- Published on
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know that – typically – I do avoid penning reviews for slasher films.
It isn’t that I dislike them because – in all honesty – I have a fondness for damn near any kind of artistic bloodletting. My issue with them so far as SciFiHistory.Net’s Horror coverage is that many of them are a bit too conventional, essentially bringing nothing fresh, new, or innovative to the table that merits a written discussion (or dissection). Though I will pen articles for older releases finding new life on home video or streaming if there’s something to offer fans of genre entertainment, that list tends to be few and far between. Naturally, I prefer leaving space available for things I enjoy, meaning that I hope you’ll share in my delight by checking these more unique titles out.
But I’m thrilled to say I spent the last eighty minutes chuckling my way through a little something something called Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020).
Little did I know going into it that it’s a sequel – curse you, cinema gods! – but I can assure you that I had absolutely no knowledge of the first installment and caught onto this one’s action very quickly. In fact, I’d argue that approaching this one with little to no awareness of the original may’ve caused this review to tap into the storyline and these characters with a bit more appreciation than others; I did a quick scan of reviews online, and – as par for the course – I enjoyed this indie comedy probably far more than others who blog. Such is life.
So sue me.
(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:
“Five years after ‘The Slashening,’ 22-year-old Madison Santangeli moves to Brooklyn to start a new life in the wake of her father’s suicide.”
Full disclosure: it helps going into The Final Beginning with full awareness that this is a micro-budgeted independent film comedy. Not a lot of money was spent on this flick – for some of us who appreciate smaller films, that only increases its charm – and that means the cast and crew were required to put in a lot of extra sweat, blood, tears, and elbow grease to make it come to life.
The verdict?
I thought this one was near genius.
It isn’t that I dislike them because – in all honesty – I have a fondness for damn near any kind of artistic bloodletting. My issue with them so far as SciFiHistory.Net’s Horror coverage is that many of them are a bit too conventional, essentially bringing nothing fresh, new, or innovative to the table that merits a written discussion (or dissection). Though I will pen articles for older releases finding new life on home video or streaming if there’s something to offer fans of genre entertainment, that list tends to be few and far between. Naturally, I prefer leaving space available for things I enjoy, meaning that I hope you’ll share in my delight by checking these more unique titles out.
But I’m thrilled to say I spent the last eighty minutes chuckling my way through a little something something called Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020).
Little did I know going into it that it’s a sequel – curse you, cinema gods! – but I can assure you that I had absolutely no knowledge of the first installment and caught onto this one’s action very quickly. In fact, I’d argue that approaching this one with little to no awareness of the original may’ve caused this review to tap into the storyline and these characters with a bit more appreciation than others; I did a quick scan of reviews online, and – as par for the course – I enjoyed this indie comedy probably far more than others who blog. Such is life.
So sue me.
(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:
“Five years after ‘The Slashening,’ 22-year-old Madison Santangeli moves to Brooklyn to start a new life in the wake of her father’s suicide.”
Full disclosure: it helps going into The Final Beginning with full awareness that this is a micro-budgeted independent film comedy. Not a lot of money was spent on this flick – for some of us who appreciate smaller films, that only increases its charm – and that means the cast and crew were required to put in a lot of extra sweat, blood, tears, and elbow grease to make it come to life.
The verdict?
I thought this one was near genius.
Writer/director Brandon Bassham grounds all of the silliness in good old-fashioned character comedy. For the uninitiated, that doesn’t mean that you’ll be treated to men and women larger-than-life; rather, it means that each of them is his or her own unique construction – decidedly off-center but shackled with entirely relatable quirks – and, as loose archetypes, they could easily be picked up and deposited into any other story with relative ease. Dare I say, we’ve all known people like those depicted here? The ditzy rich girls who blissfully survive on no self-awareness? The disempowered male counselor who exists only to please others? The raging male narcissist who’ll embrace any ideology, just so long as he can use it to impress females? And the squeaky-clean girl-next-door who’ll defy the odds just because that’s her lot in life?
Yes, we’ve seen them all before, either in life or on film; and because we can go into whatever circumstances the script deems necessary we almost know how they’re going to react. Some of the humor is entirely predictable – other instances it’s gleefully demented – but that doesn’t make it any less funny. Much like the films of Christopher Guest wherein backwater everyday types get their chance to bask in the limelight if only briefly, each of Bassham’s crew gets a moment uniquely his or her own … even if it’s to go out in a singular blaze of glory at the end of a knife … or a chainsaw … or a cleverly-placed bong.
In some ways, this is the kind of humor the Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker, and David Zucker brought to films in the 1980’s when their seminal Airplane literally destroyed its competition with laughs. Part satire and part sheer lunacy, Airplane worked because audiences didn’t quite know what to expect, but they were willing to go back time-and-time again because – simply put – it was just so damn funny. The Final Beginning mines similar territory but lampoons the slasher picture and its tropes much like the Scary Movies did in their better days (well, before they got a bit tired and started throwing anything at the screen). Smart and prescient, the script manages to turn the tables (in more ways than one) on its characters – and maybe even its audience – in a last reel surprise that needs to be seen to be appreciated.
Now I’ll need to go back and check out the original just to see what I may’ve missed in the first outing. Here’s hoping it doesn’t dampen my appreciation of the follow-up.
Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020) was produced by Annum Films and Troma. The film is available for streaming via the Troma website. As for the technical specifications? I believe this one was shot on high-definition digital, and it looks and sounds fantastic from start-to-finish.
Highly recommended. At 80 minutes, this lean and mean indie comedy might not be a crowd-pleaser, per se, but I found plenty to appreciate in its offbeat sensibilities. While there were a sequence or two I’d suggest were a bit ‘beneath’ it stylistically (gross-out humor never was my thing), I was able to grin-and-bear my way through, and I’m glad I did. While others may’ve been disappointed in its ending, I thought it all came to closure with exactly the same tone it began.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Troma Entertainment provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020) 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
Yes, we’ve seen them all before, either in life or on film; and because we can go into whatever circumstances the script deems necessary we almost know how they’re going to react. Some of the humor is entirely predictable – other instances it’s gleefully demented – but that doesn’t make it any less funny. Much like the films of Christopher Guest wherein backwater everyday types get their chance to bask in the limelight if only briefly, each of Bassham’s crew gets a moment uniquely his or her own … even if it’s to go out in a singular blaze of glory at the end of a knife … or a chainsaw … or a cleverly-placed bong.
In some ways, this is the kind of humor the Jim Abrahams, Jerry Zucker, and David Zucker brought to films in the 1980’s when their seminal Airplane literally destroyed its competition with laughs. Part satire and part sheer lunacy, Airplane worked because audiences didn’t quite know what to expect, but they were willing to go back time-and-time again because – simply put – it was just so damn funny. The Final Beginning mines similar territory but lampoons the slasher picture and its tropes much like the Scary Movies did in their better days (well, before they got a bit tired and started throwing anything at the screen). Smart and prescient, the script manages to turn the tables (in more ways than one) on its characters – and maybe even its audience – in a last reel surprise that needs to be seen to be appreciated.
Now I’ll need to go back and check out the original just to see what I may’ve missed in the first outing. Here’s hoping it doesn’t dampen my appreciation of the follow-up.
Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020) was produced by Annum Films and Troma. The film is available for streaming via the Troma website. As for the technical specifications? I believe this one was shot on high-definition digital, and it looks and sounds fantastic from start-to-finish.
Highly recommended. At 80 minutes, this lean and mean indie comedy might not be a crowd-pleaser, per se, but I found plenty to appreciate in its offbeat sensibilities. While there were a sequence or two I’d suggest were a bit ‘beneath’ it stylistically (gross-out humor never was my thing), I was able to grin-and-bear my way through, and I’m glad I did. While others may’ve been disappointed in its ending, I thought it all came to closure with exactly the same tone it began.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Troma Entertainment provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Slashening: The Final Beginning (2020) 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
Over the next few days, I’ll be happily spending some time with Drive-In Classics, a collection of three 1950’s era Science Fiction and Fantasy films released on DVD by Corinth Films. This set includes the seminal Rocketship X-M (1950), The Brain From Planet Arous (1958), and The Hideous Sun Demon (1959); and they’re all films I’ve seen before yet thrilled to partake of yet again.
(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:
“An alien life-form arrives on Earth and crash lands in the California desert and takes refuge on Mystery Mountain. Renowned nuclear scientist Steve March, who works nearby, notices a strange proliferation of radiation coming from the mountains and decides to investigate. Little does he know the creature is a terrifying life-form from planet Arous determined to take over the Earth using subversive mind-control and has deliberately chosen Steve as its host!”
Huh.
Occasionally, I stumble across a film that – upon viewing – honestly leaves me with very little to say about it. Sure, I give it the ol’ sailor’s try – I mull it over, try to put the story in some context – and still, in the end, I’m left with very little substance on the topic. It’s rare, yes, but it does happen … and that’s the case with The Brain From Planet Arous (1957) from Marquette Productions, Ltd. A quick review of their IMDB.com profile shows that they only produced a scant three films – all in 1957 – and not a one of them truly made any lasting impact … well, except for the old SciFi trope of giant floating space brains, that is, which I’m guessing might be directly traced back to this very picture.
So if that’s one’s heritage, is it a bad thing?
Because I always assume these older pictures were intended by storytellers to be taken seriously, I find it difficult to reconcile some of this Brain’s thinking. For example, March (played with some surprising though campy range by John Agar) is introduced as one of the country’s premiere nuclear scientists, but the first thing he wants to do when he detects incredible waves of radiation coming from a nearby mountain is to run out there – with absolutely zero safety gear! – to investigate? Not only that, but he wants to drag his best buddy Dan Murphy (Robert Fuller) along for the ride? Have these two never heard about exposure? If that doesn’t give you pause, then how about once they begin receiving radiation readings higher than ever before on their Geiger counter their first impulse is to run toward it? That dangerous, deadly radiation? Really?
It’s almost as if screenwriter Ray Buffum put absolutely no thought into the subject because what truly mattered here were the giant floating alien space brains; perhaps he concluded well in advance that if the audience will accept those then why bother with a little deadly exposure? This was all set in the elusive Mystery Mountains – apparently near White Sands Proving Grounds in New Mexico – but as the film unspools we find that everyone and their mother’s uncle seems to know Mystery Mountains peaks and valleys intimately as no one has any trouble noticing the newly-formed cavern that – gasp! – wasn’t there last summer. It would seem that this distant and hard-to-find place may not have been as distant nor as hard-to-find as written.
Because the flick was produced in a different time and a different era, I rarely raise any quibbles with the portrayed social norms that might be a tad out-of-step with contemporary audiences. Certainly, we’ve evolved as a species, but men and women treated one another differently and behaved to different standards in the 1950’s; and these throwbacks are clearly a bit clunky seven (or so) decades later. But Gor (the villainous alien brain) behaves in an uncharacteristically amorous way when finally given access to some ‘sins of the flesh,’ and – while inhabiting March’s body – he gets awfully close to violating Hollywood standards of the day. Suffice it to say, Sally (Joyce Meadows) needed the luxury of a ‘safe space’ if ever a woman did!
Nathan Juran directed this curious space-aged potboiler, and it’s a name I’ve definitely heard before. A quick read of his IMDB.com profile shows that he definitely had a track record in genre, though this was one of his earlier pictures. The same year he brought the fondly remembered 20,000 Million Miles To Earth to the silver screen, he also directed this … so I’m guessing that other property occupied the lion’s share of the man’s attentive prowess. He’d go one to direct episodes of World Of Giants, Men Into Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, and Land Of The Giants, a solid track record with SciFi and Fantasy’s a bit campier delights.
Otherwise … I’m still left with not much to make of the obviously dated effort. It’s hard to take much of it seriously, but I’d be a fool if I failed to point out that Agar’s work here is surprisingly good. He vacillates between good and evil with relative ease; and his handling of the mild-mannered scientist to the sex-crazed alien-infected potential overlord seethes enough menace to give just the right edge of a fellow in conflict. Heck, he even ends up saving the day – well, with more than a little help from his gal pal – even when Vol (the good guy floating alien space brain) promised he’d do the deed when the time came.
Score one for the Earthling, peeps.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Corinth Films provided me with a complimentary DVD of The Brain From Planet Arous (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
(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:
“An alien life-form arrives on Earth and crash lands in the California desert and takes refuge on Mystery Mountain. Renowned nuclear scientist Steve March, who works nearby, notices a strange proliferation of radiation coming from the mountains and decides to investigate. Little does he know the creature is a terrifying life-form from planet Arous determined to take over the Earth using subversive mind-control and has deliberately chosen Steve as its host!”
Huh.
Occasionally, I stumble across a film that – upon viewing – honestly leaves me with very little to say about it. Sure, I give it the ol’ sailor’s try – I mull it over, try to put the story in some context – and still, in the end, I’m left with very little substance on the topic. It’s rare, yes, but it does happen … and that’s the case with The Brain From Planet Arous (1957) from Marquette Productions, Ltd. A quick review of their IMDB.com profile shows that they only produced a scant three films – all in 1957 – and not a one of them truly made any lasting impact … well, except for the old SciFi trope of giant floating space brains, that is, which I’m guessing might be directly traced back to this very picture.
So if that’s one’s heritage, is it a bad thing?
Because I always assume these older pictures were intended by storytellers to be taken seriously, I find it difficult to reconcile some of this Brain’s thinking. For example, March (played with some surprising though campy range by John Agar) is introduced as one of the country’s premiere nuclear scientists, but the first thing he wants to do when he detects incredible waves of radiation coming from a nearby mountain is to run out there – with absolutely zero safety gear! – to investigate? Not only that, but he wants to drag his best buddy Dan Murphy (Robert Fuller) along for the ride? Have these two never heard about exposure? If that doesn’t give you pause, then how about once they begin receiving radiation readings higher than ever before on their Geiger counter their first impulse is to run toward it? That dangerous, deadly radiation? Really?
It’s almost as if screenwriter Ray Buffum put absolutely no thought into the subject because what truly mattered here were the giant floating alien space brains; perhaps he concluded well in advance that if the audience will accept those then why bother with a little deadly exposure? This was all set in the elusive Mystery Mountains – apparently near White Sands Proving Grounds in New Mexico – but as the film unspools we find that everyone and their mother’s uncle seems to know Mystery Mountains peaks and valleys intimately as no one has any trouble noticing the newly-formed cavern that – gasp! – wasn’t there last summer. It would seem that this distant and hard-to-find place may not have been as distant nor as hard-to-find as written.
Because the flick was produced in a different time and a different era, I rarely raise any quibbles with the portrayed social norms that might be a tad out-of-step with contemporary audiences. Certainly, we’ve evolved as a species, but men and women treated one another differently and behaved to different standards in the 1950’s; and these throwbacks are clearly a bit clunky seven (or so) decades later. But Gor (the villainous alien brain) behaves in an uncharacteristically amorous way when finally given access to some ‘sins of the flesh,’ and – while inhabiting March’s body – he gets awfully close to violating Hollywood standards of the day. Suffice it to say, Sally (Joyce Meadows) needed the luxury of a ‘safe space’ if ever a woman did!
Nathan Juran directed this curious space-aged potboiler, and it’s a name I’ve definitely heard before. A quick read of his IMDB.com profile shows that he definitely had a track record in genre, though this was one of his earlier pictures. The same year he brought the fondly remembered 20,000 Million Miles To Earth to the silver screen, he also directed this … so I’m guessing that other property occupied the lion’s share of the man’s attentive prowess. He’d go one to direct episodes of World Of Giants, Men Into Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, and Land Of The Giants, a solid track record with SciFi and Fantasy’s a bit campier delights.
Otherwise … I’m still left with not much to make of the obviously dated effort. It’s hard to take much of it seriously, but I’d be a fool if I failed to point out that Agar’s work here is surprisingly good. He vacillates between good and evil with relative ease; and his handling of the mild-mannered scientist to the sex-crazed alien-infected potential overlord seethes enough menace to give just the right edge of a fellow in conflict. Heck, he even ends up saving the day – well, with more than a little help from his gal pal – even when Vol (the good guy floating alien space brain) promised he’d do the deed when the time came.
Score one for the Earthling, peeps.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Corinth Films provided me with a complimentary DVD of The Brain From Planet Arous (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
Those of you who read this space regularly know that I do try very hard to keep politics and culture and ideology out of this space as much as I can. Still, every now and then, I'll come across a topic or an event that -- for whatever reason -- practically cries out for me to insert myself (by choice) into the controversy ... and I'm feeling the itch this morning.
At last night's Academy Awards ceremony, actor Will Smith took it upon himself to assault actor Chris Rock on live television over a joke in poor taste. (I'm not gonna get into the particulars because they're really not all that relevant -- so far as I'm concerned -- to what the real central issue is here -- again, so far as I'm concerned -- so haters be damned.) Yes, it was assault; and yes I think the joke was in poor taste. That's what I think everyone needs to understand in order to begin a conversation.
Erm ...
In any event, I've read a lot of 'commentary' on the Information Superhighway this morning about how some folks believed Chris had it coming, that Will was in the right, and whatnot. While there are some who have come to the comedian's defense, there are still others who are kinda/sorta saying that -- ahem -- this is the consequence of having a free society, that if you truly want to have free speech then you must be ready, willing, and able to suffer the consequences of being assaulted publicly by others who disagree with you.
So the short skinny here is: what version of civics were any of you taught?
There is absolutely no tenet of our social structure that could, should, or would condone violence against another person; and I've grown very sick of folks suggesting that X had it coming because -- in a historical context -- these are the very same people who not all that long ago were saying idiotic things like, "Well, the lady had it coming because she dressed for sex, and the guy just took it." Trust me when I suggest that I could go on with a wealth of other phrases that have come and gone from the public discourse, but let me leave it at this: they've all been banished to the trash heap of history precisely BECAUSE they were flawed thinking from tiny minds.
Nothing condones Will Smith's casual violence.
But those of you who want to keep insisting that this is just the way things are in a society that allows free speech, let me encourage you to go out, find an event that has as much armed security as does the Academy Awards, and then insert yourself into the proceedings in such a way as to assault a host, a presenter, of any other person directly involved in the festivities. Go on. Go out and do it. After you've done it, then let me know if you haven't been arrested and charged for your public conduct.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Chris Rock is the better person for agreeing to not charge Will Smith with assault. Each of us has to decide what we'd do in similar circumstances. Again -- as I've said -- I think Rock's joke was in poor taste; but if you watch closely Will was laughing at it, too, all the way until he saw his wife's reaction to being involved with it (that's when Will decided he was going to defend her honor). But I'll give Will a pass on that: it was a public setting, and he really had to decide which way to go.
Again, trust me when I saw I could go on with this subject for hours -- that's just the way my mind is wired when it comes to cultural issues -- but I won't. The point here is that there's clearly a double standard for justice in this world when the Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys and Alec Baldwins of the world can sit in judgment of folks like you and I -- the ones who actually suffer real-world consequences for things they get passes on.
But those of you trying to suggest that Will's behavior is somehow appropriate because we embrace free speech?
Had Will simply shouted and given Rock a warning? Yes. That would be the case.
When we're trying to teach kids and even adults that violence is never the answer, then we need to stop condoning it when it's right in front of our face.
'Nuff said.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper.
-- EZ
At last night's Academy Awards ceremony, actor Will Smith took it upon himself to assault actor Chris Rock on live television over a joke in poor taste. (I'm not gonna get into the particulars because they're really not all that relevant -- so far as I'm concerned -- to what the real central issue is here -- again, so far as I'm concerned -- so haters be damned.) Yes, it was assault; and yes I think the joke was in poor taste. That's what I think everyone needs to understand in order to begin a conversation.
Erm ...
In any event, I've read a lot of 'commentary' on the Information Superhighway this morning about how some folks believed Chris had it coming, that Will was in the right, and whatnot. While there are some who have come to the comedian's defense, there are still others who are kinda/sorta saying that -- ahem -- this is the consequence of having a free society, that if you truly want to have free speech then you must be ready, willing, and able to suffer the consequences of being assaulted publicly by others who disagree with you.
So the short skinny here is: what version of civics were any of you taught?
There is absolutely no tenet of our social structure that could, should, or would condone violence against another person; and I've grown very sick of folks suggesting that X had it coming because -- in a historical context -- these are the very same people who not all that long ago were saying idiotic things like, "Well, the lady had it coming because she dressed for sex, and the guy just took it." Trust me when I suggest that I could go on with a wealth of other phrases that have come and gone from the public discourse, but let me leave it at this: they've all been banished to the trash heap of history precisely BECAUSE they were flawed thinking from tiny minds.
Nothing condones Will Smith's casual violence.
But those of you who want to keep insisting that this is just the way things are in a society that allows free speech, let me encourage you to go out, find an event that has as much armed security as does the Academy Awards, and then insert yourself into the proceedings in such a way as to assault a host, a presenter, of any other person directly involved in the festivities. Go on. Go out and do it. After you've done it, then let me know if you haven't been arrested and charged for your public conduct.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Chris Rock is the better person for agreeing to not charge Will Smith with assault. Each of us has to decide what we'd do in similar circumstances. Again -- as I've said -- I think Rock's joke was in poor taste; but if you watch closely Will was laughing at it, too, all the way until he saw his wife's reaction to being involved with it (that's when Will decided he was going to defend her honor). But I'll give Will a pass on that: it was a public setting, and he really had to decide which way to go.
Again, trust me when I saw I could go on with this subject for hours -- that's just the way my mind is wired when it comes to cultural issues -- but I won't. The point here is that there's clearly a double standard for justice in this world when the Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys and Alec Baldwins of the world can sit in judgment of folks like you and I -- the ones who actually suffer real-world consequences for things they get passes on.
But those of you trying to suggest that Will's behavior is somehow appropriate because we embrace free speech?
Had Will simply shouted and given Rock a warning? Yes. That would be the case.
When we're trying to teach kids and even adults that violence is never the answer, then we need to stop condoning it when it's right in front of our face.
'Nuff said.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper.
-- EZ
- Published on
It's the end of the world as we know it ... and has there ever been another culture so enamored with visions of our own doom?
I think it's a question worth asking as we continue our collective fascination with all things doom-like. Mind you: I'm hardly complaining as I'm thrilled to have yet one more film to add to SciFiHistory.Net's growing library of 'End Times.' But our explorations of zombiehood seems to be a creative fire that can't be extinguished. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... per se.
In any event, there's another one set to ramp up the blood, guts, and glory, this one a sequel (of sorts) from an original property that's completely escaped me (though I'll be doing some research on it later today, if time permits). Wyrmwood: Apocalypse takes the pursuit of the undead down under, and I'll be copying and pasting the promotional materials I've found elsewhere on the World Wide Web just this morning.
But how about a trailer, you ask? Happy to provide!
I think it's a question worth asking as we continue our collective fascination with all things doom-like. Mind you: I'm hardly complaining as I'm thrilled to have yet one more film to add to SciFiHistory.Net's growing library of 'End Times.' But our explorations of zombiehood seems to be a creative fire that can't be extinguished. Not that there's anything wrong with that ... per se.
In any event, there's another one set to ramp up the blood, guts, and glory, this one a sequel (of sorts) from an original property that's completely escaped me (though I'll be doing some research on it later today, if time permits). Wyrmwood: Apocalypse takes the pursuit of the undead down under, and I'll be copying and pasting the promotional materials I've found elsewhere on the World Wide Web just this morning.
But how about a trailer, you ask? Happy to provide!
New Trailer Released for Outrageous And Acclaimed Zombie Action-Horror
WYRMWOOD: APOCALYPSE — OUT DIGITALLY IN THE U.S. APRIL 14!
The latest explosively gory feature from Kiah Roache-Turner and Tristan Roache-Turner, the filmmaking duo behind the 2015 breakout sensation WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD and the 2018 TIFF Midnight Madness hit NEKROTRONIC.
The latest feature from Australian filmmaking brother duo Kiah Roache-Turner and Tristan Roache-Turner, whose previous collaborations include their breakout feature debut WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD, which premiered at the 2014 Fantastic Fest and put them on the map internationally for their creative use of low-budget gore and highly effective horrific story, and the 2018 TIFF Midnight Madness premiere NEKROTRONIC. The two share co-writing credits while Kiah handles direction with energetic ease and Tristan produces.
With a mix of new and familiar faces from the creative worlds of the Roache-Turner brothers , WYRMWOOD: APOCALYPSE stars Luke McKenzie (Wentworth, WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD), Bianca Bradey (WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD), Shantae Barnes-Cowan (Total Control), Tasia Zalar (Mystery Road), Jay Gallagher (WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD, NEKROTRONIC), and Nicholas Boshier (Soul Mates).
Blake Northfield (STREAMLINE) produced alongside Tristan Roache-Turner, and Todd Brown and Maxime Cottray executive produced for XYZ Films.
The latest feature from Australian filmmaking brother duo Kiah Roache-Turner and Tristan Roache-Turner, whose previous collaborations include their breakout feature debut WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD, which premiered at the 2014 Fantastic Fest and put them on the map internationally for their creative use of low-budget gore and highly effective horrific story, and the 2018 TIFF Midnight Madness premiere NEKROTRONIC. The two share co-writing credits while Kiah handles direction with energetic ease and Tristan produces.
With a mix of new and familiar faces from the creative worlds of the Roache-Turner brothers , WYRMWOOD: APOCALYPSE stars Luke McKenzie (Wentworth, WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD), Bianca Bradey (WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD), Shantae Barnes-Cowan (Total Control), Tasia Zalar (Mystery Road), Jay Gallagher (WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD, NEKROTRONIC), and Nicholas Boshier (Soul Mates).
Blake Northfield (STREAMLINE) produced alongside Tristan Roache-Turner, and Todd Brown and Maxime Cottray executive produced for XYZ Films.
- Published on
Through a very curious set of circumstances I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, I got involved in the video retail business in the late 1980’s. It’s a field I was involved with for only a year and one-half; and – although I learned quite a bit about the industry from a very, very, very low lung on the corporate ladder – I think it’s safe to say that there are folks better skilled for such business than I. It was a stepping stone to something else that I had a better skill set for, and – what can I say? – I’m still happy for having had the experience.
One thing that job did teach me, however, was what an incredible library of films there were out there waiting to be discovered.
In college, I pretty much fashioned my own degree in Film Criticism (in an institute that didn’t have a Film Studies program), and I became fairly well versed in the classics and some contemporary flicks. I’ve forgotten more than any person should ever have to learn about such picture as Citizen Kane, Rear Window, and Platoon; so you can imagine how a stint in the business of home video opened the door for me into a world populated by such titles as Re-Animator, Critters, and Killer Klowns From Outer Space. In all honesty, there was a whole universe out there that lived and died by these somewhat obtuse and obscure storytellers, so it was a fascinating time to find yourself with a VHS player, a couple of bucks, and in your corner video store.
These were, largely, Troma’s breakout days as viewers hungry for something just a little bit different were perfectly OK with taking a chance on a 99 cent rental as opposed to plunking down $50 at the cineplex for four tickets, sodas, and popcorn. And – dare I say? – at 99 cents most of those early efforts delivered more lines and laughs than any flick should’ve, certainly enough to put that ‘little engine that could’ on the map in the consciousness of America. Sure, they may’ve courted a bit of controversy, but who really cared about that stuff when all viewers really wanted was to be entertained?
(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:
“Meanwhile in Tromaville, three women warriors find themselves on the run and kicking in the teeth of every misogynist that dares to cross their path.”
For the record, folks: as I always warn, art comes in all shapes and sizes.
And the hard, hard truth about art is that it isn’t always meant to ‘impress.’ Some art carries with it messages – warnings about our culture, metaphors for how one’s live can be lived, loved, or ruined – but if you’re looking for a good time then maybe you need to make a stop in Tromaville, a place where dreams may not come true but asses will be kicked (if not bared), humor might be tasteless (if not tasty), and trash might be tokenism.
One thing that job did teach me, however, was what an incredible library of films there were out there waiting to be discovered.
In college, I pretty much fashioned my own degree in Film Criticism (in an institute that didn’t have a Film Studies program), and I became fairly well versed in the classics and some contemporary flicks. I’ve forgotten more than any person should ever have to learn about such picture as Citizen Kane, Rear Window, and Platoon; so you can imagine how a stint in the business of home video opened the door for me into a world populated by such titles as Re-Animator, Critters, and Killer Klowns From Outer Space. In all honesty, there was a whole universe out there that lived and died by these somewhat obtuse and obscure storytellers, so it was a fascinating time to find yourself with a VHS player, a couple of bucks, and in your corner video store.
These were, largely, Troma’s breakout days as viewers hungry for something just a little bit different were perfectly OK with taking a chance on a 99 cent rental as opposed to plunking down $50 at the cineplex for four tickets, sodas, and popcorn. And – dare I say? – at 99 cents most of those early efforts delivered more lines and laughs than any flick should’ve, certainly enough to put that ‘little engine that could’ on the map in the consciousness of America. Sure, they may’ve courted a bit of controversy, but who really cared about that stuff when all viewers really wanted was to be entertained?
(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:
“Meanwhile in Tromaville, three women warriors find themselves on the run and kicking in the teeth of every misogynist that dares to cross their path.”
For the record, folks: as I always warn, art comes in all shapes and sizes.
And the hard, hard truth about art is that it isn’t always meant to ‘impress.’ Some art carries with it messages – warnings about our culture, metaphors for how one’s live can be lived, loved, or ruined – but if you’re looking for a good time then maybe you need to make a stop in Tromaville, a place where dreams may not come true but asses will be kicked (if not bared), humor might be tasteless (if not tasty), and trash might be tokenism.
In the narrator’s set-up for Divide & Conquer, one might draw the sense that our three leading ladies – Athena (Knotty Peach), Lilith (Irie Divine), and Toxie (Mercedes The Muse) – might, in fact, be Greek goddesses. (Their names are drawn from mythology, Toxie's less so, except in Troma's circle.) It’s clear that they possess smarts stronger than your average bear, and they’ll stop at nothing to use their delightful feminine wiles to pursue their own particular brand of justice when the trio uncovers a dastardly plot involving tattooed white supremacists tamping down a decidedly American way of life.
It’s all a bit farcical to be sure, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a lesson for the uniformed along the way.
As can happen in your standard Troma fare, there’s an almost inhuman fascination with bodily functions – the studio makes its bones off of somewhat shocking exploitation – but I’ve long argued it isn’t so much done in bad taste as it is to kinda/sorta flash the Establishment the middle finger. How else does one reconcile moments of revenge porn also delivering female empowerment messages such as is the case when are trio of bad-asses descend on ‘Harvey Weinstein’ with a well-placed mop? Think what you may of producer Lloyd Kaufman and his band of pranksters, but they still have enough respect for their audience to make ‘The Knights Of White’ and an aging Adolf Hitler to be the film’s central source of evil. Plus the girls manage to turn the tables against their Socialist-loving Uber driver … or should I say ‘Uber Alles?’
Again, it’s all meant to be taken with not so much as a grain of salt as it is a full handful; and – in the proper context – it’s occasionally entertaining. Peach, Divine, and Mercedes make for a heroic trio – the film ends with a warning that they’re still out there – and they look great together, too. Set aside your fixation of taboos. Believe again in the magic that is the female body. With the right motivation, you can teach a dog new tricks.
And maybe someone can explain to me why when Frank Miller dresses women like this (in comic books) it’s considered art … but when Troma does it it’s called trash?
Divide & Conquer (2021) was produced by Troma Entertainment. Troma’s film library is available for streaming on the Troma Now website. As for the technical specifications? The film is actually shot on some very high def digital (I’m assuming), and it looks quite good, though there are some issues of dubbing in post that have sounds levels going up and down. Also, there’s a fair amount of post-production special effects trickery one can expect.
Recommended but … well, to know Troma is to love Troma … or to know Troma is to hate Troma (depending upon your tastes) but dare I say you’ve never seen anything like Troma anywhere else? Divide & Conquer (2021) is clearly not going to be to everyone’s sensibilities. There are some – ahem – darkly inappropriate jokes in there; but if you’re willing to endure one hour of subversiveness just to get to its thirty minutes of substance then you might find a few nuggets of truth spaced throughout. No, I’m not fond of potty humor (there’s plenty of Number 1 and Number 2, folks), but any film that denounces white supremacy, Nazi Socialism, and the still-breathing corpse of Adolf Hitler can’t be all that bad, can it?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Troma Entertainment provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Divide & Conquer (2021) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
It’s all a bit farcical to be sure, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be a lesson for the uniformed along the way.
As can happen in your standard Troma fare, there’s an almost inhuman fascination with bodily functions – the studio makes its bones off of somewhat shocking exploitation – but I’ve long argued it isn’t so much done in bad taste as it is to kinda/sorta flash the Establishment the middle finger. How else does one reconcile moments of revenge porn also delivering female empowerment messages such as is the case when are trio of bad-asses descend on ‘Harvey Weinstein’ with a well-placed mop? Think what you may of producer Lloyd Kaufman and his band of pranksters, but they still have enough respect for their audience to make ‘The Knights Of White’ and an aging Adolf Hitler to be the film’s central source of evil. Plus the girls manage to turn the tables against their Socialist-loving Uber driver … or should I say ‘Uber Alles?’
Again, it’s all meant to be taken with not so much as a grain of salt as it is a full handful; and – in the proper context – it’s occasionally entertaining. Peach, Divine, and Mercedes make for a heroic trio – the film ends with a warning that they’re still out there – and they look great together, too. Set aside your fixation of taboos. Believe again in the magic that is the female body. With the right motivation, you can teach a dog new tricks.
And maybe someone can explain to me why when Frank Miller dresses women like this (in comic books) it’s considered art … but when Troma does it it’s called trash?
Divide & Conquer (2021) was produced by Troma Entertainment. Troma’s film library is available for streaming on the Troma Now website. As for the technical specifications? The film is actually shot on some very high def digital (I’m assuming), and it looks quite good, though there are some issues of dubbing in post that have sounds levels going up and down. Also, there’s a fair amount of post-production special effects trickery one can expect.
Recommended but … well, to know Troma is to love Troma … or to know Troma is to hate Troma (depending upon your tastes) but dare I say you’ve never seen anything like Troma anywhere else? Divide & Conquer (2021) is clearly not going to be to everyone’s sensibilities. There are some – ahem – darkly inappropriate jokes in there; but if you’re willing to endure one hour of subversiveness just to get to its thirty minutes of substance then you might find a few nuggets of truth spaced throughout. No, I’m not fond of potty humor (there’s plenty of Number 1 and Number 2, folks), but any film that denounces white supremacy, Nazi Socialism, and the still-breathing corpse of Adolf Hitler can’t be all that bad, can it?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Troma Entertainment provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Divide & Conquer (2021) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Over the next few days, I’ll be happily spending some time with Drive-In Classics, a collection of three 1950’s era Science Fiction and Fantasy films released on DVD by Corinth Films. This set includes the seminal Rocketship X-M (1950), The Brain From Planet Arous (1958), and The Hideous Sun Demon (1959); and they’re all films I’ve seen before yet thrilled to partake of yet again.
(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 crew of revered scientists blasts into space on mankind’s first expedition to the moon. A sudden loss of power and freak accident sends their rocket hurtling out of control, and the crew suddenly finds themselves upon Mars. They decide to take advantage to make landing and explore the Red Planet, only to discover evidence of a demolished civilization. Convinced there are no survivors, they let their guard down just enough to learn otherwise.”
Rocketship X-M is one of those films that’s easy to lampoon.
Allegedly (from what I’ve read), the feature was rushed into production by Lippert Pictures just on the heels of George Pal’s announcement that he was bringing Destination Moon to life cinematically. Hoping to capitalize on an impending moon craze and perhaps even a Space Race that was still a few years away, producers Murray Lerner and Kurt Neumann put their thinking caps on and came up with the concept. The script is credited to Neumann along with contributions from Orville H. Hampton and Dalton Trumbo; and their effort managed to beat Pal’s film into theaters by a handful of weeks.
I’ve no way of knowing whether or not its script ended up being rushed (certainly one might assume as much given the curiously out-of-place screen romance as well as some curiously uninteresting ‘scientific’ exchanges), but the film certainly traffics in traditional melodrama of its era against the backdrop of boldly going where no one had gone before. Col. Floyd Graham (played by Lloyd Bridges) woos Dr. Lisa Van Horn (Ona Massen) when they both should’ve been flying the ship, and at least one pair of their eyes remaining on the fuel gauge in the final reel might’ve averted the catastrophe awaiting them upon their return to Earth. I guess that’s what you get when flying by women’s intuition!
Still, Rocketship X-M manages to squeeze more Science Fiction and Fantasy’s famous tropes into its lean 77 minutes than it needed. There’s a pair of brainiacs (Massen and John Emery) competing for who’s grasp of space science is better. (Hint: she’s a woman, so …) At times, the story feels like little more than a twist on the conventional Western, with a space capsule standing in for the oater’s stagecoach. When they arrive on Mars, there’s not only a plotline involving first contact but also hints to the Martian society’s flirtation with atomic energy leading to their demise. And, yes, there’s more than a single sequence involving sound being made in the vast vacuum of outer space.
Still, it’s hard to dismiss the film’s true staying power when it comes to serving as one of the most effective examples of SciFi for the 1950’s. It features a crew required to pilot the spaceship into the void. While perhaps not earth-shattering, the film’s special effects hold up well as an example of what studios found possible in that day and age. Though I could be wrong, I believe the ship may’ve actually been one of the first featured onscreen that portrayed the stages of a rocket required to both launch and achieve escape velocity. Though the flick only flirts with ideas like G-forces and zero gravity, the script never loses sight of the fact that breaching the heavens was a dangerous endeavor … one that would likely involve balancing the risks and rewards of going ‘out there.’
On its own, the film could easily be dismissed as a product of a bygone era. Compared with like-minded entries from that decade, I think it remains one worth a look even by today’s film students and scholars.
Rocketship X-M (1950) was produced by Lippert Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via Corinth Pictures. As for the technical specifications? The picture looks and sounds probably as good as it ever has. Sadly, this bare-bones release offers not a single special feature for audiences to enjoy.
Recommended. Let me be perfectly blunt: Rocketship X-M (1950) is not a particular good film. Though there’s a set of circumstances the crew must rise together and face, there’s no central conflict to the story … and that’s something required to truly distinguish the good from the bad when it comes to space exploration yarns. While the performances all work, they’re grounded in the mindset and mentality of a certain era, one where men were men, and women were largely regarded as being defined by their women’s intuition. Still, it’s an almost near-perfect snapshot of what Science Fiction and Fantasy was like for much of the 1950’s – perhaps big on ideas but small on relatable specifics. Lastly, a thin sense of optimism salvages an otherwise downbeat finish where all of the crew go up in smoke, not so much as a blaze of glory.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Corinth Films provided me with a complimentary DVD of Drive-In Retro Classics 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
(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 crew of revered scientists blasts into space on mankind’s first expedition to the moon. A sudden loss of power and freak accident sends their rocket hurtling out of control, and the crew suddenly finds themselves upon Mars. They decide to take advantage to make landing and explore the Red Planet, only to discover evidence of a demolished civilization. Convinced there are no survivors, they let their guard down just enough to learn otherwise.”
Rocketship X-M is one of those films that’s easy to lampoon.
Allegedly (from what I’ve read), the feature was rushed into production by Lippert Pictures just on the heels of George Pal’s announcement that he was bringing Destination Moon to life cinematically. Hoping to capitalize on an impending moon craze and perhaps even a Space Race that was still a few years away, producers Murray Lerner and Kurt Neumann put their thinking caps on and came up with the concept. The script is credited to Neumann along with contributions from Orville H. Hampton and Dalton Trumbo; and their effort managed to beat Pal’s film into theaters by a handful of weeks.
I’ve no way of knowing whether or not its script ended up being rushed (certainly one might assume as much given the curiously out-of-place screen romance as well as some curiously uninteresting ‘scientific’ exchanges), but the film certainly traffics in traditional melodrama of its era against the backdrop of boldly going where no one had gone before. Col. Floyd Graham (played by Lloyd Bridges) woos Dr. Lisa Van Horn (Ona Massen) when they both should’ve been flying the ship, and at least one pair of their eyes remaining on the fuel gauge in the final reel might’ve averted the catastrophe awaiting them upon their return to Earth. I guess that’s what you get when flying by women’s intuition!
Still, Rocketship X-M manages to squeeze more Science Fiction and Fantasy’s famous tropes into its lean 77 minutes than it needed. There’s a pair of brainiacs (Massen and John Emery) competing for who’s grasp of space science is better. (Hint: she’s a woman, so …) At times, the story feels like little more than a twist on the conventional Western, with a space capsule standing in for the oater’s stagecoach. When they arrive on Mars, there’s not only a plotline involving first contact but also hints to the Martian society’s flirtation with atomic energy leading to their demise. And, yes, there’s more than a single sequence involving sound being made in the vast vacuum of outer space.
Still, it’s hard to dismiss the film’s true staying power when it comes to serving as one of the most effective examples of SciFi for the 1950’s. It features a crew required to pilot the spaceship into the void. While perhaps not earth-shattering, the film’s special effects hold up well as an example of what studios found possible in that day and age. Though I could be wrong, I believe the ship may’ve actually been one of the first featured onscreen that portrayed the stages of a rocket required to both launch and achieve escape velocity. Though the flick only flirts with ideas like G-forces and zero gravity, the script never loses sight of the fact that breaching the heavens was a dangerous endeavor … one that would likely involve balancing the risks and rewards of going ‘out there.’
On its own, the film could easily be dismissed as a product of a bygone era. Compared with like-minded entries from that decade, I think it remains one worth a look even by today’s film students and scholars.
Rocketship X-M (1950) was produced by Lippert Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via Corinth Pictures. As for the technical specifications? The picture looks and sounds probably as good as it ever has. Sadly, this bare-bones release offers not a single special feature for audiences to enjoy.
Recommended. Let me be perfectly blunt: Rocketship X-M (1950) is not a particular good film. Though there’s a set of circumstances the crew must rise together and face, there’s no central conflict to the story … and that’s something required to truly distinguish the good from the bad when it comes to space exploration yarns. While the performances all work, they’re grounded in the mindset and mentality of a certain era, one where men were men, and women were largely regarded as being defined by their women’s intuition. Still, it’s an almost near-perfect snapshot of what Science Fiction and Fantasy was like for much of the 1950’s – perhaps big on ideas but small on relatable specifics. Lastly, a thin sense of optimism salvages an otherwise downbeat finish where all of the crew go up in smoke, not so much as a blaze of glory.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Corinth Films provided me with a complimentary DVD of Drive-In Retro Classics 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
Sigh. I don’t pen all that many book reviews these days.
Let me clarify: I used to write a helluva lot more. In fact, I used to be one of Amazon.com’s Top 1000 Reviewers, back in the day when the mega-company actually maintained a consumer-friendly environment. I had reviewed books, products, films, videos, books, etc. for nearly two decades on their site and had been recruited by a huge, huge, huge number of merchants to screen all kinds of stuff in exchange for a kind word here and there. In case you missed it, a few years back the internet retailer unceremoniously dumped those of us who had worked very hard to make them what they were with no legitimate explanation other than to say we had broken the rules … the very rules that they had just changed a few days before … so how we were to go back in time and undo the vast array of work we had done weeks, months, and years before? It was, simply put, maddening.
That’s part and parcel of why I set up my own shop here, so that I could finally have a measure of control over my own content. Granted, it’s a narrower focus than I ever had at Amazon.com, but it’s one that keeps me happily plugging away with whatever time permits.
In any event …
I don’t review books regularly because I truly don’t read as much Science Fiction and Fantasy as I used to. I’m a bit older – and with age comes a bit more discriminating tastes – so I gravitate toward a different set of interests with my reading time. Occasionally, however, I will pick up something with its feelers set in the realm of the fantastical … and when I happened across Charles Band’s bio – “Confessions Of A Puppetmaster” – I couldn’t pass it up. Well, truth be told, I did pass it up the first time I had my hands on it, but that’s only because I knew I was getting a Barnes & Noble Gift Card in a few weeks, which would make the purchase a perfect choice. I hope Mr. Band would agree.
Still, for those of you who’ve never heard the name, let me educate you briefly: Band is definitely one of mankind’s truly original B-Movie makers. Folks who traffic this space within SciFiHistory.Net have no doubt happened across an incredible number of movie titles, actors, and citations related to his wares; but as I don’t tend to hawk too many producers in this space they may’ve missed his contributions to our beloved genre. If you peruse the man’s incredible IMDB.com profile, you’ll see he’s well on his way to a gob-smackingly-incredible four hundred different titles – easily one of the most prolific and profound in the business – and while his flicks might be household names his usually isn’t, unless you’re a true aficionado of some wonderfully inventive yet occasionally bizarre features.
Still not sure?
Let me drop some titles.
Laserblast (1978). Parasite (1982). Metalstorm: The Destruction Of Jared-Syn (1983). Trancers (1984). Zone Troopers (1985).
Still not sure?
Well, how about a few more titles?
Ghoulies (1985). Troll (1986). From Beyond (1986). Dolls (1986). Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity (1987).
Am I getting closer … or do you need a few more?
Creepozoids (1987). Assault Of The Killer Bimbos (1988). Puppet Master (1989). Robot Jox (1989). Subspecies (1991).
Now you’re getting it? Good.
Granted, Band’s particular narrative vision clearly hasn’t been to everyone’s delight, but nevertheless the man has put in his stripes in the film industry and knows more than a thing or two about crafting motion pictures that will entertain his fans throughout multiple viewings. His might not be a singular perspective, but I’ve read that his features continue to resonate with folks decades beyond most flicks’ typical shelf life. In a business that’s chewed up and spit out more souls than you or I can imagine, Band has proven he can withstand any storm and rise up tomorrow with the same unquenchable thirst to spin yarn with the best of them.
And that’s precisely what I learned from his biography.
“Confessions” really doesn’t contain any earth-shattering confessions. Band – who might argue otherwise – is still a humble salesman pushing his wares. These pictures – known in some parts as schlock – are trim and efficient … and his bio is much the same. It’s concise. It’s ‘to the point.’ It contains a bit of humor and a bit of pathos, but what it does so well is show a man with an irrepressible optimism who has withstood more than a single slap from Fate to the face, taken it in stride, and yet – like Thomas Edison advised – tried again tomorrow. Despite the mounting failures and setbacks, Band and his merry band of filmmakers merely kept plugging away when adversity reared its inevitable head; and their attitudes – while occasionally dampened – stayed robust, refreshed, and full of life.
Honestly, I can be a fairly negative guy. While I haven’t faced the measure of challenges Band has, I do tend to get wrapped up in dwelling on the particulars too much, so much so that I’ll lose focus for a time and have to re-focus. Each of us could learn a thing or two about how to approach life through the words of Band alone: while he doesn’t offer up what most folks would consider any profound wisdom, it’s his ‘can do’ and ‘little engine that could’ attitude which has put him in the position time-and-time-again to not so much start over but still pick up where he left off the day before and keep marching onward.
And … yeah … there are a few ‘confessions’ weaved into the story of his life. I definitely learned a thing or two about his experiences with Demi Moore, Jay Leno, and Bill Maher. But this is no typical Hollywood ‘tell-all,’ and that’s largely because most of Band’s worklife has kinda/sorta been on the fringes of Tinseltown. Thankfully, he’s escaped the oppression of the the studio system throughout most of his career, pairing up with them when the opportunities were rip but otherwise going the way of the true independent filmmaker. Like his films, his bio moves briskly, detailing the good, the bad, the ugly of capturing light and shadows in a way unique his own.
Plus … that lucky bastard owned a castle.
How many of you can claim that legacy?
-- EZ
Let me clarify: I used to write a helluva lot more. In fact, I used to be one of Amazon.com’s Top 1000 Reviewers, back in the day when the mega-company actually maintained a consumer-friendly environment. I had reviewed books, products, films, videos, books, etc. for nearly two decades on their site and had been recruited by a huge, huge, huge number of merchants to screen all kinds of stuff in exchange for a kind word here and there. In case you missed it, a few years back the internet retailer unceremoniously dumped those of us who had worked very hard to make them what they were with no legitimate explanation other than to say we had broken the rules … the very rules that they had just changed a few days before … so how we were to go back in time and undo the vast array of work we had done weeks, months, and years before? It was, simply put, maddening.
That’s part and parcel of why I set up my own shop here, so that I could finally have a measure of control over my own content. Granted, it’s a narrower focus than I ever had at Amazon.com, but it’s one that keeps me happily plugging away with whatever time permits.
In any event …
I don’t review books regularly because I truly don’t read as much Science Fiction and Fantasy as I used to. I’m a bit older – and with age comes a bit more discriminating tastes – so I gravitate toward a different set of interests with my reading time. Occasionally, however, I will pick up something with its feelers set in the realm of the fantastical … and when I happened across Charles Band’s bio – “Confessions Of A Puppetmaster” – I couldn’t pass it up. Well, truth be told, I did pass it up the first time I had my hands on it, but that’s only because I knew I was getting a Barnes & Noble Gift Card in a few weeks, which would make the purchase a perfect choice. I hope Mr. Band would agree.
Still, for those of you who’ve never heard the name, let me educate you briefly: Band is definitely one of mankind’s truly original B-Movie makers. Folks who traffic this space within SciFiHistory.Net have no doubt happened across an incredible number of movie titles, actors, and citations related to his wares; but as I don’t tend to hawk too many producers in this space they may’ve missed his contributions to our beloved genre. If you peruse the man’s incredible IMDB.com profile, you’ll see he’s well on his way to a gob-smackingly-incredible four hundred different titles – easily one of the most prolific and profound in the business – and while his flicks might be household names his usually isn’t, unless you’re a true aficionado of some wonderfully inventive yet occasionally bizarre features.
Still not sure?
Let me drop some titles.
Laserblast (1978). Parasite (1982). Metalstorm: The Destruction Of Jared-Syn (1983). Trancers (1984). Zone Troopers (1985).
Still not sure?
Well, how about a few more titles?
Ghoulies (1985). Troll (1986). From Beyond (1986). Dolls (1986). Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity (1987).
Am I getting closer … or do you need a few more?
Creepozoids (1987). Assault Of The Killer Bimbos (1988). Puppet Master (1989). Robot Jox (1989). Subspecies (1991).
Now you’re getting it? Good.
Granted, Band’s particular narrative vision clearly hasn’t been to everyone’s delight, but nevertheless the man has put in his stripes in the film industry and knows more than a thing or two about crafting motion pictures that will entertain his fans throughout multiple viewings. His might not be a singular perspective, but I’ve read that his features continue to resonate with folks decades beyond most flicks’ typical shelf life. In a business that’s chewed up and spit out more souls than you or I can imagine, Band has proven he can withstand any storm and rise up tomorrow with the same unquenchable thirst to spin yarn with the best of them.
And that’s precisely what I learned from his biography.
“Confessions” really doesn’t contain any earth-shattering confessions. Band – who might argue otherwise – is still a humble salesman pushing his wares. These pictures – known in some parts as schlock – are trim and efficient … and his bio is much the same. It’s concise. It’s ‘to the point.’ It contains a bit of humor and a bit of pathos, but what it does so well is show a man with an irrepressible optimism who has withstood more than a single slap from Fate to the face, taken it in stride, and yet – like Thomas Edison advised – tried again tomorrow. Despite the mounting failures and setbacks, Band and his merry band of filmmakers merely kept plugging away when adversity reared its inevitable head; and their attitudes – while occasionally dampened – stayed robust, refreshed, and full of life.
Honestly, I can be a fairly negative guy. While I haven’t faced the measure of challenges Band has, I do tend to get wrapped up in dwelling on the particulars too much, so much so that I’ll lose focus for a time and have to re-focus. Each of us could learn a thing or two about how to approach life through the words of Band alone: while he doesn’t offer up what most folks would consider any profound wisdom, it’s his ‘can do’ and ‘little engine that could’ attitude which has put him in the position time-and-time-again to not so much start over but still pick up where he left off the day before and keep marching onward.
And … yeah … there are a few ‘confessions’ weaved into the story of his life. I definitely learned a thing or two about his experiences with Demi Moore, Jay Leno, and Bill Maher. But this is no typical Hollywood ‘tell-all,’ and that’s largely because most of Band’s worklife has kinda/sorta been on the fringes of Tinseltown. Thankfully, he’s escaped the oppression of the the studio system throughout most of his career, pairing up with them when the opportunities were rip but otherwise going the way of the true independent filmmaker. Like his films, his bio moves briskly, detailing the good, the bad, the ugly of capturing light and shadows in a way unique his own.
Plus … that lucky bastard owned a castle.
How many of you can claim that legacy?
-- EZ
- Published on
Like so many of you, I've railed about Paramount Pictures' incessant desire to bleed the stone dry that is the entire Star Trek franchise.
As I've written, I'm really no fan of Star Trek: Discovery, though I'll admit that I've only watched its first season and snippets from Season 2. (I do have Season 2 on DVD and mean to watch it at some point.) Honestly, I was massively disappointed with Star Trek: Picard, mostly because I found so much of its plot to be wildly out-of-touch with Trek (in general) and for a lot of issues I had with the narrative. (No, I'm not gonna rehash it here, nor am I gonna argue with anyone. It is what it is, and we'll agree to disagree.) I haven't even explored the animated incarnations, so it'd be unfair of me to sound off on that.
But when it comes to the adventures of the original crew, I'm a huge supporter.
Still, I'm inclined to pass at this point on investing in the forthcoming 4K restoration of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Unlike so many of you, I actually love the film. Though I'll happily concede it has some pacing problems, I think too much criticism has been layered onto it over the years, so much so that even folks who were thrilled with it in its original run have kinda/sorta turned on it decades later out of fear of being found 'out of the mainstream' of opinion. Those who know me -- or at least those who've read my stuff in this space for some time -- know that I could honestly care less what the mainstream thinks of my take of things; I try to always stick true to my own voice, no matter what fans or enemies it earns me. That's who I've always been, and that's likely how I'll leave this Earth.
But I do see that this restoration is being given the Fathom Events treatment -- meaning it'll make a round through select theaters -- and I am likely inclined to partake of that. Any opportunity to see Kirk and company on the silver screen in their original features almost always means I'll be there, and I encourage fans of the Starship Enterprise to think about doing the same.
I'm coping and pasting the details below that were provided by StarTrek.com for all to enjoy.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As I've written, I'm really no fan of Star Trek: Discovery, though I'll admit that I've only watched its first season and snippets from Season 2. (I do have Season 2 on DVD and mean to watch it at some point.) Honestly, I was massively disappointed with Star Trek: Picard, mostly because I found so much of its plot to be wildly out-of-touch with Trek (in general) and for a lot of issues I had with the narrative. (No, I'm not gonna rehash it here, nor am I gonna argue with anyone. It is what it is, and we'll agree to disagree.) I haven't even explored the animated incarnations, so it'd be unfair of me to sound off on that.
But when it comes to the adventures of the original crew, I'm a huge supporter.
Still, I'm inclined to pass at this point on investing in the forthcoming 4K restoration of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Unlike so many of you, I actually love the film. Though I'll happily concede it has some pacing problems, I think too much criticism has been layered onto it over the years, so much so that even folks who were thrilled with it in its original run have kinda/sorta turned on it decades later out of fear of being found 'out of the mainstream' of opinion. Those who know me -- or at least those who've read my stuff in this space for some time -- know that I could honestly care less what the mainstream thinks of my take of things; I try to always stick true to my own voice, no matter what fans or enemies it earns me. That's who I've always been, and that's likely how I'll leave this Earth.
But I do see that this restoration is being given the Fathom Events treatment -- meaning it'll make a round through select theaters -- and I am likely inclined to partake of that. Any opportunity to see Kirk and company on the silver screen in their original features almost always means I'll be there, and I encourage fans of the Starship Enterprise to think about doing the same.
I'm coping and pasting the details below that were provided by StarTrek.com for all to enjoy.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - The Director's Edition to Premiere on Paramount+ on First Contact Day
Eagerly anticipated by Star Trek fans for over two decades, Star Trek: The Motion Picture—The Director’s Edition will make its long-awaited debut exclusively on Paramount+ on April 5, 2022, in celebration of First Contact Day. The film will be available to stream on Paramount+ in 4K Ultra HD on supported devices and platforms. The newly restored film will subsequently arrive on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray in September from Paramount Home Entertainment. In addition, fans will have the opportunity to see the restored version of Star Trek: The Motion Picture—The Director’s Edition on the big screen for the first time when Fathom Events and Paramount Pictures bring it to theaters for an exclusive two-day event on May 22 and May 25. Tickets will go on sale Friday, April 8 at FathomEvents.com.
Originally released in 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture became the fourth highest grossing movie of the year and earned three Academy Award® nominations for Best Visual Effects, Best Art Direction, and Best Music, Original Score. The film successfully launched the Star Trek franchise beyond the original television series, despite having been rushed to theaters with incomplete special effects and forced editing choices.
In 2001, director Robert Wise revisited the film to refine the edit and enhance the visual effects. His updated vision was released on DVD in standard definition and embraced by fans but has never been available in higher definition until now. Meticulously assembled and restored by producer David C. Fein with preservationist Mike Matessino, both of whom originally collaborated with Wise, the film has been prepared for presentation in 4K Ultra HD with Dolby Vision™ high dynamic range (HDR) and a new powerful and immersive Dolby Atmos® soundtrack. Fein and Matessino assembled a team of special effects experts, led by returning visual effects supervisor Daren Dochterman, and utilized the extensive resources in the Paramount Archives to recreate the effects not just in HD, but in Ultra HD. After more than six months of painstaking work, the updated movie looks and sounds better than ever while staying true to Wise’s original intention.
“I couldn’t be prouder and more thrilled to have completed the film in 4K,” said Fein. “Paramount offered unprecedented access to the original elements and exceptional support and the results are stunning. Utilizing the latest discoveries and innovations of modern film production, The Director’s Edition delivers so much more today than was previously possible. It’s an adventure you’ll never forget!”
- Published on
Shocking admission: as the reviewer, I’m never asked my opinion of what’s most important to a good story … but I’ll let you anyway. It’s C-O-N-T-E-X-T.
Context – when done right – helps set the stage. Context matters, and it matters more than damn near anything else. Context gives me a clear time and a clear place with which these events are about to occur. Context introduces me to the characters, places, and circumstances required for me to fully appreciate the tale as it unfolds. While it’s safe for any storyteller to withhold a bit of context in order to, say, deliver the narrative’s bigger surprises, then I need to be amply rewarded for exercising such patience, for waiting for the pieces to be put together in such a way that I can finally say, “Oh, yes, I see it now.” So without proper context, there really is no story worth its weight in gold.
Still, a lot of films have tried to achieve big things by sticking small; and – in that respect – a little something something like Bryan Loves You (2008) probably passed by a lot of folks’ radar without a second look. It doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles. In fact, being one of those ‘found footage’ features – as it was advertised – probably didn’t do the Horror/Drama any favors: 1999’s The Blair Witch Project was nearly a decade old, and the resulting knock-offs, imitators, and do-overs had likely drained the market dry of the potential to do good (much less great) box office by that time.
That’s a shame because … well … because Bryan Loves You. Shouldn’t you love him back? This independent ‘investigation’ into a probable cult development has a wealth of good ideas in it (some not so good), though I’ll honestly assert right up front that it could’ve used a bit of its own makeover. As you’ll find below, it’s really two films disguised as one, meaning that each half needed to be damn near perfect in order to light the kind of critical fire it needed to truly break through the traditional noise of our entertainment culture. Alas, it’s imperfect – like those of you who don’t love Bryan – but now that it's available on Blu-ray maybe you’ll give it a second chance?
If not for you … then how about … for Bryan?
(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 …)
Context – when done right – helps set the stage. Context matters, and it matters more than damn near anything else. Context gives me a clear time and a clear place with which these events are about to occur. Context introduces me to the characters, places, and circumstances required for me to fully appreciate the tale as it unfolds. While it’s safe for any storyteller to withhold a bit of context in order to, say, deliver the narrative’s bigger surprises, then I need to be amply rewarded for exercising such patience, for waiting for the pieces to be put together in such a way that I can finally say, “Oh, yes, I see it now.” So without proper context, there really is no story worth its weight in gold.
Still, a lot of films have tried to achieve big things by sticking small; and – in that respect – a little something something like Bryan Loves You (2008) probably passed by a lot of folks’ radar without a second look. It doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles. In fact, being one of those ‘found footage’ features – as it was advertised – probably didn’t do the Horror/Drama any favors: 1999’s The Blair Witch Project was nearly a decade old, and the resulting knock-offs, imitators, and do-overs had likely drained the market dry of the potential to do good (much less great) box office by that time.
That’s a shame because … well … because Bryan Loves You. Shouldn’t you love him back? This independent ‘investigation’ into a probable cult development has a wealth of good ideas in it (some not so good), though I’ll honestly assert right up front that it could’ve used a bit of its own makeover. As you’ll find below, it’s really two films disguised as one, meaning that each half needed to be damn near perfect in order to light the kind of critical fire it needed to truly break through the traditional noise of our entertainment culture. Alas, it’s imperfect – like those of you who don’t love Bryan – but now that it's available on Blu-ray maybe you’ll give it a second chance?
If not for you … then how about … for Bryan?
(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:
“In the early 90’s, a 32-year-old psychotherapist Jonathan began to suspect that his small Arizona community was being taken over by a homicidal religious cult known as ‘Followers of Bryan.’ What starts as an innocent inquisitiveness quickly turns into a violent and harrowing fight for his freedom … and survival.”
Though there’s a bit more information on the slipcase, the above works best because I think that there’s some otherwise uneven context provided that I’m gonna wax on a little about. Again, this isn’t an appraisal of quality, per se, but rather it’s an attempt to clarify this story as presented.
Much of what I’ve read about Bryan Loves You indicates that it’s supposed to be a ‘found footage film,’ a unique sub-genre of storytelling for which I’m always hounded because I appreciate it much more than the next blogger. (What can I say? Sue me.) For what it’s worth, I think that’s wildly inaccurate – Bryan is NOT found footage – mostly because the breadth of this particular story has been edited together from a vast, vast, vast different number of cameras. True found footage relates one story found on a single recorder; this way, nothing can be augmented by, excised from, or added to in any way legitimately, and the audience is presented a story ‘as is’ fresh from the eyes of whoever taped it. While that may seem like a small quibble to some, I introduce it because it’s going to factor into my overall impression of the film in a moment. (Bear with me.)
We’re introduced to the material by a nameless narrator (played by Tony Todd) who prefaces the film solely for the case of serving viewers with a warning: what follows, he says, is very, very, very disturbing.
Well …
The problem here is that it’s not. It isn’t all that disturbing. Heck, it’s not even all that alarming when positioned in the timeframe of the early 90’s, from which this tale is allegedly set. Bryan offers little to nothing by way of, say, controversial subject matter (it deals essentially with cults and brainwashing); and while there may be some suggestions of violence and bloodshed very little of that is captured on film. So what exactly are we supposed to have found so startling in all of this? It’s entirely unclear, nor is it ever expanded upon in any meaningful way. As such, Todd’s warning – in hindsight – felt superfluous and (dare I say?) manipulative … much in the same way the Followers of Bryan conduct themselves. Does that make this a release endorsed by them? If they’re so secretive, why would they endorse this? And if they’re endorsing this, does that mean they’re not as secretive as Landau’s script would lead us to believe?
Therein lies the rub when dealing with stories that only dabble with messaging instead of going all-in: typically, they leave out context, allowing the viewers to watch, digest, and make up their own mind about what truly went on here and ascribe whatever value they want to it. As a viewer, I always hate having to interpret the whole cloth much less the individual scenes; that’s because I’d rather be given something with a message than without because I’m otherwise free to plug any ol’ theory into the open space … and I’ve always felt that’s a disservice to storytellers and audiences both. Have something to say … because, otherwise, why are you speaking to me?
Yes, yes, yes: I’m still free to make up my own mind on the subject matter, but the message of the film is the province of the filmmaker. It’s a fine line, but it’s still there.
“In the early 90’s, a 32-year-old psychotherapist Jonathan began to suspect that his small Arizona community was being taken over by a homicidal religious cult known as ‘Followers of Bryan.’ What starts as an innocent inquisitiveness quickly turns into a violent and harrowing fight for his freedom … and survival.”
Though there’s a bit more information on the slipcase, the above works best because I think that there’s some otherwise uneven context provided that I’m gonna wax on a little about. Again, this isn’t an appraisal of quality, per se, but rather it’s an attempt to clarify this story as presented.
Much of what I’ve read about Bryan Loves You indicates that it’s supposed to be a ‘found footage film,’ a unique sub-genre of storytelling for which I’m always hounded because I appreciate it much more than the next blogger. (What can I say? Sue me.) For what it’s worth, I think that’s wildly inaccurate – Bryan is NOT found footage – mostly because the breadth of this particular story has been edited together from a vast, vast, vast different number of cameras. True found footage relates one story found on a single recorder; this way, nothing can be augmented by, excised from, or added to in any way legitimately, and the audience is presented a story ‘as is’ fresh from the eyes of whoever taped it. While that may seem like a small quibble to some, I introduce it because it’s going to factor into my overall impression of the film in a moment. (Bear with me.)
We’re introduced to the material by a nameless narrator (played by Tony Todd) who prefaces the film solely for the case of serving viewers with a warning: what follows, he says, is very, very, very disturbing.
Well …
The problem here is that it’s not. It isn’t all that disturbing. Heck, it’s not even all that alarming when positioned in the timeframe of the early 90’s, from which this tale is allegedly set. Bryan offers little to nothing by way of, say, controversial subject matter (it deals essentially with cults and brainwashing); and while there may be some suggestions of violence and bloodshed very little of that is captured on film. So what exactly are we supposed to have found so startling in all of this? It’s entirely unclear, nor is it ever expanded upon in any meaningful way. As such, Todd’s warning – in hindsight – felt superfluous and (dare I say?) manipulative … much in the same way the Followers of Bryan conduct themselves. Does that make this a release endorsed by them? If they’re so secretive, why would they endorse this? And if they’re endorsing this, does that mean they’re not as secretive as Landau’s script would lead us to believe?
Therein lies the rub when dealing with stories that only dabble with messaging instead of going all-in: typically, they leave out context, allowing the viewers to watch, digest, and make up their own mind about what truly went on here and ascribe whatever value they want to it. As a viewer, I always hate having to interpret the whole cloth much less the individual scenes; that’s because I’d rather be given something with a message than without because I’m otherwise free to plug any ol’ theory into the open space … and I’ve always felt that’s a disservice to storytellers and audiences both. Have something to say … because, otherwise, why are you speaking to me?
Yes, yes, yes: I’m still free to make up my own mind on the subject matter, but the message of the film is the province of the filmmaker. It’s a fine line, but it’s still there.
What Landau and his crew have delivered here felt like two films strung together by the tenuous link of a maybe/maybe-not cult with no clear endgame. The first half works to set-up the world in which these characters live (it’s much closer to the ‘found footage’ genre organically), while the second half felt weirdly autobiographical. (Listening to the director’s 2022 commentary, I learned that it was VERY autobiographical, indeed.) These followers are used to bridge the two halves into one whole, but as I could never quite personally reconcile the ‘goodness’ or the ‘badness’ of the cult there’s an ambiguousness to the clear and present danger and just how much I should fear it.
For example, we establish in the first half that there’s a probability one can be ‘turned’ into a follower by being bitten by one of the followers: high school teacher Linda (Tori King) gets chomped on by one of her students, and a few scenes later Jonathan (Landau) and Nicole (Candy Stanton) are attacked by the now-crazed woman as a result of going to her home to check on her safety. Also, Candy eventually gets abducted by the church and converted; though we’re not shown the particulars of her conversion, a rabid believer is presented to her while in custody, reminding us of Linda’s earlier assault. So if this secret belief system can be forced upon a non-believer through infection, why then is the audience taken through the second half wherein Landau’s tale suggests he needs to accept Bryan into his life and celebrate this ascension consciously? Why not just have one of the followers bite him and … problem solved?
I’ve seen this happen all-too-often in films that try to lean in the direction of, say, conventional Horror when in reality what they’re founded on is a much narrower subset of a particular genre, like psychological Horror. Often times, storytellers will insert elements of other ideas into their films as a way to widen the possible audience; this isn’t to suggest that the additions weren’t planned but I’d argue they weren’t central to whatever the original plan could have been. In my estimation, Bryan works better in its second half – it’s Kafkaesque exploration of a world not quite normal, not intentionally abnormal, probably not paranormal – because I’m drawn into moments of character conflict. People matter; so the mindless zombies who propagate some nebulous church mean nothing to me on a personal level. Now, had there been a more informative explanation behind the Followers of Bryan, I could easily have felt differently … but being left with having to respond to this story as presented I only have more questions about the cult than I need. In the end, all I can care about is Jonathan; the sect becomes an inconsequential sideshow act needing a better foundation.
Breaking the two halves into separate projects could’ve made for a more rewarding experience. In fact, they could’ve been related flicks – two yarns spun in the same universe, much like the Marvel storytellers do in big budget fashion. (If small, independent dramas are your thing, then writer/director Gonzalo Calzada kinda/sorta did this with his Nocturna: Side A and Nocturna: Side B features, though I found some of that project suffering from predictable bloat.) The set-up – the ‘found footage’ – could even have been added to with perhaps a faux documentary looking back on the cult, its effects on the area, etc. This would’ve left the second act to be truly a second act, and I think the overall impact might have been greater.
Maybe Landau is looking to do a sequel? “Bryan Loved You: A Look Back”? That could be cool.
Still, kudos are deserved for big things coming in small roles. Bryan dishes out a handful of supporting players – many of whom are known quantities like Tony Todd, George Wendt, and Tiffany Shepis (who makes a great good-looking version of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’s ‘Nurse Ratchet’) – and they hit their marks admirably, though I’m left with questions due mostly to the lack of context on too much in here. If that near-miss was intentional, then it was soundly achieved. If it was unintended, then a change would do you good … but not the change they tried to force on poor Jonathan!
For example, we establish in the first half that there’s a probability one can be ‘turned’ into a follower by being bitten by one of the followers: high school teacher Linda (Tori King) gets chomped on by one of her students, and a few scenes later Jonathan (Landau) and Nicole (Candy Stanton) are attacked by the now-crazed woman as a result of going to her home to check on her safety. Also, Candy eventually gets abducted by the church and converted; though we’re not shown the particulars of her conversion, a rabid believer is presented to her while in custody, reminding us of Linda’s earlier assault. So if this secret belief system can be forced upon a non-believer through infection, why then is the audience taken through the second half wherein Landau’s tale suggests he needs to accept Bryan into his life and celebrate this ascension consciously? Why not just have one of the followers bite him and … problem solved?
I’ve seen this happen all-too-often in films that try to lean in the direction of, say, conventional Horror when in reality what they’re founded on is a much narrower subset of a particular genre, like psychological Horror. Often times, storytellers will insert elements of other ideas into their films as a way to widen the possible audience; this isn’t to suggest that the additions weren’t planned but I’d argue they weren’t central to whatever the original plan could have been. In my estimation, Bryan works better in its second half – it’s Kafkaesque exploration of a world not quite normal, not intentionally abnormal, probably not paranormal – because I’m drawn into moments of character conflict. People matter; so the mindless zombies who propagate some nebulous church mean nothing to me on a personal level. Now, had there been a more informative explanation behind the Followers of Bryan, I could easily have felt differently … but being left with having to respond to this story as presented I only have more questions about the cult than I need. In the end, all I can care about is Jonathan; the sect becomes an inconsequential sideshow act needing a better foundation.
Breaking the two halves into separate projects could’ve made for a more rewarding experience. In fact, they could’ve been related flicks – two yarns spun in the same universe, much like the Marvel storytellers do in big budget fashion. (If small, independent dramas are your thing, then writer/director Gonzalo Calzada kinda/sorta did this with his Nocturna: Side A and Nocturna: Side B features, though I found some of that project suffering from predictable bloat.) The set-up – the ‘found footage’ – could even have been added to with perhaps a faux documentary looking back on the cult, its effects on the area, etc. This would’ve left the second act to be truly a second act, and I think the overall impact might have been greater.
Maybe Landau is looking to do a sequel? “Bryan Loved You: A Look Back”? That could be cool.
Still, kudos are deserved for big things coming in small roles. Bryan dishes out a handful of supporting players – many of whom are known quantities like Tony Todd, George Wendt, and Tiffany Shepis (who makes a great good-looking version of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’s ‘Nurse Ratchet’) – and they hit their marks admirably, though I’m left with questions due mostly to the lack of context on too much in here. If that near-miss was intentional, then it was soundly achieved. If it was unintended, then a change would do you good … but not the change they tried to force on poor Jonathan!
Bryan Loves You (2008) was produced by Landau Motion Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? As this thing is a collection of ‘found footage,’ there’s an understandable amount of grain that goes hand-in-hand with that technique, along with the occasional audio issues. Nothing is so great that it detracts from the experience. As for the special features? Well, well well … this release ponies up a nice amount of extras, especially given the fact that this is a very small indie, but interested parties can look for to:
Recommended. As I often warn readers, low-budget films are most definitely not for everyone; I’ve found that I tend to enjoy them much more than most, and that’s because – in my humble opinion – they’re a bit rawer than studio fare, meaning there’s a bit more to chew on, even though the meat might have a surplus of gristle. My chief complaint with Bryan Loves You is that it kinda/sorta never quite decided what it wanted to be – the narrative is clearly a mash-up of two different ideas with a very weak bridge between them – and, thus, it left me wanting to know more context in order to understand what I just finished. The 2022 commentary helps greatly … but I still had questions.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Bryan Loves You (2008) 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
- An all-new audio commentary from Landau;
- The 2008 commentary from Landau, some cast members, and a host;
- Lengthy interviews with stars George Wendt, Tiffany Shepis, Daniel Roebuck; and Brinke Stevens; and
- An all-new theatrical trailer.
Recommended. As I often warn readers, low-budget films are most definitely not for everyone; I’ve found that I tend to enjoy them much more than most, and that’s because – in my humble opinion – they’re a bit rawer than studio fare, meaning there’s a bit more to chew on, even though the meat might have a surplus of gristle. My chief complaint with Bryan Loves You is that it kinda/sorta never quite decided what it wanted to be – the narrative is clearly a mash-up of two different ideas with a very weak bridge between them – and, thus, it left me wanting to know more context in order to understand what I just finished. The 2022 commentary helps greatly … but I still had questions.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Bryan Loves You (2008) 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
I don't know how many of you peeps are watching Syfy's Resident Alien, but I decided to give them a proper shout-out today for delivering one of the best laughs I've had this far in 2022. Hell, even the wifey was busting a gut over this one.
The show has changed a bit (in tone) from first to second season. The short skinny is that the writers -- in my humble and unprofessional opinion -- have relied too heavily on Alan Tudyk's schtick since launching back onto the airwaves in this season; when for all of my money the real comic gold in all of the show's run to date has been Corey Reynolds. Before Resident Alien, I'd only known him as the somewhat tight-lipped voice of police authority aboard TNT's stellar crime procedural The Closer; so to watch this guy deliver some of the funniest observations in this podunk mountain escape town has been a bit of a Godsend throughout COVID. I lost count of the number of laughs he delivered in Season 1, and -- as I said -- Season 2 has been (ahem) lukewarm at best. But this past episode -- "Alien Dinner Party" -- he offered up an observation about rabies that only this self-absorbed lunkhead could muster.
The wifey and I nearly rolled off the couch laughing.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
The show has changed a bit (in tone) from first to second season. The short skinny is that the writers -- in my humble and unprofessional opinion -- have relied too heavily on Alan Tudyk's schtick since launching back onto the airwaves in this season; when for all of my money the real comic gold in all of the show's run to date has been Corey Reynolds. Before Resident Alien, I'd only known him as the somewhat tight-lipped voice of police authority aboard TNT's stellar crime procedural The Closer; so to watch this guy deliver some of the funniest observations in this podunk mountain escape town has been a bit of a Godsend throughout COVID. I lost count of the number of laughs he delivered in Season 1, and -- as I said -- Season 2 has been (ahem) lukewarm at best. But this past episode -- "Alien Dinner Party" -- he offered up an observation about rabies that only this self-absorbed lunkhead could muster.
The wifey and I nearly rolled off the couch laughing.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ