- Published on
Have you ever had one of those films that you truly loved … right up until the last second? Yes, I suspect we’ve all experienced this phenomenon.
Generally, a last-minute twist implies that – if you weren’t watching closely – you’re not going to appreciate where the story ultimately goes, much less care whether or not that train is even still on the tracks. M. Night Shyamalan has built an entire career on ripping the rug out on you in the last reel. Programs like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits managed to turn in season after season of such curious fare, but it’s been my experience that their reveals usually were within one’s grasp if you were paying attention or asked yourself the right questions.
Broadcast Signal Intrusion tries to accomplish some of the same, but it’s a vastly more psychological story than it is anything else. This cautionary tale about what motivates us to seek out and answer our own life’s personal mysteries works exceedingly well up until those final moments. Some might find them controversial, and some might find them lazy. But if you’re reading this, then you’re likely interested in knowing what I thought about it … and the best I can say is that – like spoiling the effect of a good cocktail – director Jacob Gentry killed my buzz.
(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: “For three years, James has been haunted by his wife’s sudden and inexplicable disappearance. His best distraction is work – specifically, archiving old videos. While watching decade-aged TV news footage one night, he sees a video interference that’s deeply disturbing. And it’s not the only interference he’ll see. As his obsession over these strange clips increases, and he submerges himself into their mysteries, James discovers troubling connections to his missing wife. Which will these broadcast intrusions bring him, though: long-desired answers or a never-ending nightmare?”
Trust me: I love a good conspiracy theory. Always have. Likely always will. However, having read countless books exploring some of the most bizarre conspiracies that have emerged from the past few hundred years of what we’re supposed to call ‘human civilization,’ I can tell you one thing assuredly: the more you think about any hypothesis, the more likely it becomes that you can tie it to yourself.
And I think that’s a truth somehow near and dear to why so many folks are swept up in the latest craze: without a whole lot of effort, it’s easy to deduce that you or someone you know or perhaps even someone from your family tree might be linked to the wildest notions. Which among us wouldn’t want – in some small way – to become a part of history? To transcend the ordinary and become part and parcel of what might be written down and preserved for decades? Perhaps even taught to like-minded souls once your role in it has been exposed?
Generally, a last-minute twist implies that – if you weren’t watching closely – you’re not going to appreciate where the story ultimately goes, much less care whether or not that train is even still on the tracks. M. Night Shyamalan has built an entire career on ripping the rug out on you in the last reel. Programs like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits managed to turn in season after season of such curious fare, but it’s been my experience that their reveals usually were within one’s grasp if you were paying attention or asked yourself the right questions.
Broadcast Signal Intrusion tries to accomplish some of the same, but it’s a vastly more psychological story than it is anything else. This cautionary tale about what motivates us to seek out and answer our own life’s personal mysteries works exceedingly well up until those final moments. Some might find them controversial, and some might find them lazy. But if you’re reading this, then you’re likely interested in knowing what I thought about it … and the best I can say is that – like spoiling the effect of a good cocktail – director Jacob Gentry killed my buzz.
(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: “For three years, James has been haunted by his wife’s sudden and inexplicable disappearance. His best distraction is work – specifically, archiving old videos. While watching decade-aged TV news footage one night, he sees a video interference that’s deeply disturbing. And it’s not the only interference he’ll see. As his obsession over these strange clips increases, and he submerges himself into their mysteries, James discovers troubling connections to his missing wife. Which will these broadcast intrusions bring him, though: long-desired answers or a never-ending nightmare?”
Trust me: I love a good conspiracy theory. Always have. Likely always will. However, having read countless books exploring some of the most bizarre conspiracies that have emerged from the past few hundred years of what we’re supposed to call ‘human civilization,’ I can tell you one thing assuredly: the more you think about any hypothesis, the more likely it becomes that you can tie it to yourself.
And I think that’s a truth somehow near and dear to why so many folks are swept up in the latest craze: without a whole lot of effort, it’s easy to deduce that you or someone you know or perhaps even someone from your family tree might be linked to the wildest notions. Which among us wouldn’t want – in some small way – to become a part of history? To transcend the ordinary and become part and parcel of what might be written down and preserved for decades? Perhaps even taught to like-minded souls once your role in it has been exposed?
As much as some might be inclined to make more of Broadcast Signal Intrusion, I can’t help but think that’s the only truth in here, other than some very good character moments experienced by James (played by Glee’s Harry Shum Jr., in a great break-out style performance that ought to lead to more opportunities). He’s found something that finally pulls him out of the doldrums of his forced isolation, and – for better or for worse – he’s decided to invest all of himself in a trip that might ultimately take him to the proverbial Looney Bin. It’s a descent into madness – the kind that can’t be stopped once you’ve crossed a line – and no amount of kind words or supportive phrases are likely to bring him back after he’s stepped over the edge.
Now, I’ll agree with any contingent of the audience that suggests perhaps this Intrusion could’ve – ahem – ended a bit differently. As much as I found it interesting, it also serves to kinda/sorta disconnect the viewer from experiencing the film. (Without spoiling it, let me clarify it this way: I hate split-screening – the act of showing two different locations in a single frame – because it pulls me out of the story, reminding me that I’m watching a film. To me, that kills the mood, and it kinda/sorta defeats my identifying with characters because they’re no longer authentic but human props to a director and screenwriter.) Think of it as an intrusion within an intrusion, and maybe you can even understand that I’m not a big fan of breaking that fourth wall (between the film and me). I think I understand what was narratively being said, but because moments like this are always subject to interpretation, maybe I don’t after all.
There are other ways of handling this style of ending, the one meant to leave an audience grasping for meaning but left to fill-in-the-blank on their own. One prominent example would be Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974), a flick that saw Gene Hackman’s Harry Caul questioning just how he could’ve been one-upped in a profession he’s been alleged said to be the very best at. Coppola’s finale saw Harry clearly dealing with a true psychological unraveling, but the particulars of what it meant to him internally (even how it happened) was subject to any viewer’s deductive prowess. By contrast, I found Intrusion’s chilling last scenes a bit too vague for its own good, possibly even suggesting I hadn’t seen what I just watched. What Coppola did was genius; what director Gentry did here felt like a failed ‘gotcha’ moment, really only thumbing the picture’s nose at me for spending 104 minutes with it.
That’s the real crime here. I was mesmerized by so much of this. The writing was sharp, and the performances were very, very good. Shum Jr. is a revelation here, underplaying most of his moments with just the right skepticism; he truly sells the substance of this evolving mystery, and I think his work here deserves praise. Kelley Mack does fabulous work as a kinda/sorta confidante who may or may not have something to hide. Even the bit workers in here hit their marks in such a way as to make the central mystery eerily compelling.
Still, it only took a matter of creative seconds to rip the curtain away with the reminder, “Don’t worry. It’s only a movie.”
Broadcast Signal Intrusion (2021) is produced by Queensbury Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications? This one looks and sounds very good … well, except for a few produced bits that were made to be a bit sub-par (you’ll understand when you see it). As for the special features? Well, there is a commentary, but I’m putting that off for a few days before I partake of it as I’m still pondering a full rewatch in order to hone it a bit more on what I thought of its finale.
Mildly Recommended.
Again, I’ve no problem saying right up front the Broadcast Signal Intrusion will likely frustrate as many folks as it intrigues, but that’s the risk of capturing a particular story with a particular framework capped off with a particular ending. Yes, some folks like stories to end with a kind of nebulousness that serves as cocktail topic fodder, but I’m of a variety of viewers who like the storyteller to hit the nail on the head and not leave me to figure some of the equations out for posterity’s sake. Still, I’d push back against those who found it a ‘lazy’ ending: no doubt those involved intended for you to have to think about this one a bit. Me? I’ve already got enough on my mind to worry about … and now you put the fate of Harry Shum Jr. on my platter? Good grief!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a complimentary DVD of Broadcast Signal Intrusion 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
Now, I’ll agree with any contingent of the audience that suggests perhaps this Intrusion could’ve – ahem – ended a bit differently. As much as I found it interesting, it also serves to kinda/sorta disconnect the viewer from experiencing the film. (Without spoiling it, let me clarify it this way: I hate split-screening – the act of showing two different locations in a single frame – because it pulls me out of the story, reminding me that I’m watching a film. To me, that kills the mood, and it kinda/sorta defeats my identifying with characters because they’re no longer authentic but human props to a director and screenwriter.) Think of it as an intrusion within an intrusion, and maybe you can even understand that I’m not a big fan of breaking that fourth wall (between the film and me). I think I understand what was narratively being said, but because moments like this are always subject to interpretation, maybe I don’t after all.
There are other ways of handling this style of ending, the one meant to leave an audience grasping for meaning but left to fill-in-the-blank on their own. One prominent example would be Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974), a flick that saw Gene Hackman’s Harry Caul questioning just how he could’ve been one-upped in a profession he’s been alleged said to be the very best at. Coppola’s finale saw Harry clearly dealing with a true psychological unraveling, but the particulars of what it meant to him internally (even how it happened) was subject to any viewer’s deductive prowess. By contrast, I found Intrusion’s chilling last scenes a bit too vague for its own good, possibly even suggesting I hadn’t seen what I just watched. What Coppola did was genius; what director Gentry did here felt like a failed ‘gotcha’ moment, really only thumbing the picture’s nose at me for spending 104 minutes with it.
That’s the real crime here. I was mesmerized by so much of this. The writing was sharp, and the performances were very, very good. Shum Jr. is a revelation here, underplaying most of his moments with just the right skepticism; he truly sells the substance of this evolving mystery, and I think his work here deserves praise. Kelley Mack does fabulous work as a kinda/sorta confidante who may or may not have something to hide. Even the bit workers in here hit their marks in such a way as to make the central mystery eerily compelling.
Still, it only took a matter of creative seconds to rip the curtain away with the reminder, “Don’t worry. It’s only a movie.”
Broadcast Signal Intrusion (2021) is produced by Queensbury Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications? This one looks and sounds very good … well, except for a few produced bits that were made to be a bit sub-par (you’ll understand when you see it). As for the special features? Well, there is a commentary, but I’m putting that off for a few days before I partake of it as I’m still pondering a full rewatch in order to hone it a bit more on what I thought of its finale.
Mildly Recommended.
Again, I’ve no problem saying right up front the Broadcast Signal Intrusion will likely frustrate as many folks as it intrigues, but that’s the risk of capturing a particular story with a particular framework capped off with a particular ending. Yes, some folks like stories to end with a kind of nebulousness that serves as cocktail topic fodder, but I’m of a variety of viewers who like the storyteller to hit the nail on the head and not leave me to figure some of the equations out for posterity’s sake. Still, I’d push back against those who found it a ‘lazy’ ending: no doubt those involved intended for you to have to think about this one a bit. Me? I’ve already got enough on my mind to worry about … and now you put the fate of Harry Shum Jr. on my platter? Good grief!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a complimentary DVD of Broadcast Signal Intrusion 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
Sorry, folks, but I don't game. I've never quite mastered the hand/eye coordination necessary to survive any of the various worlds available to me -- hell, there are days that I can't even do much in this one!!! -- but I'm always intrigued by them. Someone recently shared a post with me regarding a little something something called Star Wars Eclipse, and I thought it worth dropping the trailer in this space.
I've done a bit of Googling, and I can't find any substantive information about it. From what I have read, this is set in the era of the -- cough cough -- High Republic (you can thank Kathleen Kennedy for that), which makes it somewhat well before the era of Luke, Leia, and Han. The trailer doesn't pony up much by way of story -- there are some Jedi and images of ships similar to those from The Phantom Menace -- and it looks to be there's an evil tar that takes human form and poses some dire existential threat to the galaxy's drum and bugle corps. mybe this is Naboo? It kinda/sorta looks like what I'd imagine a Naboo swap meet to be. There are also pirates and Cylon Raiders in it, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, who but the Jedi Council should be consulted in such circumstances? I think that one black fluid creature is the thing that killed Tasha Yar, too, so that can't be good. Hell, it ain't even the right franchise, a testament to Kathleen's 'guiding hand,' I'm sure.
In any event, I won't belabor the point. Those truly interested in knowing a bit more are gonna have to put in the leg work yourselves as this one looks interesting but isn't up my alley.
I've done a bit of Googling, and I can't find any substantive information about it. From what I have read, this is set in the era of the -- cough cough -- High Republic (you can thank Kathleen Kennedy for that), which makes it somewhat well before the era of Luke, Leia, and Han. The trailer doesn't pony up much by way of story -- there are some Jedi and images of ships similar to those from The Phantom Menace -- and it looks to be there's an evil tar that takes human form and poses some dire existential threat to the galaxy's drum and bugle corps. mybe this is Naboo? It kinda/sorta looks like what I'd imagine a Naboo swap meet to be. There are also pirates and Cylon Raiders in it, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, who but the Jedi Council should be consulted in such circumstances? I think that one black fluid creature is the thing that killed Tasha Yar, too, so that can't be good. Hell, it ain't even the right franchise, a testament to Kathleen's 'guiding hand,' I'm sure.
In any event, I won't belabor the point. Those truly interested in knowing a bit more are gonna have to put in the leg work yourselves as this one looks interesting but isn't up my alley.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
I’d once heard it said that, while men build things, women make things.
Honestly, I’ve always considered this statement a bit of twisted semantics run wild. Clearly, both genders have the capabilities to conceive a ‘something’ and follow it through to fruition. Still, one who traffics in gender issues might argue that while a man built a house it is the woman who made it a home; so I try to keep the peace by, instead, considering the inherent value of every completed product. What’s done is done, after all, so staking out either misogynist or feminist poles only serves a debate where most of us see little argument.
Though it took a man to build Frankenstein, the monster needed a woman to complete him.
Now, surely the Monster was complete (in one sense) without a mate. Cobbled together from limbs of the dearly departed, ol’ Frank rose tall and proud off the operating table … but his utter lack of self-control prompted Dr. Frankenstein (and others) to believe domestication is what the beast required most. Why, a mate would give the Monster something to live for, something to share joy with, someone to terrorize villagers with … just as companionship has done for every relationship (ahem) since the dawn of Man.
Well, in one turn of the phrase, these two – for better or for worse – live until death does part them: but it’s far from a happy ending.
As can happen in the wide, wide world of film, other attempts have been made to explore the central Frankenstein mythology of bringing life to lifelessness, but – to my knowledge – it’s rarely centered so heartily on the fairer sex than in Giorgio Ferroni’s Mill Of The Stone Women (1960). This Italian chiller is part-Horror and part-SciFi, and yet it goes ‘all in’ on the big idea that love – as the Beatles said – is all you need. Well, that and a pair of mad geniuses who’ll stop at nothing to bring you back from dead even when that means draining the blood from every fair maiden the village has in the process!
Honestly, I’ve always considered this statement a bit of twisted semantics run wild. Clearly, both genders have the capabilities to conceive a ‘something’ and follow it through to fruition. Still, one who traffics in gender issues might argue that while a man built a house it is the woman who made it a home; so I try to keep the peace by, instead, considering the inherent value of every completed product. What’s done is done, after all, so staking out either misogynist or feminist poles only serves a debate where most of us see little argument.
Though it took a man to build Frankenstein, the monster needed a woman to complete him.
Now, surely the Monster was complete (in one sense) without a mate. Cobbled together from limbs of the dearly departed, ol’ Frank rose tall and proud off the operating table … but his utter lack of self-control prompted Dr. Frankenstein (and others) to believe domestication is what the beast required most. Why, a mate would give the Monster something to live for, something to share joy with, someone to terrorize villagers with … just as companionship has done for every relationship (ahem) since the dawn of Man.
Well, in one turn of the phrase, these two – for better or for worse – live until death does part them: but it’s far from a happy ending.
As can happen in the wide, wide world of film, other attempts have been made to explore the central Frankenstein mythology of bringing life to lifelessness, but – to my knowledge – it’s rarely centered so heartily on the fairer sex than in Giorgio Ferroni’s Mill Of The Stone Women (1960). This Italian chiller is part-Horror and part-SciFi, and yet it goes ‘all in’ on the big idea that love – as the Beatles said – is all you need. Well, that and a pair of mad geniuses who’ll stop at nothing to bring you back from dead even when that means draining the blood from every fair maiden the village has in the process!
(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 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:
“Young art student Hans von Arnam arrives by barge at an old mill to write a monograph about its celebrated sculptures of women in the throes of death and torture, maintained and curated by the mill’s owner, the hermetic Professor Wahl. But when Hans encounters the professor’s beautiful and mysterious daughter Elfie, his own fate becomes inexorably bound up with hers, and with the shocking secret that lies at the heart of the so-called Mill of the Stone Women.”
If you’re looking for a film that offers plenty of food for thought, then this Mill is certainly a solid addition to any genre library. Though it’s not the first Italian Horror feature ever made, it is the very first shot in color, and director Ferroni takes great advantage of the experience in ways big and small from the very first frame up until its bitter, blazing finish. While there is doubtless an essay or two waiting to be penned on such a topic, I’m instead choosing to stay focused on how this re-imagination of Mary Shelley’s immortal Frankenstein might give audiences a fresh perspective on the risks of sacrificing one’s soul in the pursuit of retaining mortality.
Professor Wahl (played by Herbert A.E. Bohme) loves his daughter Elfie (Scilla Gabel) … to a fault. In fact, he’s allowed this unhealthy affection to seep into every facet of his existence, so much so that he’s cut himself and those around him off from anything that seeks to intrude on that relationship. Furthermore, he won’t even allow her passing from this world into the next; whenever she does, he’s coopted what appears to be some very dark science into bringing her back to life each and every time she expires. Based on the evidence suggested, it’s looking like she’s kicked the proverbial bucket more often than the proverbial housecat blessed with nine lives.
From the product packaging:
“Young art student Hans von Arnam arrives by barge at an old mill to write a monograph about its celebrated sculptures of women in the throes of death and torture, maintained and curated by the mill’s owner, the hermetic Professor Wahl. But when Hans encounters the professor’s beautiful and mysterious daughter Elfie, his own fate becomes inexorably bound up with hers, and with the shocking secret that lies at the heart of the so-called Mill of the Stone Women.”
If you’re looking for a film that offers plenty of food for thought, then this Mill is certainly a solid addition to any genre library. Though it’s not the first Italian Horror feature ever made, it is the very first shot in color, and director Ferroni takes great advantage of the experience in ways big and small from the very first frame up until its bitter, blazing finish. While there is doubtless an essay or two waiting to be penned on such a topic, I’m instead choosing to stay focused on how this re-imagination of Mary Shelley’s immortal Frankenstein might give audiences a fresh perspective on the risks of sacrificing one’s soul in the pursuit of retaining mortality.
Professor Wahl (played by Herbert A.E. Bohme) loves his daughter Elfie (Scilla Gabel) … to a fault. In fact, he’s allowed this unhealthy affection to seep into every facet of his existence, so much so that he’s cut himself and those around him off from anything that seeks to intrude on that relationship. Furthermore, he won’t even allow her passing from this world into the next; whenever she does, he’s coopted what appears to be some very dark science into bringing her back to life each and every time she expires. Based on the evidence suggested, it’s looking like she’s kicked the proverbial bucket more often than the proverbial housecat blessed with nine lives.
Much like Dr. Frankenstein in one of the great centerpieces of the Universal Monster Movies Universe, Wahl nurtures an obsession that ultimately will prove his and his creation’s undoing. Instead of grave robbing for his monster, Wahl and his active collaborator Dr. Bohlem (Wolfgang Preiss) employ a procedure that requires the blood of living females; so whenever Elfie expires they’re apt to kidnap some unfortunate local woman. Strapped to a table, their victim is bled out, and this new blood is then transfused into the deceased. While the film never quite comes clean on its science, it somehow reanimates Elfie, and she lives to be the object of her father and (eventually) Bohlem’s lascivious attentions another day.
Ahhh, were that the end of Wahl’s debauchery, then the small village of Veeze might enjoy a more robust population! In order to obscure his murders from scrutiny, the professor has perfected a process wherein he turns his victims into clay sculptures; and these life-sized statues are eventually displayed for all the whole town to see in the musical carousel housed at the base of the windmill in which he resides. This madman not only makes these women serve him in life but also they’ll continue enhancing his professional reputation in death!
As the film’s fictionalized ‘monster,’ Elfie isn’t blissfully unaware of her dire predicament.
She knows all too well what dark deeds her dear father has resorted to in order to preserve her supernatural existence. Despite some suggestions on her part (early on) of her tortured suffering from this cruel, cruel fate, she still nonetheless smiles when she awakens on her hospital gurney following a procedure. (Yes, she actually looks across the surgery room at the dead victim and smiles. You nasty shrew!) Though I found her motivation in the script a bit unclear, Elfie nonetheless acts on her sexual attraction to newcomer Hans. Was her stated misery legitimate? Was she seeking to hide her pain with sex? Or was the lady merely acting out on what she’d learned about the birds and bees somewhere along the way?
As you can guess, the script – IMDB.com’s listing cites an incredible six contributors – could’ve used a bit of polish with respect to Elfie’s motivations in this regard, though other watchers may’ve ‘filled in the blank’ with their own respective opinions. I’ve always tried to avoid this very human tendency, wishing that I could have all my questions answered by those spinning yarns. While I found every other character’s journey in here to have sufficient purpose (or plausibly founded), I can’t help but wonder if this film’s delicate creature was given short shrift precisely because she was meant to be little more than its ‘monster.’ At times evil and at times seemingly caught up in the whims of the manipulative men around her, the real Elfie never quite emerged from the darkness, and – call me silly – I really wanted to know her more. She certainly deserved better from her father, but that wasn’t meant to be.
Ahhh, were that the end of Wahl’s debauchery, then the small village of Veeze might enjoy a more robust population! In order to obscure his murders from scrutiny, the professor has perfected a process wherein he turns his victims into clay sculptures; and these life-sized statues are eventually displayed for all the whole town to see in the musical carousel housed at the base of the windmill in which he resides. This madman not only makes these women serve him in life but also they’ll continue enhancing his professional reputation in death!
As the film’s fictionalized ‘monster,’ Elfie isn’t blissfully unaware of her dire predicament.
She knows all too well what dark deeds her dear father has resorted to in order to preserve her supernatural existence. Despite some suggestions on her part (early on) of her tortured suffering from this cruel, cruel fate, she still nonetheless smiles when she awakens on her hospital gurney following a procedure. (Yes, she actually looks across the surgery room at the dead victim and smiles. You nasty shrew!) Though I found her motivation in the script a bit unclear, Elfie nonetheless acts on her sexual attraction to newcomer Hans. Was her stated misery legitimate? Was she seeking to hide her pain with sex? Or was the lady merely acting out on what she’d learned about the birds and bees somewhere along the way?
As you can guess, the script – IMDB.com’s listing cites an incredible six contributors – could’ve used a bit of polish with respect to Elfie’s motivations in this regard, though other watchers may’ve ‘filled in the blank’ with their own respective opinions. I’ve always tried to avoid this very human tendency, wishing that I could have all my questions answered by those spinning yarns. While I found every other character’s journey in here to have sufficient purpose (or plausibly founded), I can’t help but wonder if this film’s delicate creature was given short shrift precisely because she was meant to be little more than its ‘monster.’ At times evil and at times seemingly caught up in the whims of the manipulative men around her, the real Elfie never quite emerged from the darkness, and – call me silly – I really wanted to know her more. She certainly deserved better from her father, but that wasn’t meant to be.
Mill Of The Stone Women (1960) was produced by C.E.C. Films, Explorer Film ’58, Faro Film, and a few other partners. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the reliable Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? Again, I’m not a video expert (as are so many online these days), but I found this 2K restoration absolutely fabulous: the colors really pop (as is needed in key sequences), and the detail is impressive on this … the very first Italian horror feature shot in color, I might add.
As for the special features?
Arrow Video continues to prove why they’re the gold standard for presenting classic releases these days. The set includes four different cuts of the flick (censors be damned!); I’ve only had the good fortune at this point of making my way through two of them, but the edits are interesting to consider when evaluating precisely how to tell a story visually. Arrow has also restored the Italian and English soundtracks as well as provided new translations for English subtitles on the Italian track. There’s a visual essay on the nature of roles in Gothic horror that’s written and delivered by Kat Ellinger; honestly, it’s a solid listening experience, though one might quibble with a conclusion here and there. There are some archival interviews provided on minidocumentaries as well as some artwork, booklet, and poster-sized photos prepared for collectors. Lastly, there’s an audio commentary from Tim Lucas that’s worth a listen: as can happen when academics are let loose on a subject, he wanders a bit too freely from topic-to-topic, and often times he isn’t so much talking about this film as he is the era, the film’s influences, etc. Still, I enjoyed it more than I usually do the stuffy historian’s lecture, so I encourage others to check it out.
Highly recommended.
I have no problem admitting that Mill Of The Stone Women isn’t going to serve the interests of every audience member who finds it as Horror of the bygone era – especially the more Gothic-inspired entries – seems to have fallen out of favor for any number of reasons. The best reasons to experience this film? Well, my first argument would be that it’s a first – a rare first that’s actually quite good – as Mill is the first uniquely Italian film to be shot in color; and the palate director Ferroni employs in curious ways makes this as much brainwork as it is pleasant on the eyes. Second, I’d offer up that the film explores one of the more fascinating variations on the whole Frankenstein mythos that’s out there (especially from its era). Lastly, having watched this now a few times I’m surprised by how much more I get out of it with each subsequent viewing: clearly, there’s a wealth of potential symbolism and narrative subtext at play in here – far more than most I’ve experienced from the 1960’s – and never let it be said that I’ll snub an intelligent viewing opportunity when I get the chance. Film nerds, this one’s for you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Mill Of The Stone Women (1960) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
As for the special features?
Arrow Video continues to prove why they’re the gold standard for presenting classic releases these days. The set includes four different cuts of the flick (censors be damned!); I’ve only had the good fortune at this point of making my way through two of them, but the edits are interesting to consider when evaluating precisely how to tell a story visually. Arrow has also restored the Italian and English soundtracks as well as provided new translations for English subtitles on the Italian track. There’s a visual essay on the nature of roles in Gothic horror that’s written and delivered by Kat Ellinger; honestly, it’s a solid listening experience, though one might quibble with a conclusion here and there. There are some archival interviews provided on minidocumentaries as well as some artwork, booklet, and poster-sized photos prepared for collectors. Lastly, there’s an audio commentary from Tim Lucas that’s worth a listen: as can happen when academics are let loose on a subject, he wanders a bit too freely from topic-to-topic, and often times he isn’t so much talking about this film as he is the era, the film’s influences, etc. Still, I enjoyed it more than I usually do the stuffy historian’s lecture, so I encourage others to check it out.
Highly recommended.
I have no problem admitting that Mill Of The Stone Women isn’t going to serve the interests of every audience member who finds it as Horror of the bygone era – especially the more Gothic-inspired entries – seems to have fallen out of favor for any number of reasons. The best reasons to experience this film? Well, my first argument would be that it’s a first – a rare first that’s actually quite good – as Mill is the first uniquely Italian film to be shot in color; and the palate director Ferroni employs in curious ways makes this as much brainwork as it is pleasant on the eyes. Second, I’d offer up that the film explores one of the more fascinating variations on the whole Frankenstein mythos that’s out there (especially from its era). Lastly, having watched this now a few times I’m surprised by how much more I get out of it with each subsequent viewing: clearly, there’s a wealth of potential symbolism and narrative subtext at play in here – far more than most I’ve experienced from the 1960’s – and never let it be said that I’ll snub an intelligent viewing opportunity when I get the chance. Film nerds, this one’s for you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Mill Of The Stone Women (1960) 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
Honestly, I entered into watching Raised By Wolves expecting to truly hate it.
I had read some reviews about the Ridley Scott production, and a few of the writers waxed on about how politically-driven the show was. While I don't mind some creative discussions of ideologies, I resent having screenwriters force unpopular ideas either in my face or down my throat. So when I tuned in for the first few episodes, I was surprised at how little discussion there really was on any political issue. Sure, you could perhaps draw your own conclusions about what the show was trying to say in those early moments, but if you hung around longer then you may've realized that your original hypothesis was reaching for straws, if you know that expression.
In my humble opinion, the program really centers more of issues of humanity -- what makes one human, what's part and parcel of accepting a human role in society, etc. -- as opposed to any global climate issue, Conservatism, Progressivism, or the like. While I understand how a thinker and a writer might postulate those conclusions, I could just as easily push back with suggestions of what I see in these characters and their collective circumstance.
I do recall feeling as though the show kinda/sorta shifted gears just a bit in that first season, but that could be perhaps owed to the fact that there were a handful of late developments that changed the focus. Still, I was impressed with the writing and its characters, so here's hoping Season 2 will continue upping the ante for these synthetic people and the youth in their sphere of influence.
The offical trailer for Season 2 dropped recently, and I'm posting it below for those of you interested.
I had read some reviews about the Ridley Scott production, and a few of the writers waxed on about how politically-driven the show was. While I don't mind some creative discussions of ideologies, I resent having screenwriters force unpopular ideas either in my face or down my throat. So when I tuned in for the first few episodes, I was surprised at how little discussion there really was on any political issue. Sure, you could perhaps draw your own conclusions about what the show was trying to say in those early moments, but if you hung around longer then you may've realized that your original hypothesis was reaching for straws, if you know that expression.
In my humble opinion, the program really centers more of issues of humanity -- what makes one human, what's part and parcel of accepting a human role in society, etc. -- as opposed to any global climate issue, Conservatism, Progressivism, or the like. While I understand how a thinker and a writer might postulate those conclusions, I could just as easily push back with suggestions of what I see in these characters and their collective circumstance.
I do recall feeling as though the show kinda/sorta shifted gears just a bit in that first season, but that could be perhaps owed to the fact that there were a handful of late developments that changed the focus. Still, I was impressed with the writing and its characters, so here's hoping Season 2 will continue upping the ante for these synthetic people and the youth in their sphere of influence.
The offical trailer for Season 2 dropped recently, and I'm posting it below for those of you interested.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for anthology shows.
Simply put, I’ve always enjoyed them because they offer audiences more story to absorb across multiple installments, and they’re typically fashioned more as parables (with a message) than they are a narrative (that may go ultimately nowhere of interest). As a result, I get more excited about them than I do the favored long-form storytelling audiences gravitate toward today, and I find it shameful that there’s so little investment in their potential in the current fictional economy. With so many channels out there, do you really expect me to accept that no one would tune in for a new collection of visual fables?
Sigh.
Also as I’ve mentioned recently, Shudder was gracious enough to provide me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Creepshow: Season 2. I’ve had so much fun watching these episodes – which I see as throwbacks to a time when Horror/Fantasy was a bit more relatable as well as accessible to regular ol’ Joes like myself – that I decided instead of ponying up one comprehensive review of the entire season I wanted to pen a few reactions to individual episodes. This way I could highlight some of the bigger and smaller moments more responsibly as a critic and as a fan … which I definitely consider myself.
Enjoy. I think you’ll see how much I did.
(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 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:
“Episode 2: Dead And Breakfast / Pesticide. A marketing plot at a haunted bed and breakfast becomes way too realistic. Then, an exterminator gets more than he bargained for when he takes on a big job.”
Simply put, I’ve always enjoyed them because they offer audiences more story to absorb across multiple installments, and they’re typically fashioned more as parables (with a message) than they are a narrative (that may go ultimately nowhere of interest). As a result, I get more excited about them than I do the favored long-form storytelling audiences gravitate toward today, and I find it shameful that there’s so little investment in their potential in the current fictional economy. With so many channels out there, do you really expect me to accept that no one would tune in for a new collection of visual fables?
Sigh.
Also as I’ve mentioned recently, Shudder was gracious enough to provide me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Creepshow: Season 2. I’ve had so much fun watching these episodes – which I see as throwbacks to a time when Horror/Fantasy was a bit more relatable as well as accessible to regular ol’ Joes like myself – that I decided instead of ponying up one comprehensive review of the entire season I wanted to pen a few reactions to individual episodes. This way I could highlight some of the bigger and smaller moments more responsibly as a critic and as a fan … which I definitely consider myself.
Enjoy. I think you’ll see how much I did.
(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 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:
“Episode 2: Dead And Breakfast / Pesticide. A marketing plot at a haunted bed and breakfast becomes way too realistic. Then, an exterminator gets more than he bargained for when he takes on a big job.”
It’s been suggested that horror anthologies – from time-to-time – take sarcastic swipes at things ordinary folks hold dear, and I suspect – at first blush – that could be one message a viewer takes away from “Dead And Breakfast.” Small-town American bed and breakfasts are often classified as ‘getaways’ for us regular Joes – after all, we’d never afford such Hollywood-priced escapes – so it’s probably fair were one to assume that Michael Rousselet and Erik Sandoval’s script is shooting down such kitsch.
But the problem I’d have with such a conclusion is that, largely, it’s these off-the-beaten-path destinations that often have reputations that perhaps bring out the worst in us. Why, which of us doesn’t want to spend the night in a haunted mansion? Or who among us hasn’t thought about taking a nap in the bed that Lizzie Borden frequented? And how about John Wayne Gacy’s treehouse? Do you really expect me to believe you’re not interested in what he may’ve carved into that trunk? Alas, it’s in our nature to check these things out when we learn of them, so I’d push back on anyone suggesting there’s something more political behind this tale’s particular setting.
Adding to my defense would be the fact that I saw “Dead” more as throwing stones at the current pop culture trend of influencers than anything else. In the guise of ‘Morgue,’ relative newcomer actress Iman Benson shines as the burgeoning phenom who makes her bones exposing the bones behind some of these haunted attractions. It’s a genius little send-up of how reputations work in the modern, tech-driven era; and I found it a pitch perfect clash of the new meeting the old wherein what really matters most is the twist ending no one saw coming.
Besides: if it’s truly evil to make a buck, then we’re all going to Hell anyway.
But the problem I’d have with such a conclusion is that, largely, it’s these off-the-beaten-path destinations that often have reputations that perhaps bring out the worst in us. Why, which of us doesn’t want to spend the night in a haunted mansion? Or who among us hasn’t thought about taking a nap in the bed that Lizzie Borden frequented? And how about John Wayne Gacy’s treehouse? Do you really expect me to believe you’re not interested in what he may’ve carved into that trunk? Alas, it’s in our nature to check these things out when we learn of them, so I’d push back on anyone suggesting there’s something more political behind this tale’s particular setting.
Adding to my defense would be the fact that I saw “Dead” more as throwing stones at the current pop culture trend of influencers than anything else. In the guise of ‘Morgue,’ relative newcomer actress Iman Benson shines as the burgeoning phenom who makes her bones exposing the bones behind some of these haunted attractions. It’s a genius little send-up of how reputations work in the modern, tech-driven era; and I found it a pitch perfect clash of the new meeting the old wherein what really matters most is the twist ending no one saw coming.
Besides: if it’s truly evil to make a buck, then we’re all going to Hell anyway.
The second half of Episode 2 is a little chiller that goes by the name of “Pesticide,” and I suspect that its biggest claim to fame might be the work of Josh McDermitt (of The Walking Dead fame). It’s a curious performance – one fraught with its own highs and lows – but I found it interesting to see the actor try something a bit different from his work on the popular AMC zombie show. While I wasn’t quite sold with his big finish, I thought he handled his character’s circumstances quite nicely.
The downside to “Pesticide” is that it’s a tale fairly common to the wider universe of horror shorts, both new and old. Yes, one might argue that this particular formula is of the tried-and-true variety, but for those of us who’ve been around that represents why it might be a bit too predictable and could’ve used a different twist in the last act. There’s an ambiguousness to just who (or what) Mr. Murdoch (played by the talented Keith David) may be, and tales that center on descents into madness (as a consequence of one’s own action) do kinda/sorta border on preachiness. Is that good or bad? Meh. I leave that to each his own.
Still, performances work, and there’s a gooeyness to some of the effects that might make some cringe (in a good way). The irony of an exterminator meeting his maker in the shape of things he’s killed is certainly fodder for thought. Scripted by Frank Dietz and directed by Greg Nicotero, it’s a bit uneven – and more than a bit unclear – but I suspect it works for most exactly the way intended.
Creepshow: Season 2 is produced by Shudder, The Cartel, AMC Studios, and a few other participating partners. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? This anthology program is produced with tremendous concentration on achieving the best sights and sounds possible; and it shows! It looks fabulous, and the great care in bringing it alive (if not back from the dead) is obvious. As for the special features? This two-disc set all five episodes of the show’s second season (FYI: some episodes are two-parters, delivering two separate stories) as well as a Creepshow animated special; a Creepshow holiday special; a colorful booklet/insert that mirrors the overall look of the show; some behind-the-scenes footage (much of it exclusive to this release); and some reversible sleeve art for those who like that sort of thing. (I’m always iffy on it, but it’s nice to have.)
Highly recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 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
The downside to “Pesticide” is that it’s a tale fairly common to the wider universe of horror shorts, both new and old. Yes, one might argue that this particular formula is of the tried-and-true variety, but for those of us who’ve been around that represents why it might be a bit too predictable and could’ve used a different twist in the last act. There’s an ambiguousness to just who (or what) Mr. Murdoch (played by the talented Keith David) may be, and tales that center on descents into madness (as a consequence of one’s own action) do kinda/sorta border on preachiness. Is that good or bad? Meh. I leave that to each his own.
Still, performances work, and there’s a gooeyness to some of the effects that might make some cringe (in a good way). The irony of an exterminator meeting his maker in the shape of things he’s killed is certainly fodder for thought. Scripted by Frank Dietz and directed by Greg Nicotero, it’s a bit uneven – and more than a bit unclear – but I suspect it works for most exactly the way intended.
Creepshow: Season 2 is produced by Shudder, The Cartel, AMC Studios, and a few other participating partners. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? This anthology program is produced with tremendous concentration on achieving the best sights and sounds possible; and it shows! It looks fabulous, and the great care in bringing it alive (if not back from the dead) is obvious. As for the special features? This two-disc set all five episodes of the show’s second season (FYI: some episodes are two-parters, delivering two separate stories) as well as a Creepshow animated special; a Creepshow holiday special; a colorful booklet/insert that mirrors the overall look of the show; some behind-the-scenes footage (much of it exclusive to this release); and some reversible sleeve art for those who like that sort of thing. (I’m always iffy on it, but it’s nice to have.)
Highly recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 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
As long as I can remember, I've been a fan of Superman.
When I was a young'un, I read the comics. I can remember seeing Superman: The Movie on the silver screen in my youth like it was just yesterday. And though I've had some ups and downs with the various television incarnations of the Man of Steel, I have nothing but praise for the efforts to continue his legacy for fandom throughout the years.
But I have to admit that I'm having a lot of problems with Superman & Lois.
Honestly, it wouldn't be fair for me to wax on about the reasons why the show just kinda/sorta leaves me cold. In fact, I've only watched three episodes of its first season (the rest are just sitting in my DVR's queue). It's not that was unimpressed with it -- so far as I can say -- but rather it's just that I'm really not all that seeing the world's greatest superhero domesticated. Does that make sense to any fellow Superfans out there on the Information Superhighway?
It's like ... say ... Hercules. Hercules is arguably one of the greatest characters from mythology, right? He had all those trials to prove himself worthy, etc., etc., etc. Well, what interest would there be in creating a show about Hercules being, say, a single dad? I get thematically where any creative person might want to go with such a program ... it's just I'm really not all that interested in seeing a part-man/part-god character change diapers.
In any event, I did see that the show's second season will be setting flight soon, so I wanted to share the trailer for those of you following. Check it out, if you're inclined.
When I was a young'un, I read the comics. I can remember seeing Superman: The Movie on the silver screen in my youth like it was just yesterday. And though I've had some ups and downs with the various television incarnations of the Man of Steel, I have nothing but praise for the efforts to continue his legacy for fandom throughout the years.
But I have to admit that I'm having a lot of problems with Superman & Lois.
Honestly, it wouldn't be fair for me to wax on about the reasons why the show just kinda/sorta leaves me cold. In fact, I've only watched three episodes of its first season (the rest are just sitting in my DVR's queue). It's not that was unimpressed with it -- so far as I can say -- but rather it's just that I'm really not all that seeing the world's greatest superhero domesticated. Does that make sense to any fellow Superfans out there on the Information Superhighway?
It's like ... say ... Hercules. Hercules is arguably one of the greatest characters from mythology, right? He had all those trials to prove himself worthy, etc., etc., etc. Well, what interest would there be in creating a show about Hercules being, say, a single dad? I get thematically where any creative person might want to go with such a program ... it's just I'm really not all that interested in seeing a part-man/part-god character change diapers.
In any event, I did see that the show's second season will be setting flight soon, so I wanted to share the trailer for those of you following. Check it out, if you're inclined.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Oh, my goodness, I forget where it was on the wide, wide Information Superhighway; but I vaguely recall trying to broker some peace talks between haters of TNT's adaptation of Snowpiercer.
It must've been a Science Fiction message board or maybe even a Twitter or Facebook thread. The back-and-forth had grown really intense with both sides starting to lash out into personal insult territory. As calmly and courteously as I could, I interjected with a few posts, explaining that I watched the show, I didn't think it was as awful as some (in fact, I find it quite entertaining, but I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea), and I even admitted that I had some trouble getting into Season 1. As can happen from time-to-time, it takes a few episodes for programming to hit a stride and start taking audiences somewhere that looks interesting, especially when we're dealing with life after the Apocalypse, you know what I mean?
Anyway, there was no coaxing folks down from what they perceived as their respective high grounds, and that's a shame. There are plenty of SciFi and Fantasy shows out there I don't like, but I don't wish any of the talent -- before or behind the camera -- any ill will over their efforts. I've always argued that I'd rather have more genre properties than less, and I enter into each new show expecting to dislike it and hoping to be proven wrong. Perhaps that's my age showing, or perhaps it's just my realist attitude. Whatever it may be, it's worked for me for decades, and I'm sticking to it.
In any event, Snowpiercer is returning this January, 2022 for its third season. As I said, Season 1 took a bit to build up steam, but Season 2? That was a huge step forward as the writers really honed in on the class warfare stuff as well as the "science" behind Earth's dire circumstances (or are they?). We even said goodbye to a series regular in a way that made perfect sense, so kudos to those involved for their willingness to take risks as so few shows do that these days.
Trailer is below. You know what to do if you're interested.
It must've been a Science Fiction message board or maybe even a Twitter or Facebook thread. The back-and-forth had grown really intense with both sides starting to lash out into personal insult territory. As calmly and courteously as I could, I interjected with a few posts, explaining that I watched the show, I didn't think it was as awful as some (in fact, I find it quite entertaining, but I realize it's not everyone's cup of tea), and I even admitted that I had some trouble getting into Season 1. As can happen from time-to-time, it takes a few episodes for programming to hit a stride and start taking audiences somewhere that looks interesting, especially when we're dealing with life after the Apocalypse, you know what I mean?
Anyway, there was no coaxing folks down from what they perceived as their respective high grounds, and that's a shame. There are plenty of SciFi and Fantasy shows out there I don't like, but I don't wish any of the talent -- before or behind the camera -- any ill will over their efforts. I've always argued that I'd rather have more genre properties than less, and I enter into each new show expecting to dislike it and hoping to be proven wrong. Perhaps that's my age showing, or perhaps it's just my realist attitude. Whatever it may be, it's worked for me for decades, and I'm sticking to it.
In any event, Snowpiercer is returning this January, 2022 for its third season. As I said, Season 1 took a bit to build up steam, but Season 2? That was a huge step forward as the writers really honed in on the class warfare stuff as well as the "science" behind Earth's dire circumstances (or are they?). We even said goodbye to a series regular in a way that made perfect sense, so kudos to those involved for their willingness to take risks as so few shows do that these days.
Trailer is below. You know what to do if you're interested.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
What’s a niche picture to do?
Have you heard of a niche picture? Basically, a niche film is a product that’s made to satisfy what could arguably be a somewhat limited demand or reasonably specific audience. By definition, a niche is one piece of the whole pie. So, when making a niche film, you’re not angling for the whole pie of the possible viewing audience but only your individual piece – only those interested in your particular subject – so targeting that piece becomes your strategy. Which piece is bigger? Which piece offers the best return on investment? Though I’ve read some academics who classify an independent film as a niche property, I’ve always pushed back against that because my experience has shown that more folks are interested in good drama as opposed to whether or not a motion picture was made in the studio system or not.
At its core, a niche picture is one made to solely capitalize on the interests of sub-section of the total moviegoing audience. For me, workable examples are often identified as novel adaptations: if a book becomes a bestseller, why not adapt it into a film? Certainly, Twilight (2008) and The Hunger Games (2012) have shown the potential of mining the Young Adult book genre for profits, and Peter Jackson’s adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings proved that there’s big money mined from Middle-earth. Another example (albeit smaller in scope) is the slasher movie: while these flicks are generally classified as horror, their respective audiences tend to be a subset of the wider horror audience as not everyone appreciates their thrills and chills in so conventional a fashion.
Still another niche market are video game adaptations.
As these works have only been around for a few decades, I suspect the data on their box office potential remains a bit suspect, but Hollywood mathematicians have been fudging data since before you and I were born! Consequently, producers have been more easily lured with the promise of big returns on a small investment, thinking that everyone who has played a certain game will likely want to see it brought to life on the silver screen. Were that truly the case, I suspect even 1972’s Pong would’ve been delivered in light and shadows – likely starring Russell Crowe facing off against Nicole Kidman with direction from Steven Spielberg – but I’m still waiting for that project to materialize.
In the meantime, Ubisoft has ponied up a little something something called Werewolves Within – an adaptation of a 2016 virtual reality game of the same name – and I’m delighted to give you my thoughts on it after the break.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessarily 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 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:
“New forest ranger Finn arrives in the snowy hamlet of Beaverfield to find the townsfolks divided by a proposed gas pipeline. He befriends mail carrier Cecily who gives him a tour and introduces him to the quirky cast of neighbors. When a snowstorm cuts the power and traps the residents inside the local inn, it falls on Finn and Cecily to try to keep the peace and uncover the truth behind a mysterious creature that has begun terrorizing the community.”
Oh, the struggles of the monster movie!
There used to be a time and a place for them. Back in the days of the Universal Monster Movie Universe – very, very close to the dawn of motion pictures – audiences flocked to them. Dracula. Frankenstein. The Mummy. The Werewolf. Alas, the phenomenon didn’t last but a decade and one-half, until it was miraculously revived when mildly reinvented for a cinematic mash-up with the popular comedy act of the era, Abbott and Costello. This re-introduction brought the monster movie back to life, true, and it continued to evolve in ways that pushed the boundaries of what was possible for the next generation or two.
Somewhere along the way, the monsters waned again in admiration. These things that go bump in the night went out of style, but filmmakers have tried over and over again to bring them back to life in any number of ways. Big budget makeovers – like The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) – certainly added a bit of studio gloss to the equation, but their successes have been the exception and not the rule. In fact, box office mega-star Tom Cruise’s The Mummy (2017) may very well have put this beloved phenomenon back to sleep for tentpole efforts, leaving the properties ripe for smaller(ish), quieter, independent efforts to pick up the baton and run with it.
Enter Werewolves Within (2021), a $6.5 million budgeted ensemble that was released in the summer of 2021.
Have you heard of a niche picture? Basically, a niche film is a product that’s made to satisfy what could arguably be a somewhat limited demand or reasonably specific audience. By definition, a niche is one piece of the whole pie. So, when making a niche film, you’re not angling for the whole pie of the possible viewing audience but only your individual piece – only those interested in your particular subject – so targeting that piece becomes your strategy. Which piece is bigger? Which piece offers the best return on investment? Though I’ve read some academics who classify an independent film as a niche property, I’ve always pushed back against that because my experience has shown that more folks are interested in good drama as opposed to whether or not a motion picture was made in the studio system or not.
At its core, a niche picture is one made to solely capitalize on the interests of sub-section of the total moviegoing audience. For me, workable examples are often identified as novel adaptations: if a book becomes a bestseller, why not adapt it into a film? Certainly, Twilight (2008) and The Hunger Games (2012) have shown the potential of mining the Young Adult book genre for profits, and Peter Jackson’s adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings proved that there’s big money mined from Middle-earth. Another example (albeit smaller in scope) is the slasher movie: while these flicks are generally classified as horror, their respective audiences tend to be a subset of the wider horror audience as not everyone appreciates their thrills and chills in so conventional a fashion.
Still another niche market are video game adaptations.
As these works have only been around for a few decades, I suspect the data on their box office potential remains a bit suspect, but Hollywood mathematicians have been fudging data since before you and I were born! Consequently, producers have been more easily lured with the promise of big returns on a small investment, thinking that everyone who has played a certain game will likely want to see it brought to life on the silver screen. Were that truly the case, I suspect even 1972’s Pong would’ve been delivered in light and shadows – likely starring Russell Crowe facing off against Nicole Kidman with direction from Steven Spielberg – but I’m still waiting for that project to materialize.
In the meantime, Ubisoft has ponied up a little something something called Werewolves Within – an adaptation of a 2016 virtual reality game of the same name – and I’m delighted to give you my thoughts on it after the break.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessarily 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 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:
“New forest ranger Finn arrives in the snowy hamlet of Beaverfield to find the townsfolks divided by a proposed gas pipeline. He befriends mail carrier Cecily who gives him a tour and introduces him to the quirky cast of neighbors. When a snowstorm cuts the power and traps the residents inside the local inn, it falls on Finn and Cecily to try to keep the peace and uncover the truth behind a mysterious creature that has begun terrorizing the community.”
Oh, the struggles of the monster movie!
There used to be a time and a place for them. Back in the days of the Universal Monster Movie Universe – very, very close to the dawn of motion pictures – audiences flocked to them. Dracula. Frankenstein. The Mummy. The Werewolf. Alas, the phenomenon didn’t last but a decade and one-half, until it was miraculously revived when mildly reinvented for a cinematic mash-up with the popular comedy act of the era, Abbott and Costello. This re-introduction brought the monster movie back to life, true, and it continued to evolve in ways that pushed the boundaries of what was possible for the next generation or two.
Somewhere along the way, the monsters waned again in admiration. These things that go bump in the night went out of style, but filmmakers have tried over and over again to bring them back to life in any number of ways. Big budget makeovers – like The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) – certainly added a bit of studio gloss to the equation, but their successes have been the exception and not the rule. In fact, box office mega-star Tom Cruise’s The Mummy (2017) may very well have put this beloved phenomenon back to sleep for tentpole efforts, leaving the properties ripe for smaller(ish), quieter, independent efforts to pick up the baton and run with it.
Enter Werewolves Within (2021), a $6.5 million budgeted ensemble that was released in the summer of 2021.
In all fairness, Werewolves clearly struggled to sink its teeth into the box office, not even bringing in one million dollars in ticket receipts. There could be a dozens of reason why it failed to re-ignite the passion for the monster movie, but I think it’s biggest problem is that it stayed in its niche – as an indie film (which traditionally doesn’t perform all that well with wider audiences), its comic sensibilities largely played to the usual indie-crowd … and, so far as this reviewer can assess, those viewers have little interest in horror releases. That’s a shame because the cast here does work some small wonders with the material provided: Mishna Wolff’s script makes good use of its characters and the overall whodunnit construct, but it largely ignores the fact that there’s supposed to be a werewolf in here … somewhere.
Again, don’t get me wrong: as a critic, I make a concerted effort to evaluate what any storyteller provides as a finished product instead of rushing down that rabbit hole of what could’ve/should’ve/would’ve been, but I can’t help asking “Shouldn’t there be more werewolf in a Werewolves Within movie?” The usual trickery about hiding the beast for the big reveal offers shockingly little payoff here; when we’re finally treated to the creature of the title, it is almost laughable … and those of us who tuned in taking our monsters seriously are apt to be disappointed.
So if your indie feature doesn’t play to the usual themes indie viewers expect AND your monster movie serves up so little monster as if to insult the monster lovers, then what audience is your movie catering to exactly?
Therein lies the problem of Werewolves Within. It’s a film without a crowd, so it’s no wonder this one came and went from theaters as fast as it did.
This isn’t to say that I, personally, had no fun with the flick because I did. The funny and affable Sam Richardson makes great mileage here in what I think may be his very first leading role; his nice guy ranger Finn Wheeler fits in perfectly with the material provided, and I rooted for him to excel both professionally and personally just as he was put through the comic pacing. The fetching Milana Vayntrub gives a wonderful performance as the quirky postal worker Cecily Moore; she balances girl-next-door charm and effervescent flippancy here like a true master of her craft, and her work here ought to open doors for more roles (if any execs with brains are watching). And this handful of local yokels embrace their respective eccentricities with increasing delight, even up to the point of shaking off their scripted mortal coils. This is smart, character-driven comedy; and it works.
Still, I can’t shake the fact that what brings me to a werewolf movie is, alas, the seminal howler … and Werewolves Within was strikingly deficient in that respect. A bit of a miss.
Werewolves Within (2021) is produced by Ubisoft Film and Television, Ubisoft, Vanishing Angle. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by IFC Films. As for the technical specifications? The film looks and sounds fabulous from start-to-finish. As for the special features? Wow. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. An insulting miss.
Recommended. As imperfect as Werewolves Within is, there are enough good, solid laughs in here to divert your attention away from the missing monster moments; and I suspect the cast and crew had a lot of fun putting this particular mystery together for audiences. Though I’ll always be disappointed with the payoff, I can appreciate the small world charm of increasingly bizarre characters just trying to get out alive … and this cast delivers with the material provided. I just wanted more creature. Does that make me … a monster?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at IFC Films provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Werewolves Within 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
Again, don’t get me wrong: as a critic, I make a concerted effort to evaluate what any storyteller provides as a finished product instead of rushing down that rabbit hole of what could’ve/should’ve/would’ve been, but I can’t help asking “Shouldn’t there be more werewolf in a Werewolves Within movie?” The usual trickery about hiding the beast for the big reveal offers shockingly little payoff here; when we’re finally treated to the creature of the title, it is almost laughable … and those of us who tuned in taking our monsters seriously are apt to be disappointed.
So if your indie feature doesn’t play to the usual themes indie viewers expect AND your monster movie serves up so little monster as if to insult the monster lovers, then what audience is your movie catering to exactly?
Therein lies the problem of Werewolves Within. It’s a film without a crowd, so it’s no wonder this one came and went from theaters as fast as it did.
This isn’t to say that I, personally, had no fun with the flick because I did. The funny and affable Sam Richardson makes great mileage here in what I think may be his very first leading role; his nice guy ranger Finn Wheeler fits in perfectly with the material provided, and I rooted for him to excel both professionally and personally just as he was put through the comic pacing. The fetching Milana Vayntrub gives a wonderful performance as the quirky postal worker Cecily Moore; she balances girl-next-door charm and effervescent flippancy here like a true master of her craft, and her work here ought to open doors for more roles (if any execs with brains are watching). And this handful of local yokels embrace their respective eccentricities with increasing delight, even up to the point of shaking off their scripted mortal coils. This is smart, character-driven comedy; and it works.
Still, I can’t shake the fact that what brings me to a werewolf movie is, alas, the seminal howler … and Werewolves Within was strikingly deficient in that respect. A bit of a miss.
Werewolves Within (2021) is produced by Ubisoft Film and Television, Ubisoft, Vanishing Angle. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by IFC Films. As for the technical specifications? The film looks and sounds fabulous from start-to-finish. As for the special features? Wow. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. An insulting miss.
Recommended. As imperfect as Werewolves Within is, there are enough good, solid laughs in here to divert your attention away from the missing monster moments; and I suspect the cast and crew had a lot of fun putting this particular mystery together for audiences. Though I’ll always be disappointed with the payoff, I can appreciate the small world charm of increasingly bizarre characters just trying to get out alive … and this cast delivers with the material provided. I just wanted more creature. Does that make me … a monster?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at IFC Films provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Werewolves Within 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
Finally! Someone asked me what I think about the upcoming next installment in the wider Matrix mythology ... and I think I may have something to say about it!
Basically, I was asked am I excited (I think the term was "super-excited," but I digress ...) about a return to the world of The Matrix, that SciFi/Fantasy saga that was so winningly brought to life by the Wachowskis back in 1999 ... and I had to honestly answer, "But why?"
I've seen a whole lot written about the idea of revisiting this world by a whole lot of folks who I'm guessing have already forgotten that Parts 2 and 3 of that franchise weren't exactly crowd-pleasers from what I remember. Yeah, the action was great. Yeah, the visuals were compelling. But come the big finish I seem to recall a whole lot of people being either confused or disappointed with Neo's ultimate destination. I disagree strongly with those who insisted that storytellers took the easy way out in that finish because -- at the end of the day -- it is what it is. Whether or not the Wachowskis had planned to leave us exactly where they did is besides the point: they did leave us there, so we're left to make of it what we will.
But my take on that was they did deliver us somewhere -- and with plenty to think about -- so what's the purpose for going back again?
Essentially, this reminds me of one of my driving principles -- I don't get into debating a film I haven't seen -- and I suspect The Matrix Resurrections could have some tricks up its sleeve that none of us may be anticipating. The Wachowskis being who they are, they've never run away from controversy, and their overall track record includes more big budget misses than it does hits. (Again, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.) Getting "into the gray" doesn't always go over well with viewers, but the original themes of The Matrix -- like 'em or hate 'em -- remains the siblings' most accessible ideas ... so, in that respect, I do reserve hope that this (ahem) 'Second Coming' will bring something new to the table.
If it doesn't, then perhaps my 'but why' sentiment might be vindicated.
As a matter of fact, I didn't quite run away from the trilogy the way others did back in their day. I remember thinking and writing about what I saw were universal themes of that trilogy, even suggesting that there were some obvious 'tells' along the way that proved Neo was ultimately always destined to end up where he did ... trapped dead center in the middle of some allegory of (ahem) Biblical proportions. And anyone who missed it wasn't really paying attention.
Because The Matrix trilogy did end where it did, I'm not sure what more there could be to its story. Hopefully, the Wachowskis have held something back to make this resurrection more than a cash grab.
In any event, the final trailer dropped recently. I thought it relevant to share.
Basically, I was asked am I excited (I think the term was "super-excited," but I digress ...) about a return to the world of The Matrix, that SciFi/Fantasy saga that was so winningly brought to life by the Wachowskis back in 1999 ... and I had to honestly answer, "But why?"
I've seen a whole lot written about the idea of revisiting this world by a whole lot of folks who I'm guessing have already forgotten that Parts 2 and 3 of that franchise weren't exactly crowd-pleasers from what I remember. Yeah, the action was great. Yeah, the visuals were compelling. But come the big finish I seem to recall a whole lot of people being either confused or disappointed with Neo's ultimate destination. I disagree strongly with those who insisted that storytellers took the easy way out in that finish because -- at the end of the day -- it is what it is. Whether or not the Wachowskis had planned to leave us exactly where they did is besides the point: they did leave us there, so we're left to make of it what we will.
But my take on that was they did deliver us somewhere -- and with plenty to think about -- so what's the purpose for going back again?
Essentially, this reminds me of one of my driving principles -- I don't get into debating a film I haven't seen -- and I suspect The Matrix Resurrections could have some tricks up its sleeve that none of us may be anticipating. The Wachowskis being who they are, they've never run away from controversy, and their overall track record includes more big budget misses than it does hits. (Again, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.) Getting "into the gray" doesn't always go over well with viewers, but the original themes of The Matrix -- like 'em or hate 'em -- remains the siblings' most accessible ideas ... so, in that respect, I do reserve hope that this (ahem) 'Second Coming' will bring something new to the table.
If it doesn't, then perhaps my 'but why' sentiment might be vindicated.
As a matter of fact, I didn't quite run away from the trilogy the way others did back in their day. I remember thinking and writing about what I saw were universal themes of that trilogy, even suggesting that there were some obvious 'tells' along the way that proved Neo was ultimately always destined to end up where he did ... trapped dead center in the middle of some allegory of (ahem) Biblical proportions. And anyone who missed it wasn't really paying attention.
Because The Matrix trilogy did end where it did, I'm not sure what more there could be to its story. Hopefully, the Wachowskis have held something back to make this resurrection more than a cash grab.
In any event, the final trailer dropped recently. I thought it relevant to share.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for anthology shows.
Simply put, I’ve always enjoyed them because they offer audiences more story to absorb across multiple installments, and they’re typically fashioned more as parables (with a message) than they are a narrative (that may go ultimately nowhere of interest). As a result, I get more excited about them than I do the favored long-form storytelling viewers gravitate toward today, and I find it shameful that there’s so little investment in their potential in the current fictional economy. With so many channels out there, do you really expect me to believe that no one would tune in for a new collection of visual fables?
Sigh.
Also as I’ve mentioned recently, Shudder was gracious enough to provide me with a complimentary copy of Creepshow: Season 2 on Blu-ray. I’ve had so much fun watching these episodes – which I see as throwbacks to a time when Horror/Fantasy was a bit more relatable as well as accessible to regular ol’ Joes like myself – that I decided instead of ponying up one comprehensive review of the entire season I wanted to pen a few reactions to individual episodes. I'd space these out over multiple posts. This way I could highlight some of the bigger and smaller moments more responsibly as a critic and as a fan … which I definitely consider myself.
Enjoy. I think you’ll see how much I did.
(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 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:
“Episode 1: Model Kid / Public Television Of The Dead. Joe’s closest friends are the model toys of his favorite scary movie monsters. Then, a public TV station is overwhelmed when the appraisal of an antique book accidentally summons a dark force.”
Simply put, I’ve always enjoyed them because they offer audiences more story to absorb across multiple installments, and they’re typically fashioned more as parables (with a message) than they are a narrative (that may go ultimately nowhere of interest). As a result, I get more excited about them than I do the favored long-form storytelling viewers gravitate toward today, and I find it shameful that there’s so little investment in their potential in the current fictional economy. With so many channels out there, do you really expect me to believe that no one would tune in for a new collection of visual fables?
Sigh.
Also as I’ve mentioned recently, Shudder was gracious enough to provide me with a complimentary copy of Creepshow: Season 2 on Blu-ray. I’ve had so much fun watching these episodes – which I see as throwbacks to a time when Horror/Fantasy was a bit more relatable as well as accessible to regular ol’ Joes like myself – that I decided instead of ponying up one comprehensive review of the entire season I wanted to pen a few reactions to individual episodes. I'd space these out over multiple posts. This way I could highlight some of the bigger and smaller moments more responsibly as a critic and as a fan … which I definitely consider myself.
Enjoy. I think you’ll see how much I did.
(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 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:
“Episode 1: Model Kid / Public Television Of The Dead. Joe’s closest friends are the model toys of his favorite scary movie monsters. Then, a public TV station is overwhelmed when the appraisal of an antique book accidentally summons a dark force.”
The greatness of a story like Model Kid is its relatable minimalism: we’ve all been bullied at some point in our lives. Be it a neighbor kid … be it some know-it-all at work … or be it the English professor who thought his personal scholarship was more important than your pursuit of knowledge, we’ve all been on the receiving end of a petty tyrant. As it’s probably most often happened in our youth, this yarn from John Esposito and directed by Greg Nicotero easily hits the emotional mark when young Joe Aurora (played by Brock Duncan) loses his mom to cancer and is forced into an abusive stewardship under a kinda/sorta stepfather – more like stepmonster – Kevin (Kevin Dillon), the boyfriend of his aunt Barb (Jana Allen).
Joe loves monsters. His monsters. These movie creations. The Gillman. The werewolf. Any sort of Frankenstein brought to film. But he learns quickly what a true monster looks like (naturally, it has the face of Kevin Dillon), and this forces his emotional retreat from the reality to the world of the imagined, a place he's always found safe in the companionship of his recently deceased mother. These monsters do horrible, unspeakable things to those who try to bully them into submission; and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this surrogate uncle isn’t long for this world.
Without trafficking too deep into the world of subtext, I’d still be remiss in duties as a critic if I failed to point out Model Kid also dips into some interesting sexual symbolism with the women of young Joe’s world. The loss of his cancer-stricken mother – every boy’s true first love – is a hole eventually filled by Aunt Barb; and there’s an awful lot in academia that’s been written about exploring the potential incestual role of the aunt and her nephew. (I vaguely recall a Thai melodrama that explored how the aunt’s narrative responsibility was the boy’s sexual awakening, but the name of the film escapes me right now.) This isn’t to say that Esposito’s script intends such an odyssey for these characters; rather, I’m only suggesting that there’s a possible undercurrent present which can’t be denied.
Indeed, when we see Barb arrive home in the tale’s conclusion, she’s dressed as a waitress, presumably coming home from her day job. Waitressing is an industry that’s (ahem) rife with harassment: I’ve read reports suggesting as high as eighty percent of women employed as servers share stories of being ‘hit on’ or harassed by those who wish to date ‘the cute waitress.’ I’ve suggested the profession is one of those sexual archetypes fueling fantasies for red-blooded males (and females, I suppose, but I can’t speak to that experience), and one need only search Amazon.com for ‘sexy waitress’ costumes to confirm it’s such a thing.
Why, it’s a match made … in Fantasy!
Joe loves monsters. His monsters. These movie creations. The Gillman. The werewolf. Any sort of Frankenstein brought to film. But he learns quickly what a true monster looks like (naturally, it has the face of Kevin Dillon), and this forces his emotional retreat from the reality to the world of the imagined, a place he's always found safe in the companionship of his recently deceased mother. These monsters do horrible, unspeakable things to those who try to bully them into submission; and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this surrogate uncle isn’t long for this world.
Without trafficking too deep into the world of subtext, I’d still be remiss in duties as a critic if I failed to point out Model Kid also dips into some interesting sexual symbolism with the women of young Joe’s world. The loss of his cancer-stricken mother – every boy’s true first love – is a hole eventually filled by Aunt Barb; and there’s an awful lot in academia that’s been written about exploring the potential incestual role of the aunt and her nephew. (I vaguely recall a Thai melodrama that explored how the aunt’s narrative responsibility was the boy’s sexual awakening, but the name of the film escapes me right now.) This isn’t to say that Esposito’s script intends such an odyssey for these characters; rather, I’m only suggesting that there’s a possible undercurrent present which can’t be denied.
Indeed, when we see Barb arrive home in the tale’s conclusion, she’s dressed as a waitress, presumably coming home from her day job. Waitressing is an industry that’s (ahem) rife with harassment: I’ve read reports suggesting as high as eighty percent of women employed as servers share stories of being ‘hit on’ or harassed by those who wish to date ‘the cute waitress.’ I’ve suggested the profession is one of those sexual archetypes fueling fantasies for red-blooded males (and females, I suppose, but I can’t speak to that experience), and one need only search Amazon.com for ‘sexy waitress’ costumes to confirm it’s such a thing.
Why, it’s a match made … in Fantasy!
By contrast, Public Television Of The Dead shakes off any pretense of deep thinking and instead reaches for the low-hanging fruit: Rob Schrab’s script is thirty minutes of pure genius as it capitalizes on upending the tropes of PBS when no less than actor Ted Raimi himself shows up in hopes of having the Necronomicon (aka The Book of the Dead from the Evil Dead franchise) appraised for sale. Anyone who knows a thing or two about the Necronomicon knows this ain’t gonna end well for dear ol’ Ted.
The brilliance of the story is that Evil never sleeps, and it all-too-easily finds malevolence where it’s least expected … in the devilish heart of this station’s Mr. Rogers’ knock-off, Mrs. Bookberry (Coley Campany). What the audience learns is that, behind-the-scenes, the woman is everything but pure and wholesome: she’s a back-biting intimidator who’s hellbent on forcing nice-guy-painter Norm Roberts (Mark Ashworth) out of contention for some prime real estate in the network’s schedule, even if that means using the powers of Darkness to put her on top of the ratings game once and for all.
So, yes, I say it’s low-hanging fruit … but it’s all executed with such grace, ease, aplomb, and respect that the audience is immediately disarmed. This is affectionate parody, and the fact that it effortlessly adopts the tone of the Evil Dead franchise only when needed makes it all the more effective. It’s a genius episode, one that shows the potential of great storytelling in the anthology format, and it’ll likely be applauded by all who find it.
Creepshow: Season 2 is produced by Shudder, The Cartel, AMC Studios, and a few other participating partners. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? This anthology program is produced with tremendous concentration on achieving the best sights and sounds possible; and it shows! It looks fabulous, and the great care in bringing it alive (if not back from the dead) is obvious. As for the special features? This two-disc set all five episodes of the show’s second season (FYI: some episodes are two-parters, delivering two separate stories) as well as a Creepshow animated special; a Creepshow holiday special; a colorful booklet/insert that mirrors the overall look of the show; some behind-the-scenes footage (much of it exclusive to this release); and some reversible sleeve art for those who like that sort of thing. (I’m always iffy on it, but it’s nice to have.)
Highly recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 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
The brilliance of the story is that Evil never sleeps, and it all-too-easily finds malevolence where it’s least expected … in the devilish heart of this station’s Mr. Rogers’ knock-off, Mrs. Bookberry (Coley Campany). What the audience learns is that, behind-the-scenes, the woman is everything but pure and wholesome: she’s a back-biting intimidator who’s hellbent on forcing nice-guy-painter Norm Roberts (Mark Ashworth) out of contention for some prime real estate in the network’s schedule, even if that means using the powers of Darkness to put her on top of the ratings game once and for all.
So, yes, I say it’s low-hanging fruit … but it’s all executed with such grace, ease, aplomb, and respect that the audience is immediately disarmed. This is affectionate parody, and the fact that it effortlessly adopts the tone of the Evil Dead franchise only when needed makes it all the more effective. It’s a genius episode, one that shows the potential of great storytelling in the anthology format, and it’ll likely be applauded by all who find it.
Creepshow: Season 2 is produced by Shudder, The Cartel, AMC Studios, and a few other participating partners. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? This anthology program is produced with tremendous concentration on achieving the best sights and sounds possible; and it shows! It looks fabulous, and the great care in bringing it alive (if not back from the dead) is obvious. As for the special features? This two-disc set all five episodes of the show’s second season (FYI: some episodes are two-parters, delivering two separate stories) as well as a Creepshow animated special; a Creepshow holiday special; a colorful booklet/insert that mirrors the overall look of the show; some behind-the-scenes footage (much of it exclusive to this release); and some reversible sleeve art for those who like that sort of thing. (I’m always iffy on it, but it’s nice to have.)
Highly recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 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