on them I didn’t feel they had the resonance Sen reached for. Instead, the director has front-loaded his picture with some impressive visuals, most of which push the film in a direction too similar to Blade Runner for its own good. (Trust me when I say that aesthetic cannot be achieved on this budget.) The nameless Chinese city also appears a bit too contradictory here – at times, it’s teeming with people, while other clips make one think the future will be fairly sparsely populated – so perhaps less focus on special effects trickery was needed with more attention given to narrative specifics. In one sense, it’s hard to decide what to make of all of this unevenness, and the slow, slow, slow rhythm to each performer’s vocal speech patterns might end up being more sleep-inducing as opposing to highlighting some earth-shattering relevance. There’s virtually no conflict here – along with no sense of urgency to anything transpiring – and Kwanten occasionally sounded more like he was falling asleep than he was losing the weight off his soul.
As can happen when films take themselves and their “message” too seriously, Expired expires fairly quickly, and that’s unfortunate. I wanted to like this world and its people. I just didn’t know what it was they were really trying to tell me, and the final reel might have some folks wondering what really happened after all … and that’s never a good place to end a story.
Expired (2022) is produced by Bunya Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Lionsgate. As for the technical specifications? Rest assured that all of this looks and sounds very good (though Kwanten’s speeches do get hard to hear at times). As for the special features? Meh. A trailer and a brief making-of short were a bit undercooked, if you ask me.
(Mildly) Recommended, but take note: Expired is really only for die-hard Science Fiction and Fantasy purists as methinks casual viewers aren’t going to know what to make of it … and, honestly, I doubt the die-hard variety will make much more from this laconically paced and staged dramatic musing on eugenics and love in the near future. Performances are occasionally interesting, but as the central plot remains a bit muddled – as does what audiences are to make of it all in the closing moments – I can’t see this one building much of a following over time … but stranger things have happened.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Expired (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
As can happen when films take themselves and their “message” too seriously, Expired expires fairly quickly, and that’s unfortunate. I wanted to like this world and its people. I just didn’t know what it was they were really trying to tell me, and the final reel might have some folks wondering what really happened after all … and that’s never a good place to end a story.
Expired (2022) is produced by Bunya Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Lionsgate. As for the technical specifications? Rest assured that all of this looks and sounds very good (though Kwanten’s speeches do get hard to hear at times). As for the special features? Meh. A trailer and a brief making-of short were a bit undercooked, if you ask me.
(Mildly) Recommended, but take note: Expired is really only for die-hard Science Fiction and Fantasy purists as methinks casual viewers aren’t going to know what to make of it … and, honestly, I doubt the die-hard variety will make much more from this laconically paced and staged dramatic musing on eugenics and love in the near future. Performances are occasionally interesting, but as the central plot remains a bit muddled – as does what audiences are to make of it all in the closing moments – I can’t see this one building much of a following over time … but stranger things have happened.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Expired (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
Hey, folks! Happy Monday!
How's everybody doin' today? Obviously, it's the start of a brand-new week, and -- just like January 1st is the beginning of a whole new year -- I hope you can treat today similarly: reach out and seize the day, make it your own, tame the beast, and run with it!
OK, on the business ...
As I said somewheres in this space earlier this year, I'm trying to up the MainPage posts through a variety of means, one of which is to give 'SciFi ShoutOuts' to like-minded folks. In some respects this means I'll be giving props to folks in SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror, but I've always tried to remind readers that I consider myself a bit eclectic, I have interests beyond genre projects, and I encourage everyone to do the same.
In the last few weeks, I've found myself part of a circle of peeps on the ol' Twitter who've been doing their best to promote podcasts. Again, these recommendations are not limited to any particular type of programming but they're willing to push and promote darn near anything ... and that's anything in a good way, not corrosive or corrupt. Though I don't pod as do others, I have gained a handful of new followers from such exposure, and I've decided to return the favor in the way that I did ... that being SciFi ShoutOuts.
This morning, I gave my first listen to the 'cast 'This Blonde Can Talk About Anything' put out by Mellanie (yes, with two L's but maybe I have the other letters wrong). She opined about the entire Will Smith situation at the Oscars, making her obviously trendy (a good thing), giving it her own moral and cultural spin (again, a good examination); and I thought she presented her arguments in a relatable and cogent way. Anyone willing to step up to the microphone with a desire to present entertainment news with a perspective -- open and honest -- deserves a bit of discovery (so far as this knucklehead is concerned). I decided to give her a ShoutOut for SciFiHistory.Net's readers.
I found her program with here. Any and all readers are encourated to check her out.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
How's everybody doin' today? Obviously, it's the start of a brand-new week, and -- just like January 1st is the beginning of a whole new year -- I hope you can treat today similarly: reach out and seize the day, make it your own, tame the beast, and run with it!
OK, on the business ...
As I said somewheres in this space earlier this year, I'm trying to up the MainPage posts through a variety of means, one of which is to give 'SciFi ShoutOuts' to like-minded folks. In some respects this means I'll be giving props to folks in SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror, but I've always tried to remind readers that I consider myself a bit eclectic, I have interests beyond genre projects, and I encourage everyone to do the same.
In the last few weeks, I've found myself part of a circle of peeps on the ol' Twitter who've been doing their best to promote podcasts. Again, these recommendations are not limited to any particular type of programming but they're willing to push and promote darn near anything ... and that's anything in a good way, not corrosive or corrupt. Though I don't pod as do others, I have gained a handful of new followers from such exposure, and I've decided to return the favor in the way that I did ... that being SciFi ShoutOuts.
This morning, I gave my first listen to the 'cast 'This Blonde Can Talk About Anything' put out by Mellanie (yes, with two L's but maybe I have the other letters wrong). She opined about the entire Will Smith situation at the Oscars, making her obviously trendy (a good thing), giving it her own moral and cultural spin (again, a good examination); and I thought she presented her arguments in a relatable and cogent way. Anyone willing to step up to the microphone with a desire to present entertainment news with a perspective -- open and honest -- deserves a bit of discovery (so far as this knucklehead is concerned). I decided to give her a ShoutOut for SciFiHistory.Net's readers.
I found her program with here. Any and all readers are encourated to check her out.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Every now and then, I, too, get caught asleep at the wheel, peeps.
Much of this is honestly owed to the fact that I'm always reading -- I'm always surfing -- trying my damndest to give you only the most usable up-to-date information on what's available in genre entertainment. A lot of what I check out just isn't what I personally term as relevent for SciFiHistory.Net -- I typically ignore announcements about projects just going into production because too many of them either get changed, get dropped, or completely disappear from the Information Superhighway before coming to fruition -- and I don't like having space committed to something that never truly transpired. Also, I've really no desire to be like so many of those other sites -- the ones that just endlessly hit you with information to the point that it's either overkill or overload: I'd rather focus in on what I think I do best ... and, sure, that may change from time-to-time, but it'll always be delivered with the dedication I think you deserve.
In any event, I wasn't even aware that a remake/reboot of 1976's The Man Who Fell To Earth was even on any immediate drawing board, but -- lo and behold -- one is dropping on Showtime just this weekend. I read a quick review of it over on The Wrap (link). While that one starred the impressive David Bowie, this one is bringing the star power of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bill Nighy, and Naomie Harris to the forefront. Also, this one is being presented in episodic (aka serial) format, which means that the alien's central journey will likely evolve -- perhaps change significantly, for all we know -- over the course of successive installments.
Ugh ...
The downside?
Well, this incarnation is being brought to the small screen by way of Alex Kurtzman.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the name, Kurtzman was largely introduced to fandom by way of the insufferable JJ Abrams (sorry, kids, but I'm not a fan). Under such stewardship, the Star Trek franchise has -- depending upon your perspective -- been largely destroyed with a growing assortment of bad writing (again, kids, my site, my opinions) that embraces ideology whereas the original Trek embraced ideas. Not content to stop there, Kurtzman also practically destroyed Universal Studios' latest attempt to refashion its Movie Monsters Universe with -- cough cough -- The Mummy, a gobsmackingly awful film on so many levels.
Now, this isn't to suggest in any way that I think Kurtzman should be drummed out of the business. A compelling argument could be made that he's earned a place in television production -- one need only understand that, despite quality, his several versions of Star Trek continue unabated -- and just a lowly web scribe such as myself has no place pronouncing judgment over his wares. Paramount has placed their faith in the man, and no matter what the rest of us think they've undeniably blessed his -- cough cough -- "vision" as being one worth fostering. He's done some great work in the past -- TV's Alias and Fringe benefitted from his collaboration -- and he'll likely continue to craft stuff for years to come.
I guess my only two cents at this point -- keep in mind that, no, I haven't seen The Man Who Fell To Earth as it hasn't aired -- is that I don't hold out much hope for it being all that interesting.
Let's see if Kurtzman can prove me wrong.
The Man Who Fell To Earth premieres Sunday, April 24th, on Showtime. Check your local TV guides for specific info.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Much of this is honestly owed to the fact that I'm always reading -- I'm always surfing -- trying my damndest to give you only the most usable up-to-date information on what's available in genre entertainment. A lot of what I check out just isn't what I personally term as relevent for SciFiHistory.Net -- I typically ignore announcements about projects just going into production because too many of them either get changed, get dropped, or completely disappear from the Information Superhighway before coming to fruition -- and I don't like having space committed to something that never truly transpired. Also, I've really no desire to be like so many of those other sites -- the ones that just endlessly hit you with information to the point that it's either overkill or overload: I'd rather focus in on what I think I do best ... and, sure, that may change from time-to-time, but it'll always be delivered with the dedication I think you deserve.
In any event, I wasn't even aware that a remake/reboot of 1976's The Man Who Fell To Earth was even on any immediate drawing board, but -- lo and behold -- one is dropping on Showtime just this weekend. I read a quick review of it over on The Wrap (link). While that one starred the impressive David Bowie, this one is bringing the star power of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bill Nighy, and Naomie Harris to the forefront. Also, this one is being presented in episodic (aka serial) format, which means that the alien's central journey will likely evolve -- perhaps change significantly, for all we know -- over the course of successive installments.
Ugh ...
The downside?
Well, this incarnation is being brought to the small screen by way of Alex Kurtzman.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the name, Kurtzman was largely introduced to fandom by way of the insufferable JJ Abrams (sorry, kids, but I'm not a fan). Under such stewardship, the Star Trek franchise has -- depending upon your perspective -- been largely destroyed with a growing assortment of bad writing (again, kids, my site, my opinions) that embraces ideology whereas the original Trek embraced ideas. Not content to stop there, Kurtzman also practically destroyed Universal Studios' latest attempt to refashion its Movie Monsters Universe with -- cough cough -- The Mummy, a gobsmackingly awful film on so many levels.
Now, this isn't to suggest in any way that I think Kurtzman should be drummed out of the business. A compelling argument could be made that he's earned a place in television production -- one need only understand that, despite quality, his several versions of Star Trek continue unabated -- and just a lowly web scribe such as myself has no place pronouncing judgment over his wares. Paramount has placed their faith in the man, and no matter what the rest of us think they've undeniably blessed his -- cough cough -- "vision" as being one worth fostering. He's done some great work in the past -- TV's Alias and Fringe benefitted from his collaboration -- and he'll likely continue to craft stuff for years to come.
I guess my only two cents at this point -- keep in mind that, no, I haven't seen The Man Who Fell To Earth as it hasn't aired -- is that I don't hold out much hope for it being all that interesting.
Let's see if Kurtzman can prove me wrong.
The Man Who Fell To Earth premieres Sunday, April 24th, on Showtime. Check your local TV guides for specific info.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Honestly, I didn’t have all that grand of a childhood.
Now, I’m not complaining. Rather, I’m only trying to give a bit of context for a memory. My parents weren’t around an awful lot when I was a young’un, and they’d often leave me in front of the television set when they had other things requiring their attention. (Again, this is not a complaint.) This never bothered me as it gave me ample opportunity to develop a love for film, and – like so many – I’ve probably seen and forgotten more flicks than I’ll ever recall.
Anyway, they were on their way out the door one Friday or Saturday night I believe it was, and they were entrusting me and my two sisters into a babysitter’s capable hands. As usual, I was on the couch, the television was on, and a commercial promotion came on advertising that evening’s primetime movie was going to be a little something something called The Abominable Dr. Phibes. I’m pretty sure it was mother who noticed me inching forward in my seat, and she turned to me with a warning: “I do not want you watching that picture. It’ll give you nightmares.”
So … I had no choice. I turned the channel. I did try later to go back to it, but the babysitter had overhead my mother’s words, stopping me short of a few scenes.
I did see it later – I don’t remember when or how old I was at that point – and I remember deciding that my mother didn’t know what she was talking about. Phibes wasn’t all that scary. Sure, it had its moments of tension, but it was tame by comparison to other things I squeezed in when she wasn’t watching.
(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 …)
Now, I’m not complaining. Rather, I’m only trying to give a bit of context for a memory. My parents weren’t around an awful lot when I was a young’un, and they’d often leave me in front of the television set when they had other things requiring their attention. (Again, this is not a complaint.) This never bothered me as it gave me ample opportunity to develop a love for film, and – like so many – I’ve probably seen and forgotten more flicks than I’ll ever recall.
Anyway, they were on their way out the door one Friday or Saturday night I believe it was, and they were entrusting me and my two sisters into a babysitter’s capable hands. As usual, I was on the couch, the television was on, and a commercial promotion came on advertising that evening’s primetime movie was going to be a little something something called The Abominable Dr. Phibes. I’m pretty sure it was mother who noticed me inching forward in my seat, and she turned to me with a warning: “I do not want you watching that picture. It’ll give you nightmares.”
So … I had no choice. I turned the channel. I did try later to go back to it, but the babysitter had overhead my mother’s words, stopping me short of a few scenes.
I did see it later – I don’t remember when or how old I was at that point – and I remember deciding that my mother didn’t know what she was talking about. Phibes wasn’t all that scary. Sure, it had its moments of tension, but it was tame by comparison to other things I squeezed in when she wasn’t watching.
(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:
“Horror legend Vincent Price plays a diabolical doc seeking the ultimate in revenge with precision creepiness and surgical wit! After a team of surgeons botches his beloved wife’s operation, the distraught Dr. Phibes unleashes a score of Old-Testament atrocities – from a plague of locusts to an attack of rats – on his enemies that climax in what may be one of the eeriest endings on screen record!”
More than anything, Phibes is a revenge picture.
There’s no denying that James Whiton and William Goldstein’s script mixes elements of Horror, Comedy, and the household Melodrama all for good measure. Heck, depending upon what one makes of the doctor and his assistant Vulnavia’s relationship (she’s played by Virginia North), one might argue there’s an undercurrent of unrequited love possible woven into the picture’s visual spell. But at its core, what makes the clock tick is Phibes ongoing quest to see those who participated in any way with his wife’s failed surgery pay an equally steep price – namely, it’s an eye for an eye in some of the more creative deaths emerging from this era of film.
Director Robert Fuest explores methods to deliver the madness without all that much bloodshed. In fact, only a few sequences show any blood at all, as the narrative technique here is far more nuanced than what’s come from traditional European Horror features, which for a time kinda/sorta reveled in excess. In fact, some of Phibes’ creative kills made me wonder if folks who created the cinematic universe of the Saw films might’ve drawn a bit of inspiration; granted, their deaths are vastly more elaborate, but I can see some thematic similarities from the old to the new if even in small ways.
Still, it’s hard to grow offended by the doctor’s ongoing quest. He’s on his own personal ‘mission of justice,’ and he’ll stop at nothing, drawing inspiration from the Bible for the manner in which he’ll vanquish his next mortal foe. Price – though cleverly limited from showing us the range of his gifts vocally – performs admirably as the tortured soul who misses his dearly departed. Though he’s never afforded the opportunity to chew scenery the way he’s done in previous films, he shoulders the good, the bad, and even the goofy elements of perhaps the screen’s oddest antagonist, camping it up like some demented Phantom of the Opera (sans the opera but with the pipe organ). He properly mugs it up at every chance, showing audiences to true gift of expression even if only with his wide, pensive eyes. It's a masterful performance deserving of some praise.
“Horror legend Vincent Price plays a diabolical doc seeking the ultimate in revenge with precision creepiness and surgical wit! After a team of surgeons botches his beloved wife’s operation, the distraught Dr. Phibes unleashes a score of Old-Testament atrocities – from a plague of locusts to an attack of rats – on his enemies that climax in what may be one of the eeriest endings on screen record!”
More than anything, Phibes is a revenge picture.
There’s no denying that James Whiton and William Goldstein’s script mixes elements of Horror, Comedy, and the household Melodrama all for good measure. Heck, depending upon what one makes of the doctor and his assistant Vulnavia’s relationship (she’s played by Virginia North), one might argue there’s an undercurrent of unrequited love possible woven into the picture’s visual spell. But at its core, what makes the clock tick is Phibes ongoing quest to see those who participated in any way with his wife’s failed surgery pay an equally steep price – namely, it’s an eye for an eye in some of the more creative deaths emerging from this era of film.
Director Robert Fuest explores methods to deliver the madness without all that much bloodshed. In fact, only a few sequences show any blood at all, as the narrative technique here is far more nuanced than what’s come from traditional European Horror features, which for a time kinda/sorta reveled in excess. In fact, some of Phibes’ creative kills made me wonder if folks who created the cinematic universe of the Saw films might’ve drawn a bit of inspiration; granted, their deaths are vastly more elaborate, but I can see some thematic similarities from the old to the new if even in small ways.
Still, it’s hard to grow offended by the doctor’s ongoing quest. He’s on his own personal ‘mission of justice,’ and he’ll stop at nothing, drawing inspiration from the Bible for the manner in which he’ll vanquish his next mortal foe. Price – though cleverly limited from showing us the range of his gifts vocally – performs admirably as the tortured soul who misses his dearly departed. Though he’s never afforded the opportunity to chew scenery the way he’s done in previous films, he shoulders the good, the bad, and even the goofy elements of perhaps the screen’s oddest antagonist, camping it up like some demented Phantom of the Opera (sans the opera but with the pipe organ). He properly mugs it up at every chance, showing audiences to true gift of expression even if only with his wide, pensive eyes. It's a masterful performance deserving of some praise.
Phibes’ script is more than occasionally inconsistent. Costume changes occur when characters have not been given clearly enough time, and (logic be damned!) some of the manners of execution push the limits of what viewers might believe possible, much less plausible. Props and needed technology tend to appear out of thin air in the doctor’s lair more out of script necessity than out of pure acceptability. Why would any villain require a mansion with the level of theatrical sophistication Phibes has built unless he knew exactly what everyone in this world would do when poked or prodded? Why a golden ax? Even worse, why a golden telephone? Even more worse, why a golden telephone in your crypt? Why a menagerie of mechanical musicians? Any attempt at rational thought fails here, as much of this simply defies any conventional explanation.
In the end, perhaps it’s best to bear in mind that this isn’t a film that’s watched and appreciated for what it does so much as it is how its results are ultimately achieved.
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) was produced by Amicus Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the very reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While there’s no mention of the disc being the beneficiary of any new scans, whatever master was used is fabulous: colors definitely pop – the flick makes great use of darkness and shadows along with a fair amount of ambient light in places – and everything sounds fabulous. As for the special features? Ahem. There are the obligatory adverts that tend to go hand-in-hand with most releases these days, but the real extras here are two different commentary tracks. Director Fuest appears alongside a host, and – if I’m being perfectly frank – it’s a difficult experience in part because Fuest (who passed in 2012 at the ripe age of 84) certainly sounds aged; as a consequence, his recollections are few, many of them pleasant, but he’s a bit hard to hear as his speech is a bit broken. (Age gets us all, my friends.) The second commentary is from Justin Humphreys – a Phibes ‘expert’ – and he provides a fascinating exploration of some of the major and minor facts that went into launching this small franchise. Some of what he details doesn’t quite align with what Fuest says on his track, but I’m going to chalk it all up to a few flawed memories.
Highly recommended, but … recommended for whom?
One of the kinda/sorta charming qualities of The Abominable Dr. Phibes is that it’s a Horror film that defies all of the conventions of the genre while still honoring them, and yet it’s also a Comedy that shouldn’t logically work but somehow still manages to effectively. In fact, Phibes – abominable it may be – is that rare visual specimen that resists being categorized into any single field or genre because it so effectively mixes, matches, and even mocks everything that makes it one type of flick or another. It’s a motion picture made for no particular audience and yet has found one – largely cult – with incredible crossover potential from fans of practically any group or sub-group.
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 The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) by request (as part of their ‘Two Films By Robert Fuest Double Feature’) 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.
In the end, perhaps it’s best to bear in mind that this isn’t a film that’s watched and appreciated for what it does so much as it is how its results are ultimately achieved.
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) was produced by Amicus Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the very reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While there’s no mention of the disc being the beneficiary of any new scans, whatever master was used is fabulous: colors definitely pop – the flick makes great use of darkness and shadows along with a fair amount of ambient light in places – and everything sounds fabulous. As for the special features? Ahem. There are the obligatory adverts that tend to go hand-in-hand with most releases these days, but the real extras here are two different commentary tracks. Director Fuest appears alongside a host, and – if I’m being perfectly frank – it’s a difficult experience in part because Fuest (who passed in 2012 at the ripe age of 84) certainly sounds aged; as a consequence, his recollections are few, many of them pleasant, but he’s a bit hard to hear as his speech is a bit broken. (Age gets us all, my friends.) The second commentary is from Justin Humphreys – a Phibes ‘expert’ – and he provides a fascinating exploration of some of the major and minor facts that went into launching this small franchise. Some of what he details doesn’t quite align with what Fuest says on his track, but I’m going to chalk it all up to a few flawed memories.
Highly recommended, but … recommended for whom?
One of the kinda/sorta charming qualities of The Abominable Dr. Phibes is that it’s a Horror film that defies all of the conventions of the genre while still honoring them, and yet it’s also a Comedy that shouldn’t logically work but somehow still manages to effectively. In fact, Phibes – abominable it may be – is that rare visual specimen that resists being categorized into any single field or genre because it so effectively mixes, matches, and even mocks everything that makes it one type of flick or another. It’s a motion picture made for no particular audience and yet has found one – largely cult – with incredible crossover potential from fans of practically any group or sub-group.
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 The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) by request (as part of their ‘Two Films By Robert Fuest Double Feature’) 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.
- Published on
Again ... just for the record ... Marvel flicks? Not a huge fan.
There are a few of them that I do enjoy, though, and I think the very first Thor (2011) film was actually quite good. Unlike some of the others in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I just felt that they got the tone right for it -- comic book properties can have a bit of 'camp' in them, and incorporating the world of mythology into the present day can certainly be a source of groans if not done right. That film just had a laid back mentality at times -- much of which was owed, I think, to Chris Hemsworth's characterization in it -- and it rose up (in my mind, at least) to be a project that clearly offered some quality characters along with some great laughs ... something that can be missing from these Mouse House exports, if you ask me.
In any event ...
I haven't been all that thrilled with where they've gone since.
Thor: The Dark World (2013) kinda/sorta felt like the producers wanted to 'grow Thor up' as a character into some deeper chicanery, peeling away some of what made the first outing so memorable in favor of ... well ... a darker meaning. Dare I suggest: sometimes a story is just a story? Why do we feel this pressing need to make things have social or cultural relevance? These are comic books characters, after all, and this one -- in particular -- is pulled from mythology ... so can't we just have a bit of fun like we did in the first outing? By contrast, Thor: Ragnarok (2017) was a return to form -- much closer thematically to the 2011 film -- but for those of us who've read some of the books over the years, we know it really was the much better Planet Hulk storyline repackaged to incorporate Thor ... and I think it would've been better to save that for an actuall Hulk movie.
I guess it's safe to say that Thor fared a bit better (in some ways) with his arc in Avengers. Though he -- ahem -- put on a bit of baggage around the midsection, he certainly took center stage through part of that action (along with his signature hammer); and our worlds were definitely in good hands with his participation. Now he returns to his somewhat standalone franchise, the latest of which is Thor: Love And Thunder, set to premiere on the silver screen in July, 2022 (per IMDB.com). The teaser trailer dropped yesterday, and I thought I'd share it in this space.
For what it's worth, it does 'feel' that the writers are returning him to some of the lighthearted fare, but I'd caution everyone to keep in mind that this is only a trailer. There's very little substance in here about the story and the particular circumstances the God of Thunder might find himself in, and -- as I always caution -- some trailers are fashioned in a way to really 'sell' you on seeing it anyway, making them not a great source of unbiased material. As always, these are best considered "buyer beware" situations, and I caution readers never to make all that much of them.
Trailer is below. You know what to do. And -- if you could -- share the Tweet far and wide? Twitter appears to be messing me over (yet again) with its algorithms, and I'm getting so very, very, very little distribution and impressions. It happens from time-to-time, though SciFiHistory.Net breaks through that imposed 'glass ceiling' every opportunity fans take charge.
There are a few of them that I do enjoy, though, and I think the very first Thor (2011) film was actually quite good. Unlike some of the others in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I just felt that they got the tone right for it -- comic book properties can have a bit of 'camp' in them, and incorporating the world of mythology into the present day can certainly be a source of groans if not done right. That film just had a laid back mentality at times -- much of which was owed, I think, to Chris Hemsworth's characterization in it -- and it rose up (in my mind, at least) to be a project that clearly offered some quality characters along with some great laughs ... something that can be missing from these Mouse House exports, if you ask me.
In any event ...
I haven't been all that thrilled with where they've gone since.
Thor: The Dark World (2013) kinda/sorta felt like the producers wanted to 'grow Thor up' as a character into some deeper chicanery, peeling away some of what made the first outing so memorable in favor of ... well ... a darker meaning. Dare I suggest: sometimes a story is just a story? Why do we feel this pressing need to make things have social or cultural relevance? These are comic books characters, after all, and this one -- in particular -- is pulled from mythology ... so can't we just have a bit of fun like we did in the first outing? By contrast, Thor: Ragnarok (2017) was a return to form -- much closer thematically to the 2011 film -- but for those of us who've read some of the books over the years, we know it really was the much better Planet Hulk storyline repackaged to incorporate Thor ... and I think it would've been better to save that for an actuall Hulk movie.
I guess it's safe to say that Thor fared a bit better (in some ways) with his arc in Avengers. Though he -- ahem -- put on a bit of baggage around the midsection, he certainly took center stage through part of that action (along with his signature hammer); and our worlds were definitely in good hands with his participation. Now he returns to his somewhat standalone franchise, the latest of which is Thor: Love And Thunder, set to premiere on the silver screen in July, 2022 (per IMDB.com). The teaser trailer dropped yesterday, and I thought I'd share it in this space.
For what it's worth, it does 'feel' that the writers are returning him to some of the lighthearted fare, but I'd caution everyone to keep in mind that this is only a trailer. There's very little substance in here about the story and the particular circumstances the God of Thunder might find himself in, and -- as I always caution -- some trailers are fashioned in a way to really 'sell' you on seeing it anyway, making them not a great source of unbiased material. As always, these are best considered "buyer beware" situations, and I caution readers never to make all that much of them.
Trailer is below. You know what to do. And -- if you could -- share the Tweet far and wide? Twitter appears to be messing me over (yet again) with its algorithms, and I'm getting so very, very, very little distribution and impressions. It happens from time-to-time, though SciFiHistory.Net breaks through that imposed 'glass ceiling' every opportunity fans take charge.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
As I said in my review of Outer Range’s first episode, “The Void” …
The difficulty of reviewing an ongoing mystery procedural – say something like David Lynch’s ground-breaking Twin Peaks or, more recently, Netflix’s short-lived Archive 81 – is that viewers are tasked with digesting only a single morsel of a larger meal but being asked to determine its quality bite by bite. Instead of pronouncing judgment of the end result, they’re required to sound-off on each successive sampling of the whole – which is getting progressively smaller, obviously – and that’s a challenging process by which to make or break one’s supper, much less compliment or insult the chef.
Though I do hate to repeat myself (not really), I’m guessing that – as I’m now two hours into this all-new Amazon program – it may become a necessary evil with each subsequent hour. When one is dealing with layers upon layers (upon layers) of mystery, confusion, and/or downright narrative misdirection, it grows increasingly difficult to comment on the central thread; instead, reviewers tend to bandy words on individual performances or visual aesthetics. Those things are good, true, and Outer Range is to be commended (more on that below, as that’s what I’m left with), but the second hour definitely serves up the meatiest reveal yet in its late moments, giving audiences a greater bit of context for the otherworldly journey they find themselves taking with these characters.
(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 …)
A few years back, I fell in love with a great ‘red meat’ action program on Cinemax called Strike Back. (For the record, it got kinda/sorta rebooted with a second crew, but their adventures paled in comparison to the original.) There was nothing about it that was Science Fiction or Fantasy – the show’s focus was on a small team of British operatives essentially fighting terrorism – but I bring it up here solely for one of the things I learned when watching one of its ‘behind-the-scenes’ featurettes. I forget who it was – a showrunner, clearly someone on the creative staff – who said something to the effect that they structure their storylines such that something dynamic that propelled the arcs forward happens every other episode. This gave them the mechanics of approaching two episodes like they were a single two-hour movie, thus they felt audiences were owed something significant as a payback that would also set-up the next two-episode focus.
I bring this up in this space now because that’s how I’d approach Outer Range’s first two episodes.
The difficulty of reviewing an ongoing mystery procedural – say something like David Lynch’s ground-breaking Twin Peaks or, more recently, Netflix’s short-lived Archive 81 – is that viewers are tasked with digesting only a single morsel of a larger meal but being asked to determine its quality bite by bite. Instead of pronouncing judgment of the end result, they’re required to sound-off on each successive sampling of the whole – which is getting progressively smaller, obviously – and that’s a challenging process by which to make or break one’s supper, much less compliment or insult the chef.
Though I do hate to repeat myself (not really), I’m guessing that – as I’m now two hours into this all-new Amazon program – it may become a necessary evil with each subsequent hour. When one is dealing with layers upon layers (upon layers) of mystery, confusion, and/or downright narrative misdirection, it grows increasingly difficult to comment on the central thread; instead, reviewers tend to bandy words on individual performances or visual aesthetics. Those things are good, true, and Outer Range is to be commended (more on that below, as that’s what I’m left with), but the second hour definitely serves up the meatiest reveal yet in its late moments, giving audiences a greater bit of context for the otherworldly journey they find themselves taking with these characters.
(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 …)
A few years back, I fell in love with a great ‘red meat’ action program on Cinemax called Strike Back. (For the record, it got kinda/sorta rebooted with a second crew, but their adventures paled in comparison to the original.) There was nothing about it that was Science Fiction or Fantasy – the show’s focus was on a small team of British operatives essentially fighting terrorism – but I bring it up here solely for one of the things I learned when watching one of its ‘behind-the-scenes’ featurettes. I forget who it was – a showrunner, clearly someone on the creative staff – who said something to the effect that they structure their storylines such that something dynamic that propelled the arcs forward happens every other episode. This gave them the mechanics of approaching two episodes like they were a single two-hour movie, thus they felt audiences were owed something significant as a payback that would also set-up the next two-episode focus.
I bring this up in this space now because that’s how I’d approach Outer Range’s first two episodes.
Though I wasn’t impressed with the pilot episode – it was good, had some great possibilities – I found it now a bit easier to grasp some of its intentions based on the second hour’s reveal. Audiences are rewarded for hanging on – for staying in their seats until this installment plays out – and they’re given a bit of explanation regarding the hole in the ground Royal Abbott (played by Josh Brolin) has found on his property that’s curiously reshaping his entire existence. They learn (or do they?) that it’s a portal (of sorts) with a look into the future.
Episode 01 ends with Autumn (Imogene Poots) shoving Royal into the abyss, a development that appears to be entirely brushed over in Episode 2’s opening scenes: the rancher merely awakens on his land, albeit in rough shape from a tangle with a barbed wire fence and a curious ‘shot’ to the leg. As we never saw this ‘shot’ take place, it’s given a plausible enough explanation at the time; and it isn’t until the hour’s final reveal when we learn how it all took place … in the man’s future.
Like those adventures I so much loved with Strike Back, Outer Range’s first hours work much the same: viewers are given a surprise ending that only makes sense by the obvious delay of storylines unfolding, and that big twist is clearly being deployed to establish the series’ next arc. How long this one will sustain interest until the next expansion is yet to be seen, but I’m hoping – unlike other mystery procedurals – the writers don’t space them too far apart. Audiences can be fickle and lose interest easily; remind them why they fell in love in the first place, and they’ll follow you into that darkness.
But about the aesthetics?
The fabulous Lili Taylor delivers a fantastic opening scene to this second hour, giving her character an all-new level of respect and cause for admiration. As the matriarch to the Abbott family, she confronts the Tillerson boys at her front door in the middle of the night, and she definitely gives them ‘what for.’ In a moment, she takes charge of the situation, redirects their testosterone-fueled anger into angst, and even squeezes an apology out of one of the Tillersons. Think what you may about good writing (of which the scene is fabulous), but it takes a truly gifted actress to bring words to life off the written page, and Taylor has been no slouch. Her career is practically riddled with awards and nominations – she’s made it her life’s passion – and I’m hoping we’ll get to see more of this firecracker madame as the show builds its mythology.
“The Land” (the second hour’s title) is largely propelled by a fabulous performance by the great Will Patton. The show’s protagonist finally gets some face time with his – ahem – somewhat mortal enemy, and their exchange helps to establish their respective backgrounds and might even hint at more mysteries to come. Patton’s Wayne Tillerson is a bit of a broken man – he’s suffering from physical ailments, true, but I’m inclined to believe there’s more to that – and he’s willing to drag everyone down with him when he goes. Something is pushing him to seize Abbott’s land – might he know a thing or two about the hole? – and it looks like he’s going to make obtaining it his dying wish. Indeed, it’s a dire predicament that friends, family, and enemies will remain on high alert as these situations grow.
After all, a mortally wounded animal can always be the least predictable as it has nothing to lose.
-- EZ
Episode 01 ends with Autumn (Imogene Poots) shoving Royal into the abyss, a development that appears to be entirely brushed over in Episode 2’s opening scenes: the rancher merely awakens on his land, albeit in rough shape from a tangle with a barbed wire fence and a curious ‘shot’ to the leg. As we never saw this ‘shot’ take place, it’s given a plausible enough explanation at the time; and it isn’t until the hour’s final reveal when we learn how it all took place … in the man’s future.
Like those adventures I so much loved with Strike Back, Outer Range’s first hours work much the same: viewers are given a surprise ending that only makes sense by the obvious delay of storylines unfolding, and that big twist is clearly being deployed to establish the series’ next arc. How long this one will sustain interest until the next expansion is yet to be seen, but I’m hoping – unlike other mystery procedurals – the writers don’t space them too far apart. Audiences can be fickle and lose interest easily; remind them why they fell in love in the first place, and they’ll follow you into that darkness.
But about the aesthetics?
The fabulous Lili Taylor delivers a fantastic opening scene to this second hour, giving her character an all-new level of respect and cause for admiration. As the matriarch to the Abbott family, she confronts the Tillerson boys at her front door in the middle of the night, and she definitely gives them ‘what for.’ In a moment, she takes charge of the situation, redirects their testosterone-fueled anger into angst, and even squeezes an apology out of one of the Tillersons. Think what you may about good writing (of which the scene is fabulous), but it takes a truly gifted actress to bring words to life off the written page, and Taylor has been no slouch. Her career is practically riddled with awards and nominations – she’s made it her life’s passion – and I’m hoping we’ll get to see more of this firecracker madame as the show builds its mythology.
“The Land” (the second hour’s title) is largely propelled by a fabulous performance by the great Will Patton. The show’s protagonist finally gets some face time with his – ahem – somewhat mortal enemy, and their exchange helps to establish their respective backgrounds and might even hint at more mysteries to come. Patton’s Wayne Tillerson is a bit of a broken man – he’s suffering from physical ailments, true, but I’m inclined to believe there’s more to that – and he’s willing to drag everyone down with him when he goes. Something is pushing him to seize Abbott’s land – might he know a thing or two about the hole? – and it looks like he’s going to make obtaining it his dying wish. Indeed, it’s a dire predicament that friends, family, and enemies will remain on high alert as these situations grow.
After all, a mortally wounded animal can always be the least predictable as it has nothing to lose.
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the immeasurable perks of being an influential member of the alternative 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 genre entertainment but also to give the occasional SciFi ShoutOut to friends, foes, and like-minded Muggles from all corners of the Information Superhighway. 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 wanted to say thanks. While I may not be as widely read as some other outlets, I find it still refreshing to do my part in championing SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror whenever I get the chance.
Yesterday, I received a press release regarding genre author Jeff Webber and his tome, Enimnori: Arrival, the first of what appears to be a planned quadrilogy. The title was released this past December, 2021 on Amazon.com (link), and the author has assured me -- via LinkedIn -- that he's hard at work at the subsequent adventures. In the meantime, I'm happy to share his press release below, and I strongly encourage interested readers to check it out!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
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 genre entertainment but also to give the occasional SciFi ShoutOut to friends, foes, and like-minded Muggles from all corners of the Information Superhighway. 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 wanted to say thanks. While I may not be as widely read as some other outlets, I find it still refreshing to do my part in championing SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror whenever I get the chance.
Yesterday, I received a press release regarding genre author Jeff Webber and his tome, Enimnori: Arrival, the first of what appears to be a planned quadrilogy. The title was released this past December, 2021 on Amazon.com (link), and the author has assured me -- via LinkedIn -- that he's hard at work at the subsequent adventures. In the meantime, I'm happy to share his press release below, and I strongly encourage interested readers to check it out!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Author Jeff Webber’s new book “Enimnori: Arrival” is a thrilling adventure that follows Scott, a man pulled into a different world by a young magician's accident.
Recent release “Enimnori: Arrival” from Newman Springs Publishing author Jeff Webber is a captivating tale that begins when a young magician named Brandon accidentally summons a man named Scott Hathaway from our world into his. From there, Scott finds himself intertwined in dark politics, and he must use his knowledge of our world to save his new friends.
Jeff Webber has completed his new book “Enimnori: Arrival”: a gripping and engrossing story of a young man that is transported to a mysterious new world by a spell gone awry.
Published by Newman Springs Publishing, Jeff Webber’s engaging tale begins when a young magician named Brandon accidentally summons Scott Hathaway from our world into his. Once acclimated to his new surroundings, Scott quickly becomes involved in dark and secretive politics and must use his knowledge from our world to save new friends.
Readers will be captivated by the interesting world and unique characters brought to life by Webber in this enchanting story. Expertly paced with twists and turns that will keep readers on the edge of their seats, “Enimnori: Arrival” is sure to delight and thrill with each turn of the page.
Readers who wish to experience this mesmerizing work can purchase “Enimnori: Arrival” at bookstores everywhere, or online at the Apple iBooks Store, Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.
For additional information or media inquiries, contact Newman Springs Publishing at 732-243-8512.
About Newman Springs Publishing:
Newman Springs Publishing is a full-service publishing house for serious authors. Each title produced by Newman Springs Publishing undergoes every step of the professional publishing process, including editing, layout, cover design, circulation, distribution, and publicity. All titles are made available in both eBook and print formats. Newman Springs Publishing distributes to tens of thousands of retail outlets throughout North America and internationally. All manuscripts in any genre are welcome to be submitted for review; If the manuscript meets the necessary criteria and is accepted for publication, Newman Springs Publishing will work closely with the author to bring the book to the retail market for a relatively inexpensive initial investment.
Recent release “Enimnori: Arrival” from Newman Springs Publishing author Jeff Webber is a captivating tale that begins when a young magician named Brandon accidentally summons a man named Scott Hathaway from our world into his. From there, Scott finds himself intertwined in dark politics, and he must use his knowledge of our world to save his new friends.
Jeff Webber has completed his new book “Enimnori: Arrival”: a gripping and engrossing story of a young man that is transported to a mysterious new world by a spell gone awry.
Published by Newman Springs Publishing, Jeff Webber’s engaging tale begins when a young magician named Brandon accidentally summons Scott Hathaway from our world into his. Once acclimated to his new surroundings, Scott quickly becomes involved in dark and secretive politics and must use his knowledge from our world to save new friends.
Readers will be captivated by the interesting world and unique characters brought to life by Webber in this enchanting story. Expertly paced with twists and turns that will keep readers on the edge of their seats, “Enimnori: Arrival” is sure to delight and thrill with each turn of the page.
Readers who wish to experience this mesmerizing work can purchase “Enimnori: Arrival” at bookstores everywhere, or online at the Apple iBooks Store, Amazon, or Barnes and Noble.
For additional information or media inquiries, contact Newman Springs Publishing at 732-243-8512.
About Newman Springs Publishing:
Newman Springs Publishing is a full-service publishing house for serious authors. Each title produced by Newman Springs Publishing undergoes every step of the professional publishing process, including editing, layout, cover design, circulation, distribution, and publicity. All titles are made available in both eBook and print formats. Newman Springs Publishing distributes to tens of thousands of retail outlets throughout North America and internationally. All manuscripts in any genre are welcome to be submitted for review; If the manuscript meets the necessary criteria and is accepted for publication, Newman Springs Publishing will work closely with the author to bring the book to the retail market for a relatively inexpensive initial investment.