- Published on
One time, I had a drama instructor who loved to craft his own homespun adages, and the one I remember most is: “There are only easy stories, or there are stories easily told.”
While I’ll concede that it’s probably taken me a few decades to figure out what he may’ve meant by that, I do believe I stumble across films from time-to-time that fit the bill. You – the happy reader – probably have as well, and I trust you know one when you see it. These are the kinds of flicks you can easily explain to other folks, easily discuss the merits or the drawbacks based on what was delivered, and maybe even fill in gaps where the screenwriter only pointed in a direction. I’ve always chalked this up to the fact that I’m wired a certain way; when something seamlessly ‘jives’ with my programming, I’m prone to appreciate what’s been accomplished and can thus easily pass it on.
Now …
Seobok: Project Clone is a novelty.
Just when I thought it was going to go one way, it went another. Because this new flight path was a bit unexpected, I was forced to reorient myself rather quickly to the experience … only to find that it was changing course yet again. While I can appreciate a bit of unpredictability to any premise, it still went almost exactly where I thought it was gonna go in the final scenes … only then it didn’t again … so now I find myself having an awful lot to say about its pieces but not a lot to offer on the whole.
Confused?
Yeah. So was I.
While I’ll concede that it’s probably taken me a few decades to figure out what he may’ve meant by that, I do believe I stumble across films from time-to-time that fit the bill. You – the happy reader – probably have as well, and I trust you know one when you see it. These are the kinds of flicks you can easily explain to other folks, easily discuss the merits or the drawbacks based on what was delivered, and maybe even fill in gaps where the screenwriter only pointed in a direction. I’ve always chalked this up to the fact that I’m wired a certain way; when something seamlessly ‘jives’ with my programming, I’m prone to appreciate what’s been accomplished and can thus easily pass it on.
Now …
Seobok: Project Clone is a novelty.
Just when I thought it was going to go one way, it went another. Because this new flight path was a bit unexpected, I was forced to reorient myself rather quickly to the experience … only to find that it was changing course yet again. While I can appreciate a bit of unpredictability to any premise, it still went almost exactly where I thought it was gonna go in the final scenes … only then it didn’t again … so now I find myself having an awful lot to say about its pieces but not a lot to offer on the whole.
Confused?
Yeah. So was I.
(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 former special agent is called for a secret mission: safely escort the world’s first human clone, whose body may hold the key to defeating death itself. But as the enemy closes in, the pair is forced to make an impossible choice.”
Whether this was intended or not, I’ll admit that Seobok is the kind of film I could probably go on about all day. This isn’t necessarily because I liked or hated it; rather, it’s because it was well enough put together that it made me think about what I liked and/or hated. I hope that makes sense. There were a few twists and turns I expected along with a few I didn’t, so I’m not entirely sure I can assure you what it’s all about in the final estimation. Instead, I think writer/director Lee Yong-ju delivered a weird road movie that just happens to be about the world’s first clone.
In fairness, Seobok traffics in some very familiar territory, so far as genre projects are concerned. Though human, this young man turns out to be a mutant (of sorts), and Bryan Singer’s stellar X-Men (2000) adaptation is the first that comes to mind (but there are many earlier efforts as well). A side effect of Seobok’s cloning has given him some abilities, and he spends a fair amount of time exploring and exploiting them in defense and offense. In this regard, the film easily draws comparisons to any of the other Marvel properties; while others might dismiss the feature as a wannabe imitator, the similarities really end there.
That said, I think it’s easy to suggest that Seobok isn’t so much about the science of human cloning (it’s really just a means to an end here) as it is about the psychology of human beings. (In fact, the clone science never gets any very clear exploration; so I’m not certain where all of these fantastical side effects come from!) The script tries to invent some additional layers – there’s more than a single instance of duplicitousness, some of this might be owed to some deviousness on the part of the U.S. government, and just who do these English-speaking mercenaries answer to anyway? – but little of that feels organic. Strip all of that noise away, and what you’re left with – a relationship between two fully detached males struggling with their lot in life – and it works on that level.
From the product packaging:
“A former special agent is called for a secret mission: safely escort the world’s first human clone, whose body may hold the key to defeating death itself. But as the enemy closes in, the pair is forced to make an impossible choice.”
Whether this was intended or not, I’ll admit that Seobok is the kind of film I could probably go on about all day. This isn’t necessarily because I liked or hated it; rather, it’s because it was well enough put together that it made me think about what I liked and/or hated. I hope that makes sense. There were a few twists and turns I expected along with a few I didn’t, so I’m not entirely sure I can assure you what it’s all about in the final estimation. Instead, I think writer/director Lee Yong-ju delivered a weird road movie that just happens to be about the world’s first clone.
In fairness, Seobok traffics in some very familiar territory, so far as genre projects are concerned. Though human, this young man turns out to be a mutant (of sorts), and Bryan Singer’s stellar X-Men (2000) adaptation is the first that comes to mind (but there are many earlier efforts as well). A side effect of Seobok’s cloning has given him some abilities, and he spends a fair amount of time exploring and exploiting them in defense and offense. In this regard, the film easily draws comparisons to any of the other Marvel properties; while others might dismiss the feature as a wannabe imitator, the similarities really end there.
That said, I think it’s easy to suggest that Seobok isn’t so much about the science of human cloning (it’s really just a means to an end here) as it is about the psychology of human beings. (In fact, the clone science never gets any very clear exploration; so I’m not certain where all of these fantastical side effects come from!) The script tries to invent some additional layers – there’s more than a single instance of duplicitousness, some of this might be owed to some deviousness on the part of the U.S. government, and just who do these English-speaking mercenaries answer to anyway? – but little of that feels organic. Strip all of that noise away, and what you’re left with – a relationship between two fully detached males struggling with their lot in life – and it works on that level.
We’ve all probably experienced a longing to transcend death, so it’s very natural that Lee populates his film and these characters with much of the same. Seobok (played by Park Bo-Gum) represents life-without-death (to a degree), and he’s paired up with Ki Heon (Gong You) who’s suffering from a terminal brain cancer, thus representing death-without-life. This is the springboard from which all of their shared experiences begin; and the script veers a bit too closely to elements of predictability before all is said-and-done between them. There are a few diversions (i.e. Seobok’s desire to pay respects to the ‘source’ of his DNA, and his eventual desire to return to where he most likely knows he’ll spend his days incarcerated), but I think relying too heavily on these polar positions probably kept this story grounded a bit too frequently.
Still, director Lee manages to squeeze in some good scenes between the surrogate father and the prodigal son whilst they’re together. They both fit the mold of ‘fish out of water’ for differing reasons, and it’s only appropriate that they befriend one another. Some might argue that their growing relationship was a bit too formulaic, but no other evolution could truly fit the mold as designed.
Additionally, given their circumstances (Ki Heon harbors a pretty dark secret, and Seobok clearly can’t be long for this world), I found it a bit refreshing that both characters eventually developed into what I’ve called ‘self-made Frankensteins.’ Yes, they both were made into monsters by their respective backstories; but when the moment arrives that they have to ‘put up or shut up’ of their own accord, both follow through. Both choose what could be decided as an evil course of action. Seobok demonstrates even a clone can and will wreak havoc to extract an inhuman revenge, and Ki Heon will yet again ignore his humanity in the pursuit of justice … no matter the cost to his immortal soul.
That’s some pretty dark territory for something that looks like it’s going to be a rather conventional thriller, but Seobok succeeds in staying the course to the last scene.
Mashed somewhere between the film’s start and finish, there are a handful of conversations regarding life, death, and immortality; and these subjects have grown a bit too routine for genre films of this type. Seobok tries hard to be something a bit deeper and more meaningful than perhaps it should be, but better to have tried and failed than to have left some gas in the tank. The film works best when it sticks to the formula, even if you might know where that’s going to end.
Lastly … killer score! I loved the symphony work. There are some exceptional tracks in there, so viewers take note.
Still, director Lee manages to squeeze in some good scenes between the surrogate father and the prodigal son whilst they’re together. They both fit the mold of ‘fish out of water’ for differing reasons, and it’s only appropriate that they befriend one another. Some might argue that their growing relationship was a bit too formulaic, but no other evolution could truly fit the mold as designed.
Additionally, given their circumstances (Ki Heon harbors a pretty dark secret, and Seobok clearly can’t be long for this world), I found it a bit refreshing that both characters eventually developed into what I’ve called ‘self-made Frankensteins.’ Yes, they both were made into monsters by their respective backstories; but when the moment arrives that they have to ‘put up or shut up’ of their own accord, both follow through. Both choose what could be decided as an evil course of action. Seobok demonstrates even a clone can and will wreak havoc to extract an inhuman revenge, and Ki Heon will yet again ignore his humanity in the pursuit of justice … no matter the cost to his immortal soul.
That’s some pretty dark territory for something that looks like it’s going to be a rather conventional thriller, but Seobok succeeds in staying the course to the last scene.
Mashed somewhere between the film’s start and finish, there are a handful of conversations regarding life, death, and immortality; and these subjects have grown a bit too routine for genre films of this type. Seobok tries hard to be something a bit deeper and more meaningful than perhaps it should be, but better to have tried and failed than to have left some gas in the tank. The film works best when it sticks to the formula, even if you might know where that’s going to end.
Lastly … killer score! I loved the symphony work. There are some exceptional tracks in there, so viewers take note.
Seobok: Project Clone (2021) CJ Entertainment, Studio101, and TPS Company. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Seobok is an exceedingly well-made Action/Thriller with what I’d term light Science Fiction elements; the sights and sounds are all very good, and I thought the effects sequences were (honestly) a notch above what I’ve usually seen in some Korean releases. As for the special feature? Meh. I’ve been away from reviewing a wealth of foreign films for some time, but sadly I’ve found very little has changed as this disc boasts only a short making-of featurette (it’s more like a bloated advertisement) along with a character rundown and some theatrical trailers. They’re nice … but I’m the kind of viewer who likes more substance with the extras. Apologies.
Recommended.
I’ve seen a handful of films like Seobok: Project Clone, and it’s likely you have, too. Though it’s not a superhero flick per se, it bears a heavy resemblance to some of what’s happened in any mutant storyline of the last two decades. In those waters, writer/director Lee’s film excels. When it tries to get all heavy and serious? While it may not be as effective, it still manages to deliver a gangbuster finish that’ll rock you to your X-Men core. That’s the only part of this that’s easily told, and it works. So enjoy vengeance because it’s best served cold.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Seobok: Project Clone 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.
Recommended.
I’ve seen a handful of films like Seobok: Project Clone, and it’s likely you have, too. Though it’s not a superhero flick per se, it bears a heavy resemblance to some of what’s happened in any mutant storyline of the last two decades. In those waters, writer/director Lee’s film excels. When it tries to get all heavy and serious? While it may not be as effective, it still manages to deliver a gangbuster finish that’ll rock you to your X-Men core. That’s the only part of this that’s easily told, and it works. So enjoy vengeance because it’s best served cold.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Seobok: Project Clone by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
Far be it from me to court controversy, but I’m honest to a fault sometimes.
As I’ve said when asked by folks who know me well, I don’t ‘recommend’ movies and TV shows. At least, not in the same way other reviewers who write about media do. Yes, I’m fine with saying I “recommend” something for viewing, but when I’m asked to, say, list the five shows every Science Fiction and Fantasy fan should be familiar with I tend to clam up on advice of counsel. (Relax. No lawyers were involved.) It’s just that I’ve been around long enough to know that each of us has our own framework and filters we use to determine what’s of value; you’re far more familiar with what you like than I, so I leave those decisions in your capable hands.
Still, I’m often asked, “Do you like _____?” (You can add any show and movie to the blank you wish.)
When I’m evasive, I do remind long-term readers that while I may not be a particular fan of a particular show I’ve still found episodes that are worthy of an enthusiastic thumbs up. That’s because I’m more about character and I’m more about a good story than I am being committed to an individual property; what this means – in the final estimation – is that even the worst movie in history might have something redeeming in it. It may have a good performance. It may have some great production efforts. Or it may even have a good laugh.
Doesn’t the best element of the worst experience deserve a little bit of recognition?
Sigh.
Where I’m going with all of this is simple: I was asked online if I’m looking forward to The Orville returning. As you can guess, I have a not-so-simple answer.
The short skinny?
Well, I’ve never found Seth MacFarlane and his particular brand of humor all that funny. It’s a bit juvenile. It’s a bit easy. It’s often a bit predictable. This isn’t to say that I haven’t laughed at some of what he’s done because that would be untrue. It just that the overall track of his jokes? Well, I think some humorists can do better … and then there’s Seth.
Now, again, I’ve no issue whatsoever with anyone else finding Seth adorable. Humor is a difficult concept, and what makes us laugh separately isn’t always what entertains a crowd. In my mind, Seth goes for a lot of easy jokes – that’s why I said I find him a bit predictable – and putting his train of thought into what’s supposed to centrally be an ‘interesting morality tale’ (i.e. like Star Trek) can be a bit offputting. Again: doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. It can be. It usually is. I’m just not drawn to it.
The long answer?
Sigh.
About 80% of the time, I’ve found The Orville to be a pitch perfect modern ‘interpretation’ of what Star Trek: The Next Generation used to do so very well. (No, folks: I don’t see it in the same terms as classic Trek for a few narrative reasons I’m not going to delve into at this point because it doesn’t matter.) Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and that staff of writers crafted some brilliant hours of television, many of them giving an 80’s and 90’s based cultural examination like no other show of the day did. The Orville has taken that construct and – in many of its better hours – adapted it for an all-new generation of viewers, ones who obviously are not insulted by Seth’s occasional low-brow antics. (Again, peeps, there’s nothing wrong with that; I’m just giving my two cents.)
But The Orville has also worked very hard to create an identity a bit removed from Star Trek as well.
Clearly, the show’s characters are not the squeaky-clean professionals that populated the Enterprise D.
As I’ve said when asked by folks who know me well, I don’t ‘recommend’ movies and TV shows. At least, not in the same way other reviewers who write about media do. Yes, I’m fine with saying I “recommend” something for viewing, but when I’m asked to, say, list the five shows every Science Fiction and Fantasy fan should be familiar with I tend to clam up on advice of counsel. (Relax. No lawyers were involved.) It’s just that I’ve been around long enough to know that each of us has our own framework and filters we use to determine what’s of value; you’re far more familiar with what you like than I, so I leave those decisions in your capable hands.
Still, I’m often asked, “Do you like _____?” (You can add any show and movie to the blank you wish.)
When I’m evasive, I do remind long-term readers that while I may not be a particular fan of a particular show I’ve still found episodes that are worthy of an enthusiastic thumbs up. That’s because I’m more about character and I’m more about a good story than I am being committed to an individual property; what this means – in the final estimation – is that even the worst movie in history might have something redeeming in it. It may have a good performance. It may have some great production efforts. Or it may even have a good laugh.
Doesn’t the best element of the worst experience deserve a little bit of recognition?
Sigh.
Where I’m going with all of this is simple: I was asked online if I’m looking forward to The Orville returning. As you can guess, I have a not-so-simple answer.
The short skinny?
Well, I’ve never found Seth MacFarlane and his particular brand of humor all that funny. It’s a bit juvenile. It’s a bit easy. It’s often a bit predictable. This isn’t to say that I haven’t laughed at some of what he’s done because that would be untrue. It just that the overall track of his jokes? Well, I think some humorists can do better … and then there’s Seth.
Now, again, I’ve no issue whatsoever with anyone else finding Seth adorable. Humor is a difficult concept, and what makes us laugh separately isn’t always what entertains a crowd. In my mind, Seth goes for a lot of easy jokes – that’s why I said I find him a bit predictable – and putting his train of thought into what’s supposed to centrally be an ‘interesting morality tale’ (i.e. like Star Trek) can be a bit offputting. Again: doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. It can be. It usually is. I’m just not drawn to it.
The long answer?
Sigh.
About 80% of the time, I’ve found The Orville to be a pitch perfect modern ‘interpretation’ of what Star Trek: The Next Generation used to do so very well. (No, folks: I don’t see it in the same terms as classic Trek for a few narrative reasons I’m not going to delve into at this point because it doesn’t matter.) Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and that staff of writers crafted some brilliant hours of television, many of them giving an 80’s and 90’s based cultural examination like no other show of the day did. The Orville has taken that construct and – in many of its better hours – adapted it for an all-new generation of viewers, ones who obviously are not insulted by Seth’s occasional low-brow antics. (Again, peeps, there’s nothing wrong with that; I’m just giving my two cents.)
But The Orville has also worked very hard to create an identity a bit removed from Star Trek as well.
Clearly, the show’s characters are not the squeaky-clean professionals that populated the Enterprise D.
Seth’s Ed Mercer can’t help but display the unprofessionalism that kept him out of the captain’s chair for as long as it did; now that he’s somehow found a command (something that defies any internal logic the show strives for on occasion), he’ll risk being written up for every inappropriate thing or idea he’s ever thought … and I think that reality speaks to The Orville’s audience. They, like Ed, like being in the underdog position; so they’re willing to suspend all disbelief about how a captain could possibly behave this way and keep his job. (Again, peeps: that’s OK. I’ve been nothing but honest about my not liking the humor.) Ed succeeds in spite of himself and his worst instincts, and which among us wouldn’t want to be in that position?
Similarly, Commander Kelly Grayson (played by genre-favorite Adrianne Palicki) shares a reasonable amount of Mercer’s abrasiveness, and that’s no surprise as the two were married (in the show’s expanding backstory). Perhaps because they were too similar, they clashed, suffered a falling out (an act of infidelity on her part), and divorced. But much in the way some couples who part friends, enemies, or frenemies do, they’re still something there – a spark of love, hate, or a mix of the two – that drives them to push one another’s buttons … for better or for worse. She’s prone to quip something as inappropriate as her ex, and yet we’re assured that she’s still one of the best executive officers in the fleet.
As the series’ main duo, they’re quite a pair. Though they don’t constantly bicker, the stories we’ve seen thus far (after two seasons) have put them at odds much of the time. Still, I don’t make too much of their constant back-and-forth because anyone who knows a thing or two about episodic television understands that most shows’ first rule is that there has to be a constructive discussion about the script’s central issue. Naturally, this puts characters on different sides; so it’s easy to conclude that a divorced couple should easily satisfy that framework. I like to think that’s really The Orville’s biggest secret: these two couldn’t serve effectively together if they were married, and that is a bit of genius on show creator MacFarlane’s part.
Well done, sir.
So, yes, it’s great that there’s still a show around that’s somewhat faithful to a construct in storytelling that’s largely credited to the world of Star Trek. God and anyone who’s watched a few hours of Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard know all too well that those folks are off in their own territorial waters doing something they believe is (ahem) truly visionary for (ahem) a new generation of fans. More power to them. As I’ve said, I have no problem with those shows; I just understand that they’re not for me. I’m not a demographic sought in their audience. All well and good. It’s grand that MacFarlane has stepped in to fill that hole.
However, I’m not following The Orville behind a pay wall. At least, not yet.
That decision may change … but, for now, I’m comfortable with it. I just don’t like this current trend in having to finance so many separate streaming platforms. Yes, I realize that’s apparently the way of the future, and that’s why I’ve said my decision could change. But for now I’ll wait for the potential DVD sets.
In the meantime, I may be revisiting some of The Orville’s previously televised episodes for posterity’s sake. It’ll give me a little something something to work on my review skills, to fill some time, and to keep me wishing for the days when treks into the Final Frontier were intended for everyone and not just for viewers who think myopically.
-- EZ
Similarly, Commander Kelly Grayson (played by genre-favorite Adrianne Palicki) shares a reasonable amount of Mercer’s abrasiveness, and that’s no surprise as the two were married (in the show’s expanding backstory). Perhaps because they were too similar, they clashed, suffered a falling out (an act of infidelity on her part), and divorced. But much in the way some couples who part friends, enemies, or frenemies do, they’re still something there – a spark of love, hate, or a mix of the two – that drives them to push one another’s buttons … for better or for worse. She’s prone to quip something as inappropriate as her ex, and yet we’re assured that she’s still one of the best executive officers in the fleet.
As the series’ main duo, they’re quite a pair. Though they don’t constantly bicker, the stories we’ve seen thus far (after two seasons) have put them at odds much of the time. Still, I don’t make too much of their constant back-and-forth because anyone who knows a thing or two about episodic television understands that most shows’ first rule is that there has to be a constructive discussion about the script’s central issue. Naturally, this puts characters on different sides; so it’s easy to conclude that a divorced couple should easily satisfy that framework. I like to think that’s really The Orville’s biggest secret: these two couldn’t serve effectively together if they were married, and that is a bit of genius on show creator MacFarlane’s part.
Well done, sir.
So, yes, it’s great that there’s still a show around that’s somewhat faithful to a construct in storytelling that’s largely credited to the world of Star Trek. God and anyone who’s watched a few hours of Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard know all too well that those folks are off in their own territorial waters doing something they believe is (ahem) truly visionary for (ahem) a new generation of fans. More power to them. As I’ve said, I have no problem with those shows; I just understand that they’re not for me. I’m not a demographic sought in their audience. All well and good. It’s grand that MacFarlane has stepped in to fill that hole.
However, I’m not following The Orville behind a pay wall. At least, not yet.
That decision may change … but, for now, I’m comfortable with it. I just don’t like this current trend in having to finance so many separate streaming platforms. Yes, I realize that’s apparently the way of the future, and that’s why I’ve said my decision could change. But for now I’ll wait for the potential DVD sets.
In the meantime, I may be revisiting some of The Orville’s previously televised episodes for posterity’s sake. It’ll give me a little something something to work on my review skills, to fill some time, and to keep me wishing for the days when treks into the Final Frontier were intended for everyone and not just for viewers who think myopically.
-- EZ
- Published on
Sigh.
Whether Science Fiction and Fantasy fans admit it or not, there's an awful lot of schlock in our history. From men in rubber suits to floating brains that menace men and women, we've seen an awful lot of -- erm -- crapulence. It's out there. We can't deny it. And for better or for worse we keep watching it, almost like we can't help ourselves.
Still, I think it's great -- honestly, I do -- that there are companies around committed to giving us some of this muck from yesteryear in even better definition than we've experienced it before ... and such will be the case when The Film Detective delivers an all-new Blu-ray restoration of 1957's The Brain From Planet Arous from general consumption.
What a time to be alive, eh?
For those unaware, Arous is really Ground Zero for the oversized floating brain memes of legend. It's some really good schlock.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"An evil alien brain from the planet Arous hijacks the body of an Earth scientist in order to control the Earth."
By God, that's damn near some Shakespeare right there, people.
Written by Ray Buffum (who also wrote 1958's Teenage Monster), the feature was directed by Nathan Juran, an Academy Award caliber set decorator for 1941's family drama How Green Was My Valley. No slouch, Juran also shared the 1959 Hugo Award for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' with Ken Kolb and Ray Harryhausen for the Fantasy epic The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad. Furthermore, Juran was awarded a Saturn Award in 1999 for his life's work from the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Films. His resume as a director includes work on such projects as The Deadly Mantis (1957), 20 Million Miles To Earth (1957), Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman (1958), TV's World Of Giants, Jack The Giant Killer (1962), and First Men In The Moon (1964). Furthermore, the later years of his career involved a lot of work in television directing episodes of shows like Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, and Land Of The Giants. His last IMDB.com credit shows him serving as a director of 1973's The Boy Who Cried Werewolf.
Given Juran's pedigree, maybe it's entirely appropriate to revisit the giant floating brains; and audiences will be free to do so this June. Details are copied and pasted below, and the trailer will be there for your delight.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Whether Science Fiction and Fantasy fans admit it or not, there's an awful lot of schlock in our history. From men in rubber suits to floating brains that menace men and women, we've seen an awful lot of -- erm -- crapulence. It's out there. We can't deny it. And for better or for worse we keep watching it, almost like we can't help ourselves.
Still, I think it's great -- honestly, I do -- that there are companies around committed to giving us some of this muck from yesteryear in even better definition than we've experienced it before ... and such will be the case when The Film Detective delivers an all-new Blu-ray restoration of 1957's The Brain From Planet Arous from general consumption.
What a time to be alive, eh?
For those unaware, Arous is really Ground Zero for the oversized floating brain memes of legend. It's some really good schlock.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"An evil alien brain from the planet Arous hijacks the body of an Earth scientist in order to control the Earth."
By God, that's damn near some Shakespeare right there, people.
Written by Ray Buffum (who also wrote 1958's Teenage Monster), the feature was directed by Nathan Juran, an Academy Award caliber set decorator for 1941's family drama How Green Was My Valley. No slouch, Juran also shared the 1959 Hugo Award for 'Best Dramatic Presentation' with Ken Kolb and Ray Harryhausen for the Fantasy epic The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad. Furthermore, Juran was awarded a Saturn Award in 1999 for his life's work from the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Films. His resume as a director includes work on such projects as The Deadly Mantis (1957), 20 Million Miles To Earth (1957), Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman (1958), TV's World Of Giants, Jack The Giant Killer (1962), and First Men In The Moon (1964). Furthermore, the later years of his career involved a lot of work in television directing episodes of shows like Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, The Time Tunnel, Lost In Space, and Land Of The Giants. His last IMDB.com credit shows him serving as a director of 1973's The Boy Who Cried Werewolf.
Given Juran's pedigree, maybe it's entirely appropriate to revisit the giant floating brains; and audiences will be free to do so this June. Details are copied and pasted below, and the trailer will be there for your delight.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
The Film Detective is preparing a Blu-ray release of Nathan Juran's The Brain From Planet Arous (1957), starring John Agar, Joyce Meadows, Robert Fuller, Thomas Browne Henry, and Ken Terrell. Currently, the release is scheduled to arrive on the market on June 21.
Description: Get ready for planet Earth to be overtaken by a criminal brain from outer space! When Gor, an evil brain from planet Arous, inhabits the body of scientist Steve March, his intention is nothing less than world domination. Lucky for Earth, another intergalactic brain, Val, offers to assist March's wife, Sally, in stopping the madness. How does Val intend to help? By inhabiting Sally's dog! A great example of cut-rate sci-fi from the 1950s, this independently produced feature stars B movie favorite John Agar (The Mole People, Revenge of the Creature), and was directed by Nathan Juran, a master of the genre who helmed such classics as The Deadly Mantis, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.
Special Features and Technical Specs:
Description: Get ready for planet Earth to be overtaken by a criminal brain from outer space! When Gor, an evil brain from planet Arous, inhabits the body of scientist Steve March, his intention is nothing less than world domination. Lucky for Earth, another intergalactic brain, Val, offers to assist March's wife, Sally, in stopping the madness. How does Val intend to help? By inhabiting Sally's dog! A great example of cut-rate sci-fi from the 1950s, this independently produced feature stars B movie favorite John Agar (The Mole People, Revenge of the Creature), and was directed by Nathan Juran, a master of the genre who helmed such classics as The Deadly Mantis, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.
Special Features and Technical Specs:
- NEW RESTORATION OF THE FILM
- NEW Audio commentary by author and film historian Tom Weaver
- An original Ballyhoo Motion Pictures documentary
- Full color booklet with original essay by Tom Weaver
- Optional English SDH and Spanish subtitles for the main feature
- Published on
Ahhh, people! We're so predictable!
It would seem that ever since 1993's Groundhog Day introduced the time loop into pop culture history, storytellers have grown more and more fascinated with it. Why, it used to be such a concept was restricted to only the realms of harder SciFi properties, but now every Tom, Dick, and Harriet (screenwriter) wants to dabble with the risks of temporal mechanics. Stories exploring the circuitous do-over continue to show up on the silver and the small screens ... and now here's yet one more than can whet our appetite for the days when we'll eventually get chronology all under control.
Directed by Craig Singer, 6:45 looks to play up the bloody danger associated to being murdered over and over again. Written by Robert Dean Klein, the feature stars Augie Duke, Thomas G. Waites, Remy Ma, and Sasha K. Gordon. This one is set to come home via streaming, DVD, and Blu-ray this upcoming March 22nd; and I'd imagine it's already available for pre-order at places like Amazon.com. Plots and particulars will be below, as I'm copying and pasting the information obtained from the film's latest press release. I'll also be posting the trailer, and every single one of you know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
It would seem that ever since 1993's Groundhog Day introduced the time loop into pop culture history, storytellers have grown more and more fascinated with it. Why, it used to be such a concept was restricted to only the realms of harder SciFi properties, but now every Tom, Dick, and Harriet (screenwriter) wants to dabble with the risks of temporal mechanics. Stories exploring the circuitous do-over continue to show up on the silver and the small screens ... and now here's yet one more than can whet our appetite for the days when we'll eventually get chronology all under control.
Directed by Craig Singer, 6:45 looks to play up the bloody danger associated to being murdered over and over again. Written by Robert Dean Klein, the feature stars Augie Duke, Thomas G. Waites, Remy Ma, and Sasha K. Gordon. This one is set to come home via streaming, DVD, and Blu-ray this upcoming March 22nd; and I'd imagine it's already available for pre-order at places like Amazon.com. Plots and particulars will be below, as I'm copying and pasting the information obtained from the film's latest press release. I'll also be posting the trailer, and every single one of you know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
“… GRIPPING, SUSPENSEFUL AND CHILLING …”
~ NYC MOVIE GURU
“… an accomplished terror tale that’s both exciting and unsettling …”
~ FILM FRENZY
6:45
The Award-Winning Horror-Thriller from Director Craig Singer
Hits Digital, Blu-ray™ & DVD March 22
~ NYC MOVIE GURU
“… an accomplished terror tale that’s both exciting and unsettling …”
~ FILM FRENZY
6:45
The Award-Winning Horror-Thriller from Director Craig Singer
Hits Digital, Blu-ray™ & DVD March 22
PLANO, TEXAS (February 7, 2022) – What if one of the best days of your life suddenly turned into your very worst nightmare? And what if you were forced to relive that same day again and again? Groundhog Day meets The Sixth Sense in Director Craig Singer’s (Animal Room, Dark Ride, A Good Night to Die) horror-thriller 6:45, debuting on Digital, Blu-ray™ and DVD March 22 from Well Go USA Entertainment. A couple embarks on a weekend getaway only to find the island curiously deserted. After stumbling upon the town’s dark secret, they trigger a time loop, forcing them to relive a demented cycle of terror with seemingly no means of escape. 6:45 stars Michael Reed (Brides of Satan), Augie Duke (The Amityville Moon), Armen Garo (“Dexter: New Blood”), and Thomas G. Waites (The Thing, Money Train).
6:45 won Best Director for Craig Singer at the 2021 Catalina Film Festival and 2022 New York Movie Awards, as well as picked up the Jury Award for Best Feature at the 2021 Hollywood on the Tiber Film Awards and Best Indie Feature at the 2021 Florence Film Awards.
Synopsis:
A couple embarks on a weekend getaway only to find the island curiously deserted. After stumbling upon the town’s dark secret, they trigger a time loop, forcing them to relive a demented cycle of terror with seemingly no means of escape.
6:45 has a runtime of approximately 96 minutes and is rated R for strong violence and gore, sexual content, nudity, and language throughout.
6:45 won Best Director for Craig Singer at the 2021 Catalina Film Festival and 2022 New York Movie Awards, as well as picked up the Jury Award for Best Feature at the 2021 Hollywood on the Tiber Film Awards and Best Indie Feature at the 2021 Florence Film Awards.
Synopsis:
A couple embarks on a weekend getaway only to find the island curiously deserted. After stumbling upon the town’s dark secret, they trigger a time loop, forcing them to relive a demented cycle of terror with seemingly no means of escape.
6:45 has a runtime of approximately 96 minutes and is rated R for strong violence and gore, sexual content, nudity, and language throughout.
- Published on
The definitive 'when and where' Science Fiction began is the subject of an awful lot of academic debate.
I've read a respectable amount of the arguments, and -- speaking only from a literary perspective -- there are three major contenders for the title. The first credits Mary Shelley (1797-1851) with 'inventing Science Fiction,' and -- for all intents and purposes -- it's one I struggle with the most because I think the author (while visionary, true) was chiefly tinkering with the idea of Godhood housed in man. This would make it more Fantasy than SciFi, but I've been assured that's a small quibble. The second theory is that H.G. Wells (1866-1946) deserves the credit for inspiring a generation of writers to follow in his footsteps. I've certainly no complaint with this ... suffice it to say that Wells was also famous for sprinkling a fair amount of political shenanigans in with his prose, and I, as a reader, tend to tune those things out. And the last name given credit? That would be Jules Verne (1828-1905).
For the sake of argument, I think we can suggest that Verne and Wells clearly are more nuanced contenders for the title simply based upon their respective bodies of work. One aspect of Verne that also weighs the scales a bit more heavily on his side is that, according to Wikipedia.org, he retains the title of being the most translated French-language author in the entire world ... and that certainly has to count for something?
Several of Verne's works have been adapted not once, not twice, but several times for both the silver screen and the small screen. Books like The Mysterious Island, Journey To The Center Of The Earth, and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Seas continue to inspire readers and like-minded storytellers to consider the unknown as places fertile for visit; and I suspect the author's library of work will be around for many decades more.
-- EZ
I've read a respectable amount of the arguments, and -- speaking only from a literary perspective -- there are three major contenders for the title. The first credits Mary Shelley (1797-1851) with 'inventing Science Fiction,' and -- for all intents and purposes -- it's one I struggle with the most because I think the author (while visionary, true) was chiefly tinkering with the idea of Godhood housed in man. This would make it more Fantasy than SciFi, but I've been assured that's a small quibble. The second theory is that H.G. Wells (1866-1946) deserves the credit for inspiring a generation of writers to follow in his footsteps. I've certainly no complaint with this ... suffice it to say that Wells was also famous for sprinkling a fair amount of political shenanigans in with his prose, and I, as a reader, tend to tune those things out. And the last name given credit? That would be Jules Verne (1828-1905).
For the sake of argument, I think we can suggest that Verne and Wells clearly are more nuanced contenders for the title simply based upon their respective bodies of work. One aspect of Verne that also weighs the scales a bit more heavily on his side is that, according to Wikipedia.org, he retains the title of being the most translated French-language author in the entire world ... and that certainly has to count for something?
Several of Verne's works have been adapted not once, not twice, but several times for both the silver screen and the small screen. Books like The Mysterious Island, Journey To The Center Of The Earth, and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Seas continue to inspire readers and like-minded storytellers to consider the unknown as places fertile for visit; and I suspect the author's library of work will be around for many decades more.
-- EZ
- Published on
Ugh, folks, ugh: here's a bit of a public service announcement that's, sadly, going to leave out some critical information.
I received an email this morning regarding the upcoming release of Crabs! for general consumer consumption, but there's no associated release date. Scouring the Information Superhighway just a bit, it looks like a home video release has yet to be determined; but this Horror/Comedy from writer/director Pierce Berolzheimer certainly looks to balance the bodies and the bloodshed for maximum reward. Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A horde of murderous crab monsters descend on a sleepy coastal town on Prom night, and only a ragtag group of outcasts can save the day."
Whilst looking for any information on when the masses might see this delightful source of gore-filled mirth, I did stumble upon a few reviews that were complimentary. It would appear that the flick has played at a few corresponding film festivals, so maybe the powers that be are trying to generate some buzz in anticipation of a home video or streaming option. I'll keep my eyes peeled for further data, so watch this space.
In the meantime, the trailer is below ... and you folks know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I received an email this morning regarding the upcoming release of Crabs! for general consumer consumption, but there's no associated release date. Scouring the Information Superhighway just a bit, it looks like a home video release has yet to be determined; but this Horror/Comedy from writer/director Pierce Berolzheimer certainly looks to balance the bodies and the bloodshed for maximum reward. Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A horde of murderous crab monsters descend on a sleepy coastal town on Prom night, and only a ragtag group of outcasts can save the day."
Whilst looking for any information on when the masses might see this delightful source of gore-filled mirth, I did stumble upon a few reviews that were complimentary. It would appear that the flick has played at a few corresponding film festivals, so maybe the powers that be are trying to generate some buzz in anticipation of a home video or streaming option. I'll keep my eyes peeled for further data, so watch this space.
In the meantime, the trailer is below ... and you folks know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Ach. This one hurts, people.
Back in the days well before the Information Superhighway, fans of Science Fiction and Fantasy would actually have to get together to talk about the films, shows, and books they loved; and that's what a few of us used to do. When we'd go to a movie, we'd make it a bit of an event, planning the entire night out with the movie and follow it up at the local eatery where we'd hash out the good, the bad, and the ugly of what we watched. Sure, it was different strokes for different folks, but I hope that somewhere in reality there's a version of this that still takes place today.
In any event, I can remember one of the biggest argument I probably ever got into with the guys I watched SciFi with involved Special Effects. In junior high school and high school, I had done a few short reports on effects, so I hate to say it but I knew a bit more about the process of creating them than my best buds; consequently, when I took a position, I was adamantly committed to it. While they worshipped at the trough of John Dykstra, I was all in for Douglas Trumbull.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. What can I say? This were the things that fascinated us.
See, I was familiar with Trumbull's work. Granted, I hadn't seen all of it (1972's Silent Running was still elusive as these were the days well before home video, and I hadn't caught any of The Starlost on television where I grew up), but what I had devoured was incredible. His striking and emotional visuals on Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) could bring tears to my eyes (well, if I cried, that is), and I don't care what anyone says his work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) continues to be the Gold Standard for pre-CGI technology. Don't even get me started on how his stuff from Blade Runner (1982) deserves further study. It's all just so damn incredible I can't even begin to put it into words.
And those three films? His three biggest hits, as it were? See anything in common?
All three of them were nominated in the realm of 'Special Effects' for Oscars; and all three were denied. That's the biggest miscarriage of justice in awards circle to this day.
Alas, none of us last forever; and I've just noticed in Variety the announcement of Trumbull's passing. So very, very heartsick over this one. The guy was a true pioneer who just never got the name recognition I think he deserved, but I'm thrilled that maybe a whole new generation of viewers may set out to discover his work now.
-- EZ
Back in the days well before the Information Superhighway, fans of Science Fiction and Fantasy would actually have to get together to talk about the films, shows, and books they loved; and that's what a few of us used to do. When we'd go to a movie, we'd make it a bit of an event, planning the entire night out with the movie and follow it up at the local eatery where we'd hash out the good, the bad, and the ugly of what we watched. Sure, it was different strokes for different folks, but I hope that somewhere in reality there's a version of this that still takes place today.
In any event, I can remember one of the biggest argument I probably ever got into with the guys I watched SciFi with involved Special Effects. In junior high school and high school, I had done a few short reports on effects, so I hate to say it but I knew a bit more about the process of creating them than my best buds; consequently, when I took a position, I was adamantly committed to it. While they worshipped at the trough of John Dykstra, I was all in for Douglas Trumbull.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. What can I say? This were the things that fascinated us.
See, I was familiar with Trumbull's work. Granted, I hadn't seen all of it (1972's Silent Running was still elusive as these were the days well before home video, and I hadn't caught any of The Starlost on television where I grew up), but what I had devoured was incredible. His striking and emotional visuals on Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) could bring tears to my eyes (well, if I cried, that is), and I don't care what anyone says his work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) continues to be the Gold Standard for pre-CGI technology. Don't even get me started on how his stuff from Blade Runner (1982) deserves further study. It's all just so damn incredible I can't even begin to put it into words.
And those three films? His three biggest hits, as it were? See anything in common?
All three of them were nominated in the realm of 'Special Effects' for Oscars; and all three were denied. That's the biggest miscarriage of justice in awards circle to this day.
Alas, none of us last forever; and I've just noticed in Variety the announcement of Trumbull's passing. So very, very heartsick over this one. The guy was a true pioneer who just never got the name recognition I think he deserved, but I'm thrilled that maybe a whole new generation of viewers may set out to discover his work now.
-- EZ
- Published on
I'm honestly a generation removed (and a bit more) from being able to experience the cinematic joy of seeing the original Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers on the silver screen.
Being born in the mid-1960's and spending the first few years on a Midwestern farm, I was very limited on what was available on television. We didn't have cable, and back in the day our tall outdoor TV antenna only provided a handful of small stations. As I've mentioned before, much of what I was able to watch regularly was syndicated fare -- a lot of Japanese imports -- and this pretty much continued once we moved to a nearby town. Oh, we did get the major networks once we threw off rural life for urban, but it was the early 1970's, and the landscape for TV was vastly different than what it is today.
But a popular morning children's program out of Chicago actually used episodes of the original SciFi serial Flash Gordon as part of its downtime for the host to prepare for his next segment. If I remember correctly, these clips were wildly edited -- the usual 25 minute chapter was probably cut down to 10-15 minutes -- so there was occasionally a bit of confusion about what happened here and there. Still, all of the good bits -- spaceships, lasers, aliens, etc. -- were preserved ... and this was my first introduction to the work of Buster Crabbe.
Thankfully, that Chicago station obviously had the Flash Gordon serials in their paid collection, and they'd occasionally run the movie-length edited versions on either Friday night or -- even better -- Saturday morning. Crabbe was a natural lead, exuding the kind of machismo that our society seems to want to leave behind these days; but back then it was pitch perfect for the guy facing down the nefarious Ming the Merciless who wanted to destroy our world. Sorry, kids, you can think what you like, but you don't defeat that level of villainy by using hashtags. Sometimes, you gotta get your hands dirty, and Crabbe performed admirably.
Though I don't recall where I read it, I do remember stumbling across a quote attributed to Crabbe regarding the 1980 version of Flash Gordon: it stated that he had seen the film and wasn't impressed. Seeing as to how much I love that film as well, I'd still never take the man to task over his opinion. After all, he was there back in the day of Flash's true theatrical beginnings, so if there's anyone who's entitled to his take on All Things Flash it's him. Respect your elders, kids. Truer words were never spoken.
Crabbe was born on this day in 1908, and he left us back in 1983, only a few short years after playing a 'Brigadier Gordon' aboard one of the earlier episodes of TV's Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. Insiders know how fitting an appearance that was (fictional name included) given the fact that the actor played not only Gordon but also he starred as Buck Rogers in the 1939 SciFi serial. I've read his casting was meant to bring his fans along for the ride as another space hero ... and again I say "Who can blame him?" It was a genius move.
If you've never seen the entire run of any of the Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers serials, then I encourage you to do so. Of course, they're a bit dated by today's standards, but I've always found them a bit of genius storytelling from the earlier days of Hollywood.
That's today's SciFi Moment.
As always, thank for you reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Being born in the mid-1960's and spending the first few years on a Midwestern farm, I was very limited on what was available on television. We didn't have cable, and back in the day our tall outdoor TV antenna only provided a handful of small stations. As I've mentioned before, much of what I was able to watch regularly was syndicated fare -- a lot of Japanese imports -- and this pretty much continued once we moved to a nearby town. Oh, we did get the major networks once we threw off rural life for urban, but it was the early 1970's, and the landscape for TV was vastly different than what it is today.
But a popular morning children's program out of Chicago actually used episodes of the original SciFi serial Flash Gordon as part of its downtime for the host to prepare for his next segment. If I remember correctly, these clips were wildly edited -- the usual 25 minute chapter was probably cut down to 10-15 minutes -- so there was occasionally a bit of confusion about what happened here and there. Still, all of the good bits -- spaceships, lasers, aliens, etc. -- were preserved ... and this was my first introduction to the work of Buster Crabbe.
Thankfully, that Chicago station obviously had the Flash Gordon serials in their paid collection, and they'd occasionally run the movie-length edited versions on either Friday night or -- even better -- Saturday morning. Crabbe was a natural lead, exuding the kind of machismo that our society seems to want to leave behind these days; but back then it was pitch perfect for the guy facing down the nefarious Ming the Merciless who wanted to destroy our world. Sorry, kids, you can think what you like, but you don't defeat that level of villainy by using hashtags. Sometimes, you gotta get your hands dirty, and Crabbe performed admirably.
Though I don't recall where I read it, I do remember stumbling across a quote attributed to Crabbe regarding the 1980 version of Flash Gordon: it stated that he had seen the film and wasn't impressed. Seeing as to how much I love that film as well, I'd still never take the man to task over his opinion. After all, he was there back in the day of Flash's true theatrical beginnings, so if there's anyone who's entitled to his take on All Things Flash it's him. Respect your elders, kids. Truer words were never spoken.
Crabbe was born on this day in 1908, and he left us back in 1983, only a few short years after playing a 'Brigadier Gordon' aboard one of the earlier episodes of TV's Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. Insiders know how fitting an appearance that was (fictional name included) given the fact that the actor played not only Gordon but also he starred as Buck Rogers in the 1939 SciFi serial. I've read his casting was meant to bring his fans along for the ride as another space hero ... and again I say "Who can blame him?" It was a genius move.
If you've never seen the entire run of any of the Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers serials, then I encourage you to do so. Of course, they're a bit dated by today's standards, but I've always found them a bit of genius storytelling from the earlier days of Hollywood.
That's today's SciFi Moment.
As always, thank for you reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Has there been a better time in human history to enjoy some quality binge streaming?
It would seem that every outlet possible has gotten into the business of creating content all of its own, but Netflix still seems to remain the gold standard. I’ve only begun to explore some of their impressive catalogue, and I’ve had a few solid recommendations from their portal. One of the hot properties right now is a little something something I’d read about called Archive 81: having just finished viewing it over the weekend (with the wifey), I thought I’d put up a few thoughts. Mind you, this won’t be a full review as I don’t quite think the show merits it: that’s not an insult but rather an admission that I probably don’t have enough reflection on it to justify a full review. (Its ending is a bit – erm – confusing?) Should that change and I decide to rewatch it (extremely unlikely at this point), maybe I’ll do an individual episode breakdown the way I have with other shows. But right now? This’ll have to do.
For those unaware, Archive 81 is a Horror/Fantasy (with some very, very light Science Fiction elements) that involves Dan Turner (played by Mamoudou Athie), a video archivist who’s hired to restore a series of old tapes recently discovered and thought to have been destroyed in a fire. The recordings all center around budding investigative journalist Melody Pendras (Dina Shihabi) and her efforts to uncover a mystery surrounding the curious Visser Building, an apartment building destroyed by fire and linked to a possible cult. As fate would have it, Turner and Pendras are linked by a shared history … but I won’t spoil it for those either in the process of watching the show or those yet to have found it. Suffice it to say, their shared background figures prominently into nearly all of the show’s various character arcs.
Interestingly enough, I’ve read that Archive 81 is actually a program derived from a podcast, an audio show that’s described as being one of those ‘found footage’ shows that lasted three seasons and appears to have involved different storylines. Director James Wan is attached as executive producer, and the man definitely knows a few things about bringing serious frights to audiences as he’s done previously with projects like Saw (2004), The Conjuring (2013), and Malignant (2021). Other stars of the show include Evan Jonigkeit, Julia Chan, Matt McGorry, and Martin Donovan.
An awful lot has been written about Archive 81 to date, as the show continues to be a hot property for the streaming giant. Much ado has been made about the show’s structure (it’s part found footage, part conventional drama); while a great deal of it has been complimentary about the premise, I’ve found critics struggling a bit to praise the substance of the central mystery, probably because there a bits obviously still obscured after digesting its eight episode first season. I’d argue that it’s still a show worth watching – flaws and all – as there’s enough chocked between the start and the finish to keep most folks glued to their sets in much the way Turner is glued to his.
However, I’m also comfortable with pointing out a couple of problems I’ve encountered along the way.
It would seem that every outlet possible has gotten into the business of creating content all of its own, but Netflix still seems to remain the gold standard. I’ve only begun to explore some of their impressive catalogue, and I’ve had a few solid recommendations from their portal. One of the hot properties right now is a little something something I’d read about called Archive 81: having just finished viewing it over the weekend (with the wifey), I thought I’d put up a few thoughts. Mind you, this won’t be a full review as I don’t quite think the show merits it: that’s not an insult but rather an admission that I probably don’t have enough reflection on it to justify a full review. (Its ending is a bit – erm – confusing?) Should that change and I decide to rewatch it (extremely unlikely at this point), maybe I’ll do an individual episode breakdown the way I have with other shows. But right now? This’ll have to do.
For those unaware, Archive 81 is a Horror/Fantasy (with some very, very light Science Fiction elements) that involves Dan Turner (played by Mamoudou Athie), a video archivist who’s hired to restore a series of old tapes recently discovered and thought to have been destroyed in a fire. The recordings all center around budding investigative journalist Melody Pendras (Dina Shihabi) and her efforts to uncover a mystery surrounding the curious Visser Building, an apartment building destroyed by fire and linked to a possible cult. As fate would have it, Turner and Pendras are linked by a shared history … but I won’t spoil it for those either in the process of watching the show or those yet to have found it. Suffice it to say, their shared background figures prominently into nearly all of the show’s various character arcs.
Interestingly enough, I’ve read that Archive 81 is actually a program derived from a podcast, an audio show that’s described as being one of those ‘found footage’ shows that lasted three seasons and appears to have involved different storylines. Director James Wan is attached as executive producer, and the man definitely knows a few things about bringing serious frights to audiences as he’s done previously with projects like Saw (2004), The Conjuring (2013), and Malignant (2021). Other stars of the show include Evan Jonigkeit, Julia Chan, Matt McGorry, and Martin Donovan.
An awful lot has been written about Archive 81 to date, as the show continues to be a hot property for the streaming giant. Much ado has been made about the show’s structure (it’s part found footage, part conventional drama); while a great deal of it has been complimentary about the premise, I’ve found critics struggling a bit to praise the substance of the central mystery, probably because there a bits obviously still obscured after digesting its eight episode first season. I’d argue that it’s still a show worth watching – flaws and all – as there’s enough chocked between the start and the finish to keep most folks glued to their sets in much the way Turner is glued to his.
However, I’m also comfortable with pointing out a couple of problems I’ve encountered along the way.
As is often the downside to tapestries involving multiple threads, not all mysteries are created equal. Archive 81 has one major through-line – namely, what really happened all of those years ago at the Visser Building – and quite possibly five or six sub-plots. (Yes, they’re all related, but they’re not all interesting.) When you’re weaving with all of those threads, it’s pretty obvious that not everything is going to get equal exploration; so, as a consequence, the show feels a bit bloated from time-to-time. (Honestly, there were parts around episodes five or six that I wondered aloud, ‘Where are all these new bits heading?’) At eight episodes long, I sensed a bit of fluff that could’ve easily been trimmed; I couldn’t help wondering if material was being added in order to get the piece to a requested eight hours or were the showrunners angling for a second season pick-up and expanding the story unnecessarily. It’s hard to tell.
Much like ABC TV’s treacherous Lost, Archive 81 spends a fair amount of time heading down rabbit holes that essentially appear to go nowhere. Some of this is owed to the fact that found footage stories only work effectively if there’s plenty of narrative misdirect, and the show spends some time pointing fingers in directions where storytellers want you to look, perhaps expecting you to find more there than they’ve revealed (or, maybe, don’t have plans on revealing). It’s in my nature – as a storyteller and viewer – to naturally suspect screenwriters who introduce a character but then give little supporting reason for this person to even exist in this show: there are a few of these in 81 (I won’t name them because one or two do figure into the finale), and they become easy targets in some of the show’s more predictable potboiler moments.
Lastly, Archive 81 at its core bears a huge similarity (so far as this reviewer is concerned) to Netflix’s other popular streaming property, Stranger Things … so much so that I’m surprised the network picked it up. Things’ Upside-Down World is, thematically, a bit deeper and darker than 81’s Otherworld; but they appear to be grounded in similar storytelling ideas involving twisted perceptions, precarious influences, and secret beings. Granted, 81’s is a bit more intellectually driven, but I’d still call them ‘brothers from another mother,’ if you understand the phrase.
As I said, I don’t at this point intend a full review; I just wanted to put up a few thoughts regarding the show and the experience of watching it. As of today’s date, Netflix hasn’t renewed it for a second season – I suspect they will – but 81’s creator and showrunner Rebecca Shonnenshine has already teased online that there were a few threads only dropped in Season 1 that were prepping for the direction they were taking with a second. I think that’s good because the finale really raised far more questions than she answered across the smattering of episodes delivered; and I, for one, would really like a better explanation of what the Hell just happened.
-- EZ
Much like ABC TV’s treacherous Lost, Archive 81 spends a fair amount of time heading down rabbit holes that essentially appear to go nowhere. Some of this is owed to the fact that found footage stories only work effectively if there’s plenty of narrative misdirect, and the show spends some time pointing fingers in directions where storytellers want you to look, perhaps expecting you to find more there than they’ve revealed (or, maybe, don’t have plans on revealing). It’s in my nature – as a storyteller and viewer – to naturally suspect screenwriters who introduce a character but then give little supporting reason for this person to even exist in this show: there are a few of these in 81 (I won’t name them because one or two do figure into the finale), and they become easy targets in some of the show’s more predictable potboiler moments.
Lastly, Archive 81 at its core bears a huge similarity (so far as this reviewer is concerned) to Netflix’s other popular streaming property, Stranger Things … so much so that I’m surprised the network picked it up. Things’ Upside-Down World is, thematically, a bit deeper and darker than 81’s Otherworld; but they appear to be grounded in similar storytelling ideas involving twisted perceptions, precarious influences, and secret beings. Granted, 81’s is a bit more intellectually driven, but I’d still call them ‘brothers from another mother,’ if you understand the phrase.
As I said, I don’t at this point intend a full review; I just wanted to put up a few thoughts regarding the show and the experience of watching it. As of today’s date, Netflix hasn’t renewed it for a second season – I suspect they will – but 81’s creator and showrunner Rebecca Shonnenshine has already teased online that there were a few threads only dropped in Season 1 that were prepping for the direction they were taking with a second. I think that’s good because the finale really raised far more questions than she answered across the smattering of episodes delivered; and I, for one, would really like a better explanation of what the Hell just happened.
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve always cautioned that independent films are – in all honesty – probably not meant for every audience.
Typically, indie films are a bit rougher, maybe even a bit cruder. Indies might cut corners in a few ways that most viewers find hard to accept. The nature of low-budget storytelling is that not everything is going to get the kind of resources or attention most audiences have grown used to; and – as a consequence – I’m slow to endorse them unless there’s a very clear through-line about the film’s central message. Now, don’t get me wrong: I’ll still watch them, and I’ll happily still chat them up in the circles I control – like my website – but I’m hesitant to put them up against a mainstream counterpart because they’re a generally a completely different experience.
And because indie films are made outside the construct of the studio system, they do tend to be a bit more authentic as individual yarns are spun. That may not mean that they’re more realistic; but they stick to an aesthetic that like-minded folks can appreciate more than the members of mainstream society.
Well, every now and then one comes along that kinda/sorta defies every convention; and it gets hard to crystallize what the story was truly about. Such is the case with director David Buchanan and screenwriter Paul Papadeas’ Laguna Ave, a bizarre mind trip that’s part slacker comedy, part cyberpunk, and part Tech Noir. While I think everyone involved had a particular message in mind when they put this thing together, I’m completely at a loss to discern what that was … but maybe that’s what they intended after all.
(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:
“A disaffected former musician with a prosthetic hand is drawn into the mysterious and sinister world of his downstairs neighbor.”
I’ve been wrong before. I’ll likely be wrong again. But in my humble opinion Laguna Ave is one of those rare experimental films that can be about practically anything you want it to be.
At its core, Laguna Ave bears only a passing arthouse-style similarity to the works of, say, James Cameron, who rather famously brought what Science Fiction purists call ‘Tech Noir’ into the modern era. For the uninitiated, Tech Noir is a particular subset of SciFi that explores the pure and unbridled dangers inherent when technology becomes the destructive cultural force many see it to be. The term is meant to be a combination of ‘Noir’ sensibilities with SciFi films; and, though Laguna reasonably touches on ideas relating to how pervasive technology might push us in the direction of dystopia, the themes are a bit undercooked as they’re presented through the lens of mostly slacker characters.
Take Russell (played by Russell Steinberg) as an example. An unfortunate accident involved with his playing in a band has left him (largely) unable to play music any longer (oh, the irony of losing a hand!), and he’s since refocused his talents in the field of film editing. But his inability to stay awake on the job now finds him gainfully unemployed, a development that puts him at odds with his live-in girlfriend, Rita (Stephanie Brait). Russell can’t seem to solve any of the problems in his otherwise semi-ordinary life, and his disillusionment is driving a wedge between him and the girl of his current dreams.
Typically, indie films are a bit rougher, maybe even a bit cruder. Indies might cut corners in a few ways that most viewers find hard to accept. The nature of low-budget storytelling is that not everything is going to get the kind of resources or attention most audiences have grown used to; and – as a consequence – I’m slow to endorse them unless there’s a very clear through-line about the film’s central message. Now, don’t get me wrong: I’ll still watch them, and I’ll happily still chat them up in the circles I control – like my website – but I’m hesitant to put them up against a mainstream counterpart because they’re a generally a completely different experience.
And because indie films are made outside the construct of the studio system, they do tend to be a bit more authentic as individual yarns are spun. That may not mean that they’re more realistic; but they stick to an aesthetic that like-minded folks can appreciate more than the members of mainstream society.
Well, every now and then one comes along that kinda/sorta defies every convention; and it gets hard to crystallize what the story was truly about. Such is the case with director David Buchanan and screenwriter Paul Papadeas’ Laguna Ave, a bizarre mind trip that’s part slacker comedy, part cyberpunk, and part Tech Noir. While I think everyone involved had a particular message in mind when they put this thing together, I’m completely at a loss to discern what that was … but maybe that’s what they intended after all.
(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:
“A disaffected former musician with a prosthetic hand is drawn into the mysterious and sinister world of his downstairs neighbor.”
I’ve been wrong before. I’ll likely be wrong again. But in my humble opinion Laguna Ave is one of those rare experimental films that can be about practically anything you want it to be.
At its core, Laguna Ave bears only a passing arthouse-style similarity to the works of, say, James Cameron, who rather famously brought what Science Fiction purists call ‘Tech Noir’ into the modern era. For the uninitiated, Tech Noir is a particular subset of SciFi that explores the pure and unbridled dangers inherent when technology becomes the destructive cultural force many see it to be. The term is meant to be a combination of ‘Noir’ sensibilities with SciFi films; and, though Laguna reasonably touches on ideas relating to how pervasive technology might push us in the direction of dystopia, the themes are a bit undercooked as they’re presented through the lens of mostly slacker characters.
Take Russell (played by Russell Steinberg) as an example. An unfortunate accident involved with his playing in a band has left him (largely) unable to play music any longer (oh, the irony of losing a hand!), and he’s since refocused his talents in the field of film editing. But his inability to stay awake on the job now finds him gainfully unemployed, a development that puts him at odds with his live-in girlfriend, Rita (Stephanie Brait). Russell can’t seem to solve any of the problems in his otherwise semi-ordinary life, and his disillusionment is driving a wedge between him and the girl of his current dreams.
Into this equation comes a curious downstairs neighbor: the enigmatic Gary (James Markham Hall, Jr.) wears a slick suit, speaks with a theatrical cadence, and knows precisely how to command a room. As he inserts himself into Russell’s circle of friends, it gradually becomes clear that he’s seen the unemployed sad sack as a bit of a ‘contemporary,’ one who might just see the world through the same jaundiced eyes. For in Gary’s universe, everyone is operating from a secret agenda – one that might be tied to the growth of technology at the hands of the Illuminati – and he seeks to instead find a way to merge with said tech in order to get one step ahead of everyone else.
In the process?
Well, Gary might be secretly leaving a trail of bodies.
Being perfectly blunt, Gary and Russell’s relationship is the only one in all of this that makes perfect sense. In a way, they’re opposites – Gary’s a tall, lean, and athletic specimen while Russ is a dour, paunchy couch potato – so it’s easily understandable how one might be drawn to the other. Gary sees his inferior as one who not only can be drawn into his ideology but also made better through technology: just as he’s been augmenting his own body to stay ahead of the future race, Gary supplies Russ with a robotic hand – an immense, oversized, cartoonish robotic hand – and the failed musician becomes smitten with his newfound power.
Still, Laguna Ave is a dish that’s hard to swallow at times. It tinkers with an awful lot of ideas – almost in a stream of consciousness kind of narrative – but never quite passes judgment on any of them. Though it’s clear that this duo is driven by an unhealthy obsession with paranoia, I’d stop short of suggesting either of them fail in their separate quests because nothing is clearly spelled out. Like Gary, we eventually learn that even Rita has been operating from a false position (I won’t spoil it as it ties in nicely with the film’s second half); but there’s still no consequence for any falsehood. Even Gary’s fate is left a bit open for interpretation (again, won’t spoil it), but I kept looking for a solid message only to come up short in all instances.
That’s not to say that the picture is flawed. It just felt incomplete to me. Its final moments defy any conventional explanation – certainly not any that I can make – and even hints that, perhaps, Gary was right all along. Unless it’s followed up upon, I’ve no way to know for certain … and I always term that a ‘lost opportunity’ in storytelling. While I’m ok with figuring out what to think about a project, I do prefer flicks that tell me what the screenwriter, director, and talent thought about their messages … and this Laguna has no specific address.
Laguna Ave (2021) was produced by House Angus Productions. The film is currently available for streaming on the Arrow Video Player.
Recommended … but hey hey hey!!! This film is not going to be for everyone. Laguna Ave is a kind of gonzo, low-budget, guerilla-filmmaking experience, and it’s one that flirts with a handful of ideas but never quite centers on any of them. Is it a statement on our times? Yes and no. Is it a comment on our unsafe reliance on technology? Well, it could be, but maybe not. Is it a cautionary tale about the dangers of deadbeat neighbors? Well … I think you see where I’m heading with this. I’m not convinced it's supposed to be about anything; maybe – like its weird cast of characters – it’s only meant to be until it's not … and there’s nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Laguna Ave (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
In the process?
Well, Gary might be secretly leaving a trail of bodies.
Being perfectly blunt, Gary and Russell’s relationship is the only one in all of this that makes perfect sense. In a way, they’re opposites – Gary’s a tall, lean, and athletic specimen while Russ is a dour, paunchy couch potato – so it’s easily understandable how one might be drawn to the other. Gary sees his inferior as one who not only can be drawn into his ideology but also made better through technology: just as he’s been augmenting his own body to stay ahead of the future race, Gary supplies Russ with a robotic hand – an immense, oversized, cartoonish robotic hand – and the failed musician becomes smitten with his newfound power.
Still, Laguna Ave is a dish that’s hard to swallow at times. It tinkers with an awful lot of ideas – almost in a stream of consciousness kind of narrative – but never quite passes judgment on any of them. Though it’s clear that this duo is driven by an unhealthy obsession with paranoia, I’d stop short of suggesting either of them fail in their separate quests because nothing is clearly spelled out. Like Gary, we eventually learn that even Rita has been operating from a false position (I won’t spoil it as it ties in nicely with the film’s second half); but there’s still no consequence for any falsehood. Even Gary’s fate is left a bit open for interpretation (again, won’t spoil it), but I kept looking for a solid message only to come up short in all instances.
That’s not to say that the picture is flawed. It just felt incomplete to me. Its final moments defy any conventional explanation – certainly not any that I can make – and even hints that, perhaps, Gary was right all along. Unless it’s followed up upon, I’ve no way to know for certain … and I always term that a ‘lost opportunity’ in storytelling. While I’m ok with figuring out what to think about a project, I do prefer flicks that tell me what the screenwriter, director, and talent thought about their messages … and this Laguna has no specific address.
Laguna Ave (2021) was produced by House Angus Productions. The film is currently available for streaming on the Arrow Video Player.
Recommended … but hey hey hey!!! This film is not going to be for everyone. Laguna Ave is a kind of gonzo, low-budget, guerilla-filmmaking experience, and it’s one that flirts with a handful of ideas but never quite centers on any of them. Is it a statement on our times? Yes and no. Is it a comment on our unsafe reliance on technology? Well, it could be, but maybe not. Is it a cautionary tale about the dangers of deadbeat neighbors? Well … I think you see where I’m heading with this. I’m not convinced it's supposed to be about anything; maybe – like its weird cast of characters – it’s only meant to be until it's not … and there’s nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Laguna Ave (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