- Published on
I was there all the way back in 1985 when Robert Zemeckis’ Back To The Future first premiered on silver screens that summer.
If memory serves me correctly (always a risk at my ripe old age), I caught the film in a weekend showing along with a few friends of mine I had made as a counselor at a YMCA summer camp for underprivileged youth. As you can imagine, the delightful blend of comedy, action, and Science Fiction was exactly the distraction we needed as fuel for our escape from dealing with the unruly youth of our day jobs. And the flick’s central lesson – namely to do what you must to preserve the family – resonated in a such a way that we could use it to inspire those young’uns when we were back on the proverbial clock. We worked with, after all, kids from largely broken families; so any tool that could help us ‘get through’ to them was a huge, huge plus. Believe it or not, talking with them about Back To The Future, Marty McFly, and Doc Brown was one such tool.
Sadly, today’s diet of entertainment doesn’t offer much by way of traditional family fare. Granted, we as a society have grown a bit more disenchanted – kids, too – but cultivating healthy relationships should be the gameplan for every household, no matter how many children or parents live under its roof. When Kardashians become not only the norm but the cultural benchmark for young skulls of mush looking for role models, the adults-in-the-room need something to help in the pushback … and every now and then I’m thrilled to find a movie to suggest.
Portal Runner (2021) springs from the mind of J.D. Henning and Tallis Moore. Directed by Cornelia Duryee, the film is an adventure postulating the existence of a multiverse of worlds that, once opened, might lead to a very dark fate for one young adventurer trapped in a never-ending flight from a cosmic force threatening to destroy not only his life but possibly that of the family he may’ve never known …
If memory serves me correctly (always a risk at my ripe old age), I caught the film in a weekend showing along with a few friends of mine I had made as a counselor at a YMCA summer camp for underprivileged youth. As you can imagine, the delightful blend of comedy, action, and Science Fiction was exactly the distraction we needed as fuel for our escape from dealing with the unruly youth of our day jobs. And the flick’s central lesson – namely to do what you must to preserve the family – resonated in a such a way that we could use it to inspire those young’uns when we were back on the proverbial clock. We worked with, after all, kids from largely broken families; so any tool that could help us ‘get through’ to them was a huge, huge plus. Believe it or not, talking with them about Back To The Future, Marty McFly, and Doc Brown was one such tool.
Sadly, today’s diet of entertainment doesn’t offer much by way of traditional family fare. Granted, we as a society have grown a bit more disenchanted – kids, too – but cultivating healthy relationships should be the gameplan for every household, no matter how many children or parents live under its roof. When Kardashians become not only the norm but the cultural benchmark for young skulls of mush looking for role models, the adults-in-the-room need something to help in the pushback … and every now and then I’m thrilled to find a movie to suggest.
Portal Runner (2021) springs from the mind of J.D. Henning and Tallis Moore. Directed by Cornelia Duryee, the film is an adventure postulating the existence of a multiverse of worlds that, once opened, might lead to a very dark fate for one young adventurer trapped in a never-ending flight from a cosmic force threatening to destroy not only his life but possibly that of the family he may’ve never known …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s promotional materials:
“When 15-year-old Nolan discovers a secretive family legacy and a portal that enables him to travel to parallel worlds, it’s a young boy’s dream come true … until it becomes a nightmare when he realizes he’s being pursued across the ages by an evil force. When he becomes stranded on Christmas in an alternate world with his quirky family and a rebellious and petulant older sister he’s never met before, he realizes Mae may be the key to defeating his adversary and must enlist her help fast … before it’s too late for them all.”
Think what you will, but I’ve always argued that the best Science Fiction and Fantasy tales have long been the province of the young and the young-at-heart.
For example, the fabled Luke Skywalker began his time in screen history as little more than a farmboy from Tatooine. The aforementioned Marty McFly spent his teenage years pining away for a chance to play rock’n’roll in front of his fellow high school classmates. Young Alex Rogan honed his skills as ‘The Last Starfighter’ on little more than an upright video game console before being tasked with saving the universe from Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada. Why, even streaming giant Netflix tapped such fertile ground when it enlisted four middle American teenagers to oppose the Mind Flayer itself in the internationally popular Stranger Things.
Because kids and Fantasy make for such positive pairings, it’s easy to suggest that Portal Runner finds a lot of inspiration in similar territory but on a vastly smaller budget. Nolan (played by Sloane Morgan Siegel) and Mae (Elise Eberle) – the siblings of this occasionally whimsical, occasionally dark adventure – have great chemistry as the film’s mismatched brother-sister pairing, though their relationship starts out as a total mystery: where Nolan’s from, he never had a sister! But as they come to know one another in the context of the film, they quip, snipe, and berate one another just the way a brother and sister would … and, yes, I say this as a guy who has two sisters, thank you very much.
From the film’s promotional materials:
“When 15-year-old Nolan discovers a secretive family legacy and a portal that enables him to travel to parallel worlds, it’s a young boy’s dream come true … until it becomes a nightmare when he realizes he’s being pursued across the ages by an evil force. When he becomes stranded on Christmas in an alternate world with his quirky family and a rebellious and petulant older sister he’s never met before, he realizes Mae may be the key to defeating his adversary and must enlist her help fast … before it’s too late for them all.”
Think what you will, but I’ve always argued that the best Science Fiction and Fantasy tales have long been the province of the young and the young-at-heart.
For example, the fabled Luke Skywalker began his time in screen history as little more than a farmboy from Tatooine. The aforementioned Marty McFly spent his teenage years pining away for a chance to play rock’n’roll in front of his fellow high school classmates. Young Alex Rogan honed his skills as ‘The Last Starfighter’ on little more than an upright video game console before being tasked with saving the universe from Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada. Why, even streaming giant Netflix tapped such fertile ground when it enlisted four middle American teenagers to oppose the Mind Flayer itself in the internationally popular Stranger Things.
Because kids and Fantasy make for such positive pairings, it’s easy to suggest that Portal Runner finds a lot of inspiration in similar territory but on a vastly smaller budget. Nolan (played by Sloane Morgan Siegel) and Mae (Elise Eberle) – the siblings of this occasionally whimsical, occasionally dark adventure – have great chemistry as the film’s mismatched brother-sister pairing, though their relationship starts out as a total mystery: where Nolan’s from, he never had a sister! But as they come to know one another in the context of the film, they quip, snipe, and berate one another just the way a brother and sister would … and, yes, I say this as a guy who has two sisters, thank you very much.
To the picture’s benefit, their constant tete a tete serves as the emotional backbone to Duryee’s picture. As their relationship grows from sibling rivalry to blood relation, the two talents hit a measured, comic stride playing opposite one another, learning not only how to respond to the other’s quirks but also which buttons to push (and when). As a brother, can you imagine Nolan’s delight that the key in this universe to seizing control of the world-hopping phenomenon would be something so blissful as pissing off your sister? When I was a young’un, mom and dad always warned me to stop picking on mine … but – in this cinematic universe – my life would’ve damn neared depended upon me doing just that!
Thankfully, Portal Runner doesn’t stop there, and by its big finish the entire family is on board with the proper sentiments. Matt Shimkus (as the temporally displaced father) shows up as both a villain and a hero when the script requires it. Brian S. Lewis is a bit of a doofus but retains the family’s inventor’s spirit in the guise of Uncle Boon. Carol Roscoe turns in some great work as the mother trying to hold the fractured family safe and together even when it appears science itself is working against all of them. It’s a solid ensemble piece with every player having a purpose to serve here – for good or for evil – but everyone keeps it all family-focused and totally kid-friendly, even when there’s a bit of blood shed along the way.
All of that said, Portal Runner does have some shortcomings for those of us who watch these things closely for a living (as I do). The science as presented here doesn’t always follows the rules it sets forth; while I never hammer a screenwriter for taking any liberties with the webs he or she spins (it’s all fiction, after all), I do expect some explanation when they shift gears, and none is given here. (For example, there are some directional requirements given for the world-hopping to work, but Nolan occasionally heads up or down when West or East are established as precedent.) Also, the film goes for a full twenty-six minutes (I timed it) before offering up any explanation for its curious mirror-hopping set-up sequence; in movie terms, that’s a long time to go before offering your audience some description of the spectacle (one not couched in a character’s narrative), and I would’ve preferred this exposition being sprinkled much earlier. Lastly, there are a few continuity errors (costuming and character locations) that usually don’t catch my eye; but these were pretty obvious and even had me backing the film up at one point to see if I had missed something. (I hadn’t.) Those are never good things, but they’re also not the kind of mishaps that ‘make or break’ an experience for me.
Thankfully, Portal Runner doesn’t stop there, and by its big finish the entire family is on board with the proper sentiments. Matt Shimkus (as the temporally displaced father) shows up as both a villain and a hero when the script requires it. Brian S. Lewis is a bit of a doofus but retains the family’s inventor’s spirit in the guise of Uncle Boon. Carol Roscoe turns in some great work as the mother trying to hold the fractured family safe and together even when it appears science itself is working against all of them. It’s a solid ensemble piece with every player having a purpose to serve here – for good or for evil – but everyone keeps it all family-focused and totally kid-friendly, even when there’s a bit of blood shed along the way.
All of that said, Portal Runner does have some shortcomings for those of us who watch these things closely for a living (as I do). The science as presented here doesn’t always follows the rules it sets forth; while I never hammer a screenwriter for taking any liberties with the webs he or she spins (it’s all fiction, after all), I do expect some explanation when they shift gears, and none is given here. (For example, there are some directional requirements given for the world-hopping to work, but Nolan occasionally heads up or down when West or East are established as precedent.) Also, the film goes for a full twenty-six minutes (I timed it) before offering up any explanation for its curious mirror-hopping set-up sequence; in movie terms, that’s a long time to go before offering your audience some description of the spectacle (one not couched in a character’s narrative), and I would’ve preferred this exposition being sprinkled much earlier. Lastly, there are a few continuity errors (costuming and character locations) that usually don’t catch my eye; but these were pretty obvious and even had me backing the film up at one point to see if I had missed something. (I hadn’t.) Those are never good things, but they’re also not the kind of mishaps that ‘make or break’ an experience for me.
Still, young Siegel gives us an almost Marty McFly performance in a film that only passingly resembles anything in that meatier Back To The Future universe, and it was definitely strong enough to keep my interest for the duration.
Recommended.
I think what sticks with me most about Portal Runner – despite the loose science that runs quick and fast with its own multiverse rules – is that it’s an entirely wholesome family affair, something relatively rare in the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Nolan and Mae are your ordinary brother-and-sister combo thrown into extraordinary circumstances – with even mom-and-dad eventually following suit – and it’s their shared commitment to family that gives this Disneyesque charmer its beating heart. Imperfect maybe … but not implausible, as any scientist will tell you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kairos Productions provided me with a streaming link of Portal Runner (2021) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Recommended.
I think what sticks with me most about Portal Runner – despite the loose science that runs quick and fast with its own multiverse rules – is that it’s an entirely wholesome family affair, something relatively rare in the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Nolan and Mae are your ordinary brother-and-sister combo thrown into extraordinary circumstances – with even mom-and-dad eventually following suit – and it’s their shared commitment to family that gives this Disneyesque charmer its beating heart. Imperfect maybe … but not implausible, as any scientist will tell you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kairos Productions provided me with a streaming link of Portal Runner (2021) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
As regular readers here know (and I’ve often made abundantly clear), I don’t cover films I consider pure Horror in this space … but I’m known to make exceptions.
When will I do that?
Well, the easiest answer to that question is, of course, when I feel like it, but I do try to keep in mind a few personal rules. First, penning a review for something that strays outside the boundaries of SciFiHistory.Net must be reserved for seminal flicks only: it should be for films that have both stood the test of time and are worthy of addition to the site. Second, the features should still have some element or two that flirts directly or circumstantially with ‘the truly bizarre.’ Lastly, it should be reserved for films that have left an indelible footprint on yours truly! (As Mel Brooks once gleefully professed, “It’s good to be the king!”)
So in the days of my youth, pay cable was just getting started. Back then, when the channel obtained what they thought to be a new, hot property, schedulers might typically play that film more than once-a-day in rotation, and this gave the audience an opportunity to really experience something they were promised to be a sensation over and over and over again. Sure, it may’ve been spaced out by a few hours, but theoretically (and if you were that interested) you could start and end the day watching the same motion picture on rare occasions.
And I distinctly remember being warned by everyone around me to avoid watching Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes. Though they had never seen it, they had friends who had; and they were cautioned away from the flick because it was the scariest thing ever captured on film. It’ll scar you for life, they promised, or it’ll make you have all kinds of nightmares. It was violent. It was bloody. It was the stuff of pure Hell.
I was just breaking into my teen years, so obviously the next thing I did was sit down and watch it … not once … but twice. I think I even watched it a third time over the weekend.
Over four decades later, I still don’t see what all the hubbub was about.
(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:
“Taking an ill-advised detour en route to California, the Carter family soon run into trouble when their RV breaks down in the middle of the desert. Stranded, the family find themselves at the mercy of a group of monstrous cannibals lurking in the surrounding hills. With their lives under threat, the Carters have no choice but to fight back by any means necessary.”
The minor quibble I made above – the point at which I wrote that I don’t see what all the hubbub was about – isn’t meant in any way to insult these Hills. Craven and company built this tidy little thriller to succeed – arguably one of the best of its kind – and the film has deservedly earned its place in history. Released in 1977, it didn’t exactly sprint to the top of the box office charts: it made a splash in its debut but disappeared fairly quickly as other features gained prominence. The way ‘cult’ flicks do, this one proved it had legs when home video entered the marketplace, giving small towns across the fruited plains wider access to titles they had missed … and history was made when Hills became a fast favorite of the corner video palace.
My issue is that I’m usually disappointed in Horror films, mostly because I find so few of them truly scary. They might be thrilling (as this one definitely is). They might be bloody (this one has its moments). But it’s just very hard to legitimately ‘scare me’ the way these features do others. I distinctly remember seeing this one on cable; and other than giving me a mild adrenaline rush in the second half, I found it more ‘fun’ like a carnival attraction than I did a ‘fright.’
What works in Hills is the feature’s overwhelming blue-collar mentality. The Carter family could be any family. It could be yours. It could be your neighbors. It could be the guy across the street. And when any story can present characters that commonplace and relatable, it’s extremely likely that the wider audience of regular folks is going to be affected by it. I think that speaks, largely, to the film’s reputation: it posits a somewhat extraordinary set of circumstances befalling the ordinary American, and that has a way of giving any tale added weight.
When will I do that?
Well, the easiest answer to that question is, of course, when I feel like it, but I do try to keep in mind a few personal rules. First, penning a review for something that strays outside the boundaries of SciFiHistory.Net must be reserved for seminal flicks only: it should be for films that have both stood the test of time and are worthy of addition to the site. Second, the features should still have some element or two that flirts directly or circumstantially with ‘the truly bizarre.’ Lastly, it should be reserved for films that have left an indelible footprint on yours truly! (As Mel Brooks once gleefully professed, “It’s good to be the king!”)
So in the days of my youth, pay cable was just getting started. Back then, when the channel obtained what they thought to be a new, hot property, schedulers might typically play that film more than once-a-day in rotation, and this gave the audience an opportunity to really experience something they were promised to be a sensation over and over and over again. Sure, it may’ve been spaced out by a few hours, but theoretically (and if you were that interested) you could start and end the day watching the same motion picture on rare occasions.
And I distinctly remember being warned by everyone around me to avoid watching Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes. Though they had never seen it, they had friends who had; and they were cautioned away from the flick because it was the scariest thing ever captured on film. It’ll scar you for life, they promised, or it’ll make you have all kinds of nightmares. It was violent. It was bloody. It was the stuff of pure Hell.
I was just breaking into my teen years, so obviously the next thing I did was sit down and watch it … not once … but twice. I think I even watched it a third time over the weekend.
Over four decades later, I still don’t see what all the hubbub was about.
(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:
“Taking an ill-advised detour en route to California, the Carter family soon run into trouble when their RV breaks down in the middle of the desert. Stranded, the family find themselves at the mercy of a group of monstrous cannibals lurking in the surrounding hills. With their lives under threat, the Carters have no choice but to fight back by any means necessary.”
The minor quibble I made above – the point at which I wrote that I don’t see what all the hubbub was about – isn’t meant in any way to insult these Hills. Craven and company built this tidy little thriller to succeed – arguably one of the best of its kind – and the film has deservedly earned its place in history. Released in 1977, it didn’t exactly sprint to the top of the box office charts: it made a splash in its debut but disappeared fairly quickly as other features gained prominence. The way ‘cult’ flicks do, this one proved it had legs when home video entered the marketplace, giving small towns across the fruited plains wider access to titles they had missed … and history was made when Hills became a fast favorite of the corner video palace.
My issue is that I’m usually disappointed in Horror films, mostly because I find so few of them truly scary. They might be thrilling (as this one definitely is). They might be bloody (this one has its moments). But it’s just very hard to legitimately ‘scare me’ the way these features do others. I distinctly remember seeing this one on cable; and other than giving me a mild adrenaline rush in the second half, I found it more ‘fun’ like a carnival attraction than I did a ‘fright.’
What works in Hills is the feature’s overwhelming blue-collar mentality. The Carter family could be any family. It could be yours. It could be your neighbors. It could be the guy across the street. And when any story can present characters that commonplace and relatable, it’s extremely likely that the wider audience of regular folks is going to be affected by it. I think that speaks, largely, to the film’s reputation: it posits a somewhat extraordinary set of circumstances befalling the ordinary American, and that has a way of giving any tale added weight.
Beyond that, I’d also argue that Hills plays out almost like a parable about survival.
One-by-one, the Carters play victims as they allow these horrific outsiders – monsters of a type by any definition of the word – to dictate the terms of their kinda/sorta captivity. The tools the family have of our (snicker snicker) advanced civilization are essentially useless when matched against the instincts of primal man. They’re continually outmatched and outsmarted not because they’re inferior but because they’ve grown cozy in life, never had to fight for food or territory. Once that innate instinct to survive kicks in and the Carters rise up to the challenge, then they become not so much a threat as they do ‘an equal’ on this playing field. They’ll have to now prove themselves superior.
In this regard, it’s easy to see the everlasting appeal of one of Craven’s earliest features. The low budget approach – an almost guerilla-style experience – gives Hills a grounded center despite the presence of some larger-than-life adversaries. Monsters needn’t always be crafted in laboratories because sometimes – in the words of a Jeff Goldblum character – “life finds a way” to make them out here; and that’s some fertile stomping grounds in which to set characters at odds with one another. When your attacker doesn’t want your wallet, your keys, or your car, and all he seeks to take from you is the meat off your bones, what other course of action is there but to rise up, refuse, and fight to the death?
You may not believe in this world … but if you ever find yourself in it you’d better hope and pray you’re more like the Carters than you might like. Your life might depend on it.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) is produced by Blood Relations Company. (FYI: the film’s original working title was ‘Blood Relations.’) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled via Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? With this 4K restoration, the film likely looks better than it ever has: I do remember thinking some of the night scenes definitely needed a bit more light (back in the day), and I’d make the same argument today, though there’s thankfully more to see here than before.
As for the special features? Well, this is Arrow Video, and they continue to impress with each opportunity. Besides the restoration, there are a solid handful of mini-documentaries, the best of which is the previously released 2006 doc on the making-of the film: Craven and his crew sit down and reflect on their time together and even offer theories about why they believe the flick continues to resonate all these years later. There are also the usual galleries, trailers, and outtakes (a few good laughs in there surrounding the dogs); and the press materials include postcard art, a poster, and a booklet with essays. But the best plus? THREE commentaries. (That’s right! THREE!!!!) I’ve only made my way through one-and-one-half of them thus far (the cast one is very fun though occasionally strays a bit too far beyond the focus), and this is just a remarkable assortment of goodies. Well done, Arrow. Well done.
Recommended. If you’re seen The Hills Have Eyes, then the best reason I can offer you to check it out again is the fact that this new restoration is very, very good. (Yes, there are still some scenes shot in a bit too much darkness, but it is what it is.) If you’ve never seen it, then now is the best time … though I’ll admit right up front that this gritty, surreal experience is not going to be for everyone. As a master of the genre, Craven would go on to some high marks, but I suspect this rural chiller was probably as much fun for him to make as it is for audiences to endure. Definitely a bit dark and occasionally a bit depraved, it remains a one-of-a-kind flick.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD disc of The Hills Have Eyes 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
One-by-one, the Carters play victims as they allow these horrific outsiders – monsters of a type by any definition of the word – to dictate the terms of their kinda/sorta captivity. The tools the family have of our (snicker snicker) advanced civilization are essentially useless when matched against the instincts of primal man. They’re continually outmatched and outsmarted not because they’re inferior but because they’ve grown cozy in life, never had to fight for food or territory. Once that innate instinct to survive kicks in and the Carters rise up to the challenge, then they become not so much a threat as they do ‘an equal’ on this playing field. They’ll have to now prove themselves superior.
In this regard, it’s easy to see the everlasting appeal of one of Craven’s earliest features. The low budget approach – an almost guerilla-style experience – gives Hills a grounded center despite the presence of some larger-than-life adversaries. Monsters needn’t always be crafted in laboratories because sometimes – in the words of a Jeff Goldblum character – “life finds a way” to make them out here; and that’s some fertile stomping grounds in which to set characters at odds with one another. When your attacker doesn’t want your wallet, your keys, or your car, and all he seeks to take from you is the meat off your bones, what other course of action is there but to rise up, refuse, and fight to the death?
You may not believe in this world … but if you ever find yourself in it you’d better hope and pray you’re more like the Carters than you might like. Your life might depend on it.
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) is produced by Blood Relations Company. (FYI: the film’s original working title was ‘Blood Relations.’) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled via Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? With this 4K restoration, the film likely looks better than it ever has: I do remember thinking some of the night scenes definitely needed a bit more light (back in the day), and I’d make the same argument today, though there’s thankfully more to see here than before.
As for the special features? Well, this is Arrow Video, and they continue to impress with each opportunity. Besides the restoration, there are a solid handful of mini-documentaries, the best of which is the previously released 2006 doc on the making-of the film: Craven and his crew sit down and reflect on their time together and even offer theories about why they believe the flick continues to resonate all these years later. There are also the usual galleries, trailers, and outtakes (a few good laughs in there surrounding the dogs); and the press materials include postcard art, a poster, and a booklet with essays. But the best plus? THREE commentaries. (That’s right! THREE!!!!) I’ve only made my way through one-and-one-half of them thus far (the cast one is very fun though occasionally strays a bit too far beyond the focus), and this is just a remarkable assortment of goodies. Well done, Arrow. Well done.
Recommended. If you’re seen The Hills Have Eyes, then the best reason I can offer you to check it out again is the fact that this new restoration is very, very good. (Yes, there are still some scenes shot in a bit too much darkness, but it is what it is.) If you’ve never seen it, then now is the best time … though I’ll admit right up front that this gritty, surreal experience is not going to be for everyone. As a master of the genre, Craven would go on to some high marks, but I suspect this rural chiller was probably as much fun for him to make as it is for audiences to endure. Definitely a bit dark and occasionally a bit depraved, it remains a one-of-a-kind flick.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD disc of The Hills Have Eyes 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
It is, after all, the holiday season -- that sometimes frightful but always fateful time betwixt Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and I'm told that often makes many of us reflective. I imagine that's where I'm coming with this morning's 'reflection,' some minor thoughts and musings involving the late actor Yaphet Kotto.
I've written before that one of the reasons I've always been drawn to Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was that when I first saw it I was impressed that this was the first time I can recall 'regular folks' working in space. This was the onset of my teenage years, and up until that point I'd been enamored with roles of leaders and adventurers going into space. Captain Kirk -- the great American space cowboy -- had worked his way into my heart, as did the young and impressionable Luke Skywalker and his somewhat swashbuckling counterpart Han Solo. Still, I grew up in what I've always called a factory town, and space shows and movies rarely showed the blue-collar types in major roles. Oh, sure, Star Trek had its engineer Montgomery Scott, but even back then he seemed a bit more technobabble-lite to this young fan.
But the crew of the Nostromo?
Here, finally, was a captain and crew who looked, dressed, and sounded like the folks of my home town. They were a bit grubby and rough around the edges. They seemed very down-to-Earth and relatable. And unlike others who had ventured deep into the Final Frontier, they talked about money in a way that said it was important to their world. Wages mattered. What they could gross in their take-home-pay inspired them to take risks that ordinary folks wouldn't, and -- like it or not -- those were the kind of people I was surrounded by in my formative years.
So while others flocked to Alien to relish in its thrills, chills, and spills, I saw the film a bit differently. Sure, the Xenomorph remains the quintessential fright in the dark recesses of my mind, but the people populating this foundation of a franchise were finally regular Joes. This opened my mind to the days when I could truly see ordinary folks choosing space as a career: they might hail from Earth, but as Captain Kirk said, "I just work in outer space."
And that's what Yaphet Kotto was for me in that original film. He was back-breaking laborer. Sure, he knew his stuff. He was -- like Scotty -- more than familiar with whatever equipment surrounded him and could probably make it work in the same way as Trek's seminal engineer. But Starfleet had regulations on appearance, and Scotty rarely -- if ever -- looked like he got his hands dirty.
As a consequence, I watched Kotto's career over the years. He was never one of my personal favorites, mind you, but rather he was an actor who for the reasons mentioned above just kinda/sorta 'clicked' in my mind: if Kotto was in something, I'd probably check it out, if for no other reason than just to appreciate what he was doing. This, I'm told, is how we nurture interests over the years: instead of having deep-rooted psychological connections right up front and center, they take root in our brain and push us onto a certain course when we least expect it. That's how I think it all worked today. It wasn't an obvious fascination but a casual one that kept popping up every time I saw his face.
Lo and behold, the late actor's birthday was recently celebrated on one of the pages within SciFiHistory.Net's archives, and this prompted me -- much in the same way I've already laid out how his face triggers me subliminally -- to look back through his career. I relished some of memories I have associated his body of work -- the James Bond thing, again with the Alien performance, and one of my personal favorites was his time opposite Robert De Niro in Midnight Run (1988), a flick I consider De Niro's best work. This journey down memory lane brought some of the lesser trivia of the man's life bubbling back to the surface, and it made me reflective about what might've been some even bigger contributions to the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
I'd completely forgotten that he was almost Lando Calrissian.
As Kotto tells the story (if I have all the details correct), he'd been approached about taking the role in the original Star Wars trilogy by no less than The Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner. They met for lunch, discussed the script and the character, and Kershner offered the actor the part right then and there. There may've been some other bits and pieces chatted about -- I've read only a single account of Kotto's where he recalls their meeting -- but he inevitably turned down the part out of fear that -- as happened in Alien -- his character would simply be killed off and where would that leave him? He'd simply be off searching for another gig.
Now, we all know that never happened with Lando. The charming smuggler-turned-governor survives his confrontation with Darth Vader and the Empire, lives on to see a bigger role in Return Of The Jedi, and even turns up in a small way in the (dreadful) JJ Abrams/Kathleen Kennedy fan fiction sequel trilogy. And I can't help but wonder what that seminal Star Wars character would've been like if it had been played by Kotto instead of Billy Dee Williams.
This isn't meant as a slight in any way to Billy Dee. After all, Billy Dee became Lando. There's no way to separate the two in my mind. That swagger. That charm. But I can't even begin to imagine how all of that could've been played by Kotto. He's just an actor with a darker edge, a bit more physically intimidating, and it just makes me wonder about the possibilities.
And -- to push the envelope even further -- I'm completely forgotten about how the late actor had passed on another incredible opportunity, that being taking command of a particular flagship of the Federation fleet in Paramount's return to the Boob Tube with Star Trek: The Next Generation.
That's right: Yaphet Kotto was almost Jean-Luc Picard.
Amongst diehard Trek enthusiasts, it's fairly well-known these days that Gene Roddenberry wasn't exactly convinced that Patrick Stewart was perfect for the Enterprise's center seat. The actor was bald, for one thing, and the show's creator (for reasons I've never quite grasped) just didn't believe that in itself inspired greatness (or some such nonsense). And Stewart's biggest claim to fame (at the time) was his impressive stage work in various productions of Shakespeare. Was Roddenberry concerned that perhaps Stewart was too high-brow a choice? This was clearly going to be a different era for Star Trek -- not quite a generation away from when the original premiered but getting very close -- but would going with a formal actor push the program too far in the direction away from its 'wagon train to the stars' roots?
In any event, here was another opportunity for Kotto to gain some serious credentials in the world of genre entertainment. As I've read, both Roddenberry and Paramount were onboard and interested in the choice ... but the actor just wasn't interested. Again, I've not investigated it further -- when I have, I've only found Kotto saying that he eventually regretted turning down the job -- but it truly makes one wonder what The Next Generation might've been with someone of Kotto's stature in command.
Dare I suggest Wesley might've behaved better? I know I would've.
Again, just for the record: I've no problem with the work of Billy Dee Williams or Patrick Stewart in their respective franchises. As actors, they breathed life into their characters in ways we, as fans, will always appreciate, will doubtlessly cherish for years to come ...
... but today I find myself reflective over what might have been had Yaphet Kotto made different choices.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I've written before that one of the reasons I've always been drawn to Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was that when I first saw it I was impressed that this was the first time I can recall 'regular folks' working in space. This was the onset of my teenage years, and up until that point I'd been enamored with roles of leaders and adventurers going into space. Captain Kirk -- the great American space cowboy -- had worked his way into my heart, as did the young and impressionable Luke Skywalker and his somewhat swashbuckling counterpart Han Solo. Still, I grew up in what I've always called a factory town, and space shows and movies rarely showed the blue-collar types in major roles. Oh, sure, Star Trek had its engineer Montgomery Scott, but even back then he seemed a bit more technobabble-lite to this young fan.
But the crew of the Nostromo?
Here, finally, was a captain and crew who looked, dressed, and sounded like the folks of my home town. They were a bit grubby and rough around the edges. They seemed very down-to-Earth and relatable. And unlike others who had ventured deep into the Final Frontier, they talked about money in a way that said it was important to their world. Wages mattered. What they could gross in their take-home-pay inspired them to take risks that ordinary folks wouldn't, and -- like it or not -- those were the kind of people I was surrounded by in my formative years.
So while others flocked to Alien to relish in its thrills, chills, and spills, I saw the film a bit differently. Sure, the Xenomorph remains the quintessential fright in the dark recesses of my mind, but the people populating this foundation of a franchise were finally regular Joes. This opened my mind to the days when I could truly see ordinary folks choosing space as a career: they might hail from Earth, but as Captain Kirk said, "I just work in outer space."
And that's what Yaphet Kotto was for me in that original film. He was back-breaking laborer. Sure, he knew his stuff. He was -- like Scotty -- more than familiar with whatever equipment surrounded him and could probably make it work in the same way as Trek's seminal engineer. But Starfleet had regulations on appearance, and Scotty rarely -- if ever -- looked like he got his hands dirty.
As a consequence, I watched Kotto's career over the years. He was never one of my personal favorites, mind you, but rather he was an actor who for the reasons mentioned above just kinda/sorta 'clicked' in my mind: if Kotto was in something, I'd probably check it out, if for no other reason than just to appreciate what he was doing. This, I'm told, is how we nurture interests over the years: instead of having deep-rooted psychological connections right up front and center, they take root in our brain and push us onto a certain course when we least expect it. That's how I think it all worked today. It wasn't an obvious fascination but a casual one that kept popping up every time I saw his face.
Lo and behold, the late actor's birthday was recently celebrated on one of the pages within SciFiHistory.Net's archives, and this prompted me -- much in the same way I've already laid out how his face triggers me subliminally -- to look back through his career. I relished some of memories I have associated his body of work -- the James Bond thing, again with the Alien performance, and one of my personal favorites was his time opposite Robert De Niro in Midnight Run (1988), a flick I consider De Niro's best work. This journey down memory lane brought some of the lesser trivia of the man's life bubbling back to the surface, and it made me reflective about what might've been some even bigger contributions to the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
I'd completely forgotten that he was almost Lando Calrissian.
As Kotto tells the story (if I have all the details correct), he'd been approached about taking the role in the original Star Wars trilogy by no less than The Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner. They met for lunch, discussed the script and the character, and Kershner offered the actor the part right then and there. There may've been some other bits and pieces chatted about -- I've read only a single account of Kotto's where he recalls their meeting -- but he inevitably turned down the part out of fear that -- as happened in Alien -- his character would simply be killed off and where would that leave him? He'd simply be off searching for another gig.
Now, we all know that never happened with Lando. The charming smuggler-turned-governor survives his confrontation with Darth Vader and the Empire, lives on to see a bigger role in Return Of The Jedi, and even turns up in a small way in the (dreadful) JJ Abrams/Kathleen Kennedy fan fiction sequel trilogy. And I can't help but wonder what that seminal Star Wars character would've been like if it had been played by Kotto instead of Billy Dee Williams.
This isn't meant as a slight in any way to Billy Dee. After all, Billy Dee became Lando. There's no way to separate the two in my mind. That swagger. That charm. But I can't even begin to imagine how all of that could've been played by Kotto. He's just an actor with a darker edge, a bit more physically intimidating, and it just makes me wonder about the possibilities.
And -- to push the envelope even further -- I'm completely forgotten about how the late actor had passed on another incredible opportunity, that being taking command of a particular flagship of the Federation fleet in Paramount's return to the Boob Tube with Star Trek: The Next Generation.
That's right: Yaphet Kotto was almost Jean-Luc Picard.
Amongst diehard Trek enthusiasts, it's fairly well-known these days that Gene Roddenberry wasn't exactly convinced that Patrick Stewart was perfect for the Enterprise's center seat. The actor was bald, for one thing, and the show's creator (for reasons I've never quite grasped) just didn't believe that in itself inspired greatness (or some such nonsense). And Stewart's biggest claim to fame (at the time) was his impressive stage work in various productions of Shakespeare. Was Roddenberry concerned that perhaps Stewart was too high-brow a choice? This was clearly going to be a different era for Star Trek -- not quite a generation away from when the original premiered but getting very close -- but would going with a formal actor push the program too far in the direction away from its 'wagon train to the stars' roots?
In any event, here was another opportunity for Kotto to gain some serious credentials in the world of genre entertainment. As I've read, both Roddenberry and Paramount were onboard and interested in the choice ... but the actor just wasn't interested. Again, I've not investigated it further -- when I have, I've only found Kotto saying that he eventually regretted turning down the job -- but it truly makes one wonder what The Next Generation might've been with someone of Kotto's stature in command.
Dare I suggest Wesley might've behaved better? I know I would've.
Again, just for the record: I've no problem with the work of Billy Dee Williams or Patrick Stewart in their respective franchises. As actors, they breathed life into their characters in ways we, as fans, will always appreciate, will doubtlessly cherish for years to come ...
... but today I find myself reflective over what might have been had Yaphet Kotto made different choices.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Great Mother of Dragons, it's been another seven days since the last time I reported on New Releases! How times flies when you're having fun!
And if you haven't suffered enough promotion in the days since the last time I shucked for some wares, what with both Black Friday and Cyber Monday consuming your every available dollar, I'll only ask you to suffer through a few more, keeping it short, sweet, and maybe even a bit diversifying for readers today.
For example, have you ever seen Warren Beatty in 1978's rather good Fantasy creation Heaven Can Wait? No, this one isn't hard SciFi much less hard Fantasy to be honest, but it's a quite good story of a guy who gets to Heaven, realizes he might have a way back, and then has to inhabit the body of a guy who's been a real dirtbag? As comedies go, it's very good. Personally, I've always liked Beatty in the role, and the late Jack Warden is also surprisingly good in there as well. I see via Blu-ray.com that there's a new pressing hitting shelves today, and interested parties can surf over here to pick one up.
If you're a fan of All Things Marvel, then I suspect this is a big day for you as their latest, greatest epic Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021) also hits stores today. I imagine this one will be this week's big seller as I know genre fans will likely be adding Feng Shui (my term for Shang-Chi, and it's meant with nothing but affection) to their home video library. Heck, even the wifey and I saw this one in theaters (not so much a review is here as it is just a few reflections on it); we're not big Marvel fans, but we were hungry to see something and it looked better at the time than any alternatives. Interested in a purchase? I'm not seeing it up on Amazon.com, but I'd imagine it'll be EVERYWHERE today.
Last but certainly not least, Malignant is coming from just in time for the holidays. (Yeesh!) Yes, it's a bit dark for the silly season, but this Horror/Fantasy certainly created a buzz at the box office when it screened earlier in the year. I saw it -- I believe I watched it on HBO Max, if I'm not mistaken -- and while I found it quite entertaining and fun I wasn't as bonkers about it as others who partake of genre entries. I remember thinking that I saw some of the stitches early in its fastballs, so the film's central 'reveal' wasn't all that revelatory for me. But I was entertained. Interested in snagging one for that special someone's stocking to be stuffed? You can find it for sale right here.
As usual, there are a few more genre releases perhaps worthy of notice, and anyone looking for more details can check then out right here.
Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
And if you haven't suffered enough promotion in the days since the last time I shucked for some wares, what with both Black Friday and Cyber Monday consuming your every available dollar, I'll only ask you to suffer through a few more, keeping it short, sweet, and maybe even a bit diversifying for readers today.
For example, have you ever seen Warren Beatty in 1978's rather good Fantasy creation Heaven Can Wait? No, this one isn't hard SciFi much less hard Fantasy to be honest, but it's a quite good story of a guy who gets to Heaven, realizes he might have a way back, and then has to inhabit the body of a guy who's been a real dirtbag? As comedies go, it's very good. Personally, I've always liked Beatty in the role, and the late Jack Warden is also surprisingly good in there as well. I see via Blu-ray.com that there's a new pressing hitting shelves today, and interested parties can surf over here to pick one up.
If you're a fan of All Things Marvel, then I suspect this is a big day for you as their latest, greatest epic Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021) also hits stores today. I imagine this one will be this week's big seller as I know genre fans will likely be adding Feng Shui (my term for Shang-Chi, and it's meant with nothing but affection) to their home video library. Heck, even the wifey and I saw this one in theaters (not so much a review is here as it is just a few reflections on it); we're not big Marvel fans, but we were hungry to see something and it looked better at the time than any alternatives. Interested in a purchase? I'm not seeing it up on Amazon.com, but I'd imagine it'll be EVERYWHERE today.
Last but certainly not least, Malignant is coming from just in time for the holidays. (Yeesh!) Yes, it's a bit dark for the silly season, but this Horror/Fantasy certainly created a buzz at the box office when it screened earlier in the year. I saw it -- I believe I watched it on HBO Max, if I'm not mistaken -- and while I found it quite entertaining and fun I wasn't as bonkers about it as others who partake of genre entries. I remember thinking that I saw some of the stitches early in its fastballs, so the film's central 'reveal' wasn't all that revelatory for me. But I was entertained. Interested in snagging one for that special someone's stocking to be stuffed? You can find it for sale right here.
As usual, there are a few more genre releases perhaps worthy of notice, and anyone looking for more details can check then out right here.
Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
There are spooks, spirits, and spectres, but for some of us there will always be one crew of legitimate Ghostbusters.
Thankfully, those somewhat fearless four enjoyed a comeback – albeit briefly – in Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a flick the wifey and I managed to squeeze into our Black Friday schedule. As I saw this one all on my own – and not via any press screenings or freebies via distributor outlets – I won’t trouble this space with a full review … but I did want to post a few thoughts on the subject.
No, no, no: I’m not going to get into any discussion regarding the (thankfully) failed all-female Sony reboot from 2016. So far as this critic is concerned, Melissa McCarthy is the Antichrist, and the studios working overtime in their attempt to shove her down our collective throat as the next Julia Roberts deserve to lose more than they invest. She’s funny at about the intellectual level of the five-year-old, so keep at it, Hollywood!
What Afterlife got right may be a slim list, but it’s an important one.
First, it may’ve not perfectly done so, but it probably matched the tone of the original film about as well as any film could in this modern era.
See, we’ve grown a lot more jaded since the mid-80’s, and our society is vastly more toxic. Mimicking the charm of nearly four decades ago is exceedingly risky, but the screenwriting trio of Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman, and Dan Aykroyd hit all the right notes. Mckenna Grace (in a fabulous lead role as Phoebe, the late Egon Spengler’s granddaughter) hit most of the nerdy marks herself, and she did so while also being arguably one of the best representations of the quintessential American middle schooler to come out of Tinseltown since Stranger Things’ first and second seasons. Too often, directors and screenwriters just get ‘brilliant kid’ portrayals wrong (aka check out almost any episode of Wil Wheaton on Star Trek: The Next Generation); and the resulting mess sours the experience. Not so here. Grace is a delight, and I can see ample employment opportunities in her future. (Stay away from Harvey Weinstein, kid.)
Second, Afterlife treated its legacy characters with surprising deftness.
In many respects, allowing heroes to both age and development isn’t a Hollywood strength. By the time John McClane was in his fifth Die Hard incarnation, he was performing vastly more cardio than in his first outing – as an old-timer myself, let me assure you kiddos that that’s extremely unlikely. Though the audience is never treated to vast amounts of screen time exploring the original Ghostbusters past few decades, we’re given enough to know that the band broke up, fractured, and its members moved on. Yet seeing them together again – and in as best form as they can be at an advanced age – gave them as much a heroic moment as was possible and deserved. The script’s subtext – the old would have to join with the new in order to vanquish their enemy – was pitch perfect. (Instead of doing this with the lesser Star Wars sequel trilogy, JJ Abrams chose to defang Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia in his bloated fan fiction, a sad development for that galaxy far, far away.)
Lastly – very much like the original film – Afterlife never quite took itself seriously.
It only kinda/sorta toys with seriousness – yeah, there’s the demonic possession of the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper, but even that is presented with the requisite smarm and camp to soften the blow. Are they really in danger? Well, they got to ‘third base’ in the process, so was it really that treacherous? All of the special effects look at bit undercooked – they’re ‘good enough’ but not ‘grand enough’ to truly frighten the stuffing out of viewers – and its this softness that made the old flick enchanting in an almost childlike way. You say you believe in ghosts but you wanna be scared stiff? There are plenty of hard, harsh alternatives for those fans; but Ghostbusters was never really about the ghouls winning. Their apparitions have to lose in the end, so let’s make ‘em look even a little less than up to the task.
And I’m content to leave it right there.
There were a few small moments I could quibble with, but because the film’s narrative temperament really was a throwback to a time when films were more collective experiences – a happy tapestry spun in the dark for a happy group to happily enjoy simultaneously – I’m forgiving this film’s sins. It’s a far, far better film than I ever thought I’d see nearly four decades after falling in love with the original (one of my personal favorites); and I’ve learned at this ripe old age – like the original Ghostbusters have – to be thankful for small favors. That’s what this film was: a thank you note to a generation gone by, one saying, “Don’t worry. We learned from your mistakes. And we’ve got this now. Not because you can’t do it. But because we learned from you and want to follow in your footsteps.”
-- EZ
Thankfully, those somewhat fearless four enjoyed a comeback – albeit briefly – in Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a flick the wifey and I managed to squeeze into our Black Friday schedule. As I saw this one all on my own – and not via any press screenings or freebies via distributor outlets – I won’t trouble this space with a full review … but I did want to post a few thoughts on the subject.
No, no, no: I’m not going to get into any discussion regarding the (thankfully) failed all-female Sony reboot from 2016. So far as this critic is concerned, Melissa McCarthy is the Antichrist, and the studios working overtime in their attempt to shove her down our collective throat as the next Julia Roberts deserve to lose more than they invest. She’s funny at about the intellectual level of the five-year-old, so keep at it, Hollywood!
What Afterlife got right may be a slim list, but it’s an important one.
First, it may’ve not perfectly done so, but it probably matched the tone of the original film about as well as any film could in this modern era.
See, we’ve grown a lot more jaded since the mid-80’s, and our society is vastly more toxic. Mimicking the charm of nearly four decades ago is exceedingly risky, but the screenwriting trio of Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman, and Dan Aykroyd hit all the right notes. Mckenna Grace (in a fabulous lead role as Phoebe, the late Egon Spengler’s granddaughter) hit most of the nerdy marks herself, and she did so while also being arguably one of the best representations of the quintessential American middle schooler to come out of Tinseltown since Stranger Things’ first and second seasons. Too often, directors and screenwriters just get ‘brilliant kid’ portrayals wrong (aka check out almost any episode of Wil Wheaton on Star Trek: The Next Generation); and the resulting mess sours the experience. Not so here. Grace is a delight, and I can see ample employment opportunities in her future. (Stay away from Harvey Weinstein, kid.)
Second, Afterlife treated its legacy characters with surprising deftness.
In many respects, allowing heroes to both age and development isn’t a Hollywood strength. By the time John McClane was in his fifth Die Hard incarnation, he was performing vastly more cardio than in his first outing – as an old-timer myself, let me assure you kiddos that that’s extremely unlikely. Though the audience is never treated to vast amounts of screen time exploring the original Ghostbusters past few decades, we’re given enough to know that the band broke up, fractured, and its members moved on. Yet seeing them together again – and in as best form as they can be at an advanced age – gave them as much a heroic moment as was possible and deserved. The script’s subtext – the old would have to join with the new in order to vanquish their enemy – was pitch perfect. (Instead of doing this with the lesser Star Wars sequel trilogy, JJ Abrams chose to defang Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia in his bloated fan fiction, a sad development for that galaxy far, far away.)
Lastly – very much like the original film – Afterlife never quite took itself seriously.
It only kinda/sorta toys with seriousness – yeah, there’s the demonic possession of the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper, but even that is presented with the requisite smarm and camp to soften the blow. Are they really in danger? Well, they got to ‘third base’ in the process, so was it really that treacherous? All of the special effects look at bit undercooked – they’re ‘good enough’ but not ‘grand enough’ to truly frighten the stuffing out of viewers – and its this softness that made the old flick enchanting in an almost childlike way. You say you believe in ghosts but you wanna be scared stiff? There are plenty of hard, harsh alternatives for those fans; but Ghostbusters was never really about the ghouls winning. Their apparitions have to lose in the end, so let’s make ‘em look even a little less than up to the task.
And I’m content to leave it right there.
There were a few small moments I could quibble with, but because the film’s narrative temperament really was a throwback to a time when films were more collective experiences – a happy tapestry spun in the dark for a happy group to happily enjoy simultaneously – I’m forgiving this film’s sins. It’s a far, far better film than I ever thought I’d see nearly four decades after falling in love with the original (one of my personal favorites); and I’ve learned at this ripe old age – like the original Ghostbusters have – to be thankful for small favors. That’s what this film was: a thank you note to a generation gone by, one saying, “Don’t worry. We learned from your mistakes. And we’ve got this now. Not because you can’t do it. But because we learned from you and want to follow in your footsteps.”
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Tuesday to all of you regular SciFiHistory.Net readers ... or should I say 'Happy New Release Tuesday?' Yes, it's once again that fateful day when DVD shelves and warehouse inventories are stocked with all of the latest and greatest releases -- new and old -- for hungry consumers to scarf up as soon as they get the chance. And with the holidays just around the corner, is there not a better time to pick something up for that person on your list? That special someone who just can't get enough visual entertainment ever?
Whatever your persuasion, here are a few of the genre titles hitting the stores today.
I had the good fortune of scoring a complimentary copy of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989) from Arrow Video. I wouldn't say it's a fabulous film, but -- as a B-Movie -- it has its merits. Clearly it was made by folks who had some fun doing it; as a viewer, I just wish they had honed in on really what they wanted to say with the project. Were we supposed to take it seriously? I got the vibe that we weren't, and -- if that's the case -- I think they should've amped up the comedy a bit more. Still, interested folks can check out my review right here; and if you're interested in picking up a copy, then surf on over to Amazon.com right here.
2001's Evolution was one of those flicks that I really, really, really wanted to like ... and I ended up being disappointed. The SciFi/Comedy had a great cast (David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott, and Julianne Moore) in a story about an alien organism 'evolving' to attempt a takeover of our world; but it just didn't quite work the way I had hoped. Sure, it had some good laughs, and I guess some folks probably enjoyed it much better than I did. In any event, I see that it's received a new pressing on Blu-ray that streets today. I believe I have reached out to the studio for a complimentary disc; alas, none was forthcoming, so I can't speak to whether or not it's worth the investment. Still, if you're interested, you can purchase a copy from Amazon.com right here.
Last -- but not least -- I am seeing that Shout Factory has something streeting today which is curious. It's a little something something I've never heard of called The Show. Largely, the title caught my eye because I see in the publicity materials that it comes from the mind of Alan Moore. Ahem. Moore -- for what this is worth -- is an acquired taste. (I've yet to find anything of his that I've been 100% satisfied with.) An award-winning scribe known from the world of comic books, his stories have always been revered as cutting edge and controversial ... but he's famously unhappy with any visual adaptation of his work (so far as I've read). It looks like The Show flirts with the world of the magical and fantastical, so I'd encourage folks who want to know more to do some digging before making a plunge ... but it could be worth something. It's up on Amazon.com right here.
As is always the case: "buyer beware." I share this information for promotional reasons only -- consider it your genre-related public service announcement. If you're looking for the full rundown of today's titles, check it out on Blu-ray.com right here.
Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Whatever your persuasion, here are a few of the genre titles hitting the stores today.
I had the good fortune of scoring a complimentary copy of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989) from Arrow Video. I wouldn't say it's a fabulous film, but -- as a B-Movie -- it has its merits. Clearly it was made by folks who had some fun doing it; as a viewer, I just wish they had honed in on really what they wanted to say with the project. Were we supposed to take it seriously? I got the vibe that we weren't, and -- if that's the case -- I think they should've amped up the comedy a bit more. Still, interested folks can check out my review right here; and if you're interested in picking up a copy, then surf on over to Amazon.com right here.
2001's Evolution was one of those flicks that I really, really, really wanted to like ... and I ended up being disappointed. The SciFi/Comedy had a great cast (David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott, and Julianne Moore) in a story about an alien organism 'evolving' to attempt a takeover of our world; but it just didn't quite work the way I had hoped. Sure, it had some good laughs, and I guess some folks probably enjoyed it much better than I did. In any event, I see that it's received a new pressing on Blu-ray that streets today. I believe I have reached out to the studio for a complimentary disc; alas, none was forthcoming, so I can't speak to whether or not it's worth the investment. Still, if you're interested, you can purchase a copy from Amazon.com right here.
Last -- but not least -- I am seeing that Shout Factory has something streeting today which is curious. It's a little something something I've never heard of called The Show. Largely, the title caught my eye because I see in the publicity materials that it comes from the mind of Alan Moore. Ahem. Moore -- for what this is worth -- is an acquired taste. (I've yet to find anything of his that I've been 100% satisfied with.) An award-winning scribe known from the world of comic books, his stories have always been revered as cutting edge and controversial ... but he's famously unhappy with any visual adaptation of his work (so far as I've read). It looks like The Show flirts with the world of the magical and fantastical, so I'd encourage folks who want to know more to do some digging before making a plunge ... but it could be worth something. It's up on Amazon.com right here.
As is always the case: "buyer beware." I share this information for promotional reasons only -- consider it your genre-related public service announcement. If you're looking for the full rundown of today's titles, check it out on Blu-ray.com right here.
Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve always been a fan of anthology shows.
In short, I just find them more creative than other serialized programming. Typically, they employ more writers behind-the-scenes as they have a wealth of script ideas that have to be prepared for shooting in a single season. Whereas a routine drama or comedy has one team of writers committed to character arcs and season-long events, these scribes get to essentially craft a bottle story: something entirely independent from other tales and has to stand or fall on its own merits. Granted, a stinker or two might slip through the creation process, but I’ve found that the dedication all players bring to this single event helps to get the best out of most people. In the long run, it’s a win-win for viewers.
Sadly, there aren’t many anthologies that focus on Science Fiction, and I suspect that’s likely because the cost-prohibitive nature of special effects pushes investors and producers to the more serialized efforts. Shows like Star Trek, Stargate, and Babylon 5 may incorporate some long-form elements to the stories they bring to life; but the huge cost-saving plus for most of them is that they get to re-use short effects sequences that may have been costly to create, thereby keeping an achievable budget within reach. There are exemptions to this rule, but generally speaking this is one trick that’s worked to genre’s benefit.
Still, thank goodness that anthologies haven’t gone out of style.
Amazon.com has produced one or two that I’m aware of. The BBC and Netflix have also given the format new life for their paying customers. Recently, I learned that Shudder – a streaming outlet focusing on Horror and Fantasy (with a darker edge) – has brought Creepshow to life in a similar fashion; and I’m thrilled that they’ve provided me with a Blu-ray disc of their second season. I’ve just begun watching these episodes – which thus far I’ve found quite good – and I think I’ll be penning individual reviews as time permits across the course of this visual journey.
Though I’ll get up a review regarding the entire season at a later date, you can watch this space on the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage blog for some episode reflections starting shortly. I hope you enjoy what I have to say as much as I’m enjoying these quirky tales!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films and Shudder provided me with a 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
In short, I just find them more creative than other serialized programming. Typically, they employ more writers behind-the-scenes as they have a wealth of script ideas that have to be prepared for shooting in a single season. Whereas a routine drama or comedy has one team of writers committed to character arcs and season-long events, these scribes get to essentially craft a bottle story: something entirely independent from other tales and has to stand or fall on its own merits. Granted, a stinker or two might slip through the creation process, but I’ve found that the dedication all players bring to this single event helps to get the best out of most people. In the long run, it’s a win-win for viewers.
Sadly, there aren’t many anthologies that focus on Science Fiction, and I suspect that’s likely because the cost-prohibitive nature of special effects pushes investors and producers to the more serialized efforts. Shows like Star Trek, Stargate, and Babylon 5 may incorporate some long-form elements to the stories they bring to life; but the huge cost-saving plus for most of them is that they get to re-use short effects sequences that may have been costly to create, thereby keeping an achievable budget within reach. There are exemptions to this rule, but generally speaking this is one trick that’s worked to genre’s benefit.
Still, thank goodness that anthologies haven’t gone out of style.
Amazon.com has produced one or two that I’m aware of. The BBC and Netflix have also given the format new life for their paying customers. Recently, I learned that Shudder – a streaming outlet focusing on Horror and Fantasy (with a darker edge) – has brought Creepshow to life in a similar fashion; and I’m thrilled that they’ve provided me with a Blu-ray disc of their second season. I’ve just begun watching these episodes – which thus far I’ve found quite good – and I think I’ll be penning individual reviews as time permits across the course of this visual journey.
Though I’ll get up a review regarding the entire season at a later date, you can watch this space on the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage blog for some episode reflections starting shortly. I hope you enjoy what I have to say as much as I’m enjoying these quirky tales!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films and Shudder provided me with a 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 I've mentioned previously in this space, I do receive emails from readers who have questions regarding the site and general information. Should I notice a trend, I'll then take to the MainPage and try to pony up an answer to what I feel might be a 'Burning Question Of The Day.'
Today's doozie:
"I read what you wrote about Dune: Part 1 (2021), and I'm confused as to whether or not if I'll like the film. How can I know?"
Today's doozie:
"I read what you wrote about Dune: Part 1 (2021), and I'm confused as to whether or not if I'll like the film. How can I know?"
When I began first writing and talking about film in the mid-1980’s, I came to a mildly startling revelation: most folks I hung around with either hadn’t seen the flicks I was most impressed by or they simply didn’t enjoy them as much as I did.
Now, I honestly didn’t find that very earth-shattering, though some of my friends did. Many of us shared common interests in Science Fiction and Fantasy; liking many of the same things can have the effect of making others believe we have more in common than we actually do. In fact, some friends were surprised when they found out that I didn’t enjoy David Lynch’s Dune (1984) as much as they did. “How can you not love it?” they’d ask. Sure, I could provide them my reasons, but they weren’t persuaded. The truth is I wasn’t trying to convince them otherwise; the film just didn’t mean to me what it meant to them, and ‘that’s them apples,’ as they say.
My position has always been that each of us has our own personal preferences, and how we might ‘scale’ particular films, books, and TV shows relates to themes, morals, and ideas we each hold sacred. For example, I’ve found that folks who love Horror features are inclined to give even the least interesting entry in that genre a pass for even the most egregious errors these films make. This isn’t meant as an insult; rather, it’s just meant to convey that I realize fans like what they like, so even a middling feature that tickles their particular fancy is better than none. If you’re a fan of, say, The Exorcist and I’m not, who am I to suggest that it’s an inferior film? I may not enjoy it the same way you do, but I guarantee that you likely don’t share my love of Jeepers Creepers … and there’s nothing wrong with that!
For any number of reasons, one film – be it Drama, Comedy, or SciFi – may resonate with you. It could be nostalgic, something that you saw in your youth, so viewing it might trigger all kinds of warm fuzzies. (1980’s Flash Gordon does that for me.) You could be drawn to a particular actor or some strong element of a script, and those connections make you appreciate the finished product more than others do. Perhaps you experienced one motion picture at a low point in your days, and it lightened your emotional load: consequently, you hold it near and dear to your heart. This is what film – as art, I might add – does to each of us; so what kind of critic would I be if I even politely implied your choices were insufficient? Off-kilter? Inadequate?
Simply put: Citizen Kane means to you what Citizen Kane means to you. Don’t expect me to agree. (FYI: “Don’t expect me to agree” has long been my personal motto for reasons too vast for me to write down.)
Now, this isn’t to suggest that the business of film criticism is a failed enterprise or a fool’s errand. I wouldn’t do much of what I do with this website and my blog were that the case. While I may know a bit more about film than the next writer, I don’t make it my business to dismiss arguments made on any project. (I will debate the way a review is framed if I don’t see it as authentic, but that’s small potatoes.) Though I may know less about features than one of the mainstream press outlet scribes, that doesn’t make my observations any less valid. It is art, and each of us can have an eye for greatness on any given day in the universe. Truer words will never be written.
This is why I rarely – extremely rarely – give anything other than a mild ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ to friends when asked about something at the box office. Sure, I might talk about what I enjoyed or disliked; but I’m quick to add the caveat that, “You’d probably have to see it yourself to make up your own mind about it.” Yes, I might even say that the flick just wasn’t for me, but in the end I always try to position a film as an endeavor that’s worthy of your own opinion. After all, who am I?
Procedurally, I don’t approach writing a film review with any sense of doom or hyperbole. When I talk about a particular release as I often do on SciFiHistory.Net’s blog, I try to intelligently discuss what the story, direction, and performances did for me. Even the most cheaply produced piece of cinematic garbage can have a good moment; so why shouldn’t I try to find it, share it, and reward it with a good blurb? Likewise, even the most expensive Hollywood vanity project might suffer from creative bloat, so why should that escape my criticism? I always try to be honest with an assessment, and I do make a legitimate attempt to find something worthwhile from a single viewing.
So … no … there’s no possible way I or any reviewer can tell you whether or not you should or will like a film. The best I can do is to discuss what the work meant to me. Anything more I see as superfluous. Yes, I do try to give films a recommendation; and I do this based entirely based upon whether I found the flick a worthy investment of our most perishable resource … time. If it was worth my time, then I believe there may be something in it deserving of your notice as well.
Of course, I understand the sentiments most folks share, that they follow a certain reviewer because they’re found some similarity of tastes between them. And, yes, that’s marvelous! In fact, that’s fabulous! If you and X share life experiences to the point that you appreciate the same stories in life, then I’m happy for you … only so long as that relationship doesn’t keep you from seeking out and exploring other events that might make you grow as a person in ways you never thought possible. This is why I don’t try to find a reviewer I agree with: I’m afraid that coupling might shelter me in ways too harmful to imagine.
And no: I don’t expect you to agree with me.
-- EZ
Now, I honestly didn’t find that very earth-shattering, though some of my friends did. Many of us shared common interests in Science Fiction and Fantasy; liking many of the same things can have the effect of making others believe we have more in common than we actually do. In fact, some friends were surprised when they found out that I didn’t enjoy David Lynch’s Dune (1984) as much as they did. “How can you not love it?” they’d ask. Sure, I could provide them my reasons, but they weren’t persuaded. The truth is I wasn’t trying to convince them otherwise; the film just didn’t mean to me what it meant to them, and ‘that’s them apples,’ as they say.
My position has always been that each of us has our own personal preferences, and how we might ‘scale’ particular films, books, and TV shows relates to themes, morals, and ideas we each hold sacred. For example, I’ve found that folks who love Horror features are inclined to give even the least interesting entry in that genre a pass for even the most egregious errors these films make. This isn’t meant as an insult; rather, it’s just meant to convey that I realize fans like what they like, so even a middling feature that tickles their particular fancy is better than none. If you’re a fan of, say, The Exorcist and I’m not, who am I to suggest that it’s an inferior film? I may not enjoy it the same way you do, but I guarantee that you likely don’t share my love of Jeepers Creepers … and there’s nothing wrong with that!
For any number of reasons, one film – be it Drama, Comedy, or SciFi – may resonate with you. It could be nostalgic, something that you saw in your youth, so viewing it might trigger all kinds of warm fuzzies. (1980’s Flash Gordon does that for me.) You could be drawn to a particular actor or some strong element of a script, and those connections make you appreciate the finished product more than others do. Perhaps you experienced one motion picture at a low point in your days, and it lightened your emotional load: consequently, you hold it near and dear to your heart. This is what film – as art, I might add – does to each of us; so what kind of critic would I be if I even politely implied your choices were insufficient? Off-kilter? Inadequate?
Simply put: Citizen Kane means to you what Citizen Kane means to you. Don’t expect me to agree. (FYI: “Don’t expect me to agree” has long been my personal motto for reasons too vast for me to write down.)
Now, this isn’t to suggest that the business of film criticism is a failed enterprise or a fool’s errand. I wouldn’t do much of what I do with this website and my blog were that the case. While I may know a bit more about film than the next writer, I don’t make it my business to dismiss arguments made on any project. (I will debate the way a review is framed if I don’t see it as authentic, but that’s small potatoes.) Though I may know less about features than one of the mainstream press outlet scribes, that doesn’t make my observations any less valid. It is art, and each of us can have an eye for greatness on any given day in the universe. Truer words will never be written.
This is why I rarely – extremely rarely – give anything other than a mild ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ to friends when asked about something at the box office. Sure, I might talk about what I enjoyed or disliked; but I’m quick to add the caveat that, “You’d probably have to see it yourself to make up your own mind about it.” Yes, I might even say that the flick just wasn’t for me, but in the end I always try to position a film as an endeavor that’s worthy of your own opinion. After all, who am I?
Procedurally, I don’t approach writing a film review with any sense of doom or hyperbole. When I talk about a particular release as I often do on SciFiHistory.Net’s blog, I try to intelligently discuss what the story, direction, and performances did for me. Even the most cheaply produced piece of cinematic garbage can have a good moment; so why shouldn’t I try to find it, share it, and reward it with a good blurb? Likewise, even the most expensive Hollywood vanity project might suffer from creative bloat, so why should that escape my criticism? I always try to be honest with an assessment, and I do make a legitimate attempt to find something worthwhile from a single viewing.
So … no … there’s no possible way I or any reviewer can tell you whether or not you should or will like a film. The best I can do is to discuss what the work meant to me. Anything more I see as superfluous. Yes, I do try to give films a recommendation; and I do this based entirely based upon whether I found the flick a worthy investment of our most perishable resource … time. If it was worth my time, then I believe there may be something in it deserving of your notice as well.
Of course, I understand the sentiments most folks share, that they follow a certain reviewer because they’re found some similarity of tastes between them. And, yes, that’s marvelous! In fact, that’s fabulous! If you and X share life experiences to the point that you appreciate the same stories in life, then I’m happy for you … only so long as that relationship doesn’t keep you from seeking out and exploring other events that might make you grow as a person in ways you never thought possible. This is why I don’t try to find a reviewer I agree with: I’m afraid that coupling might shelter me in ways too harmful to imagine.
And no: I don’t expect you to agree with me.
-- EZ
- Published on
The name of Art LaFleur certainly wasn't all that big in genre circles, but I think the guy definitely benefitted from one of the more recognizable faces in Hollywood.
The actor built a resume impressive with a total of 169 different screen credits, and he was known for stealing scenes with his sometimes likable charm. IMDB.com reports that the entertainment industry didn't call out to him until he turned 31 with aspirations of being a screenwriter. A friend persuaded him to give acting a try first, and some modest successes followed reasonably quickly.
As for his roles in the realm of genre entertainment?
Fans might recognize him from work aboard TV's incarnation of The Incredible Hulk, The Invisible Woman (1983), Wizards And Warriors, Trancers (1984), Zone Troopers (1985), The Blob (1988), Field Of Dreams (1989), Trancers II (1991), Tales From The Crypt, Space Rangers, Strange Luck, A.J.'s Time Travelers, Angel, Night Stalker, and Speed Racer (2008). Though some of his roles may've been small, it certainly took the heart and soul of a big man to fill them.
SciFiHistory.Net wishes prayers to LaFleur's family and friends in these difficult times. May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
The actor built a resume impressive with a total of 169 different screen credits, and he was known for stealing scenes with his sometimes likable charm. IMDB.com reports that the entertainment industry didn't call out to him until he turned 31 with aspirations of being a screenwriter. A friend persuaded him to give acting a try first, and some modest successes followed reasonably quickly.
As for his roles in the realm of genre entertainment?
Fans might recognize him from work aboard TV's incarnation of The Incredible Hulk, The Invisible Woman (1983), Wizards And Warriors, Trancers (1984), Zone Troopers (1985), The Blob (1988), Field Of Dreams (1989), Trancers II (1991), Tales From The Crypt, Space Rangers, Strange Luck, A.J.'s Time Travelers, Angel, Night Stalker, and Speed Racer (2008). Though some of his roles may've been small, it certainly took the heart and soul of a big man to fill them.
SciFiHistory.Net wishes prayers to LaFleur's family and friends in these difficult times. May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
As a practice, I don’t typically get into films like 1989’s Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge on SciFiHistory.Net.
This isn’t because I don’t like them because that’s far from the truth. Rather, Phantom is the kind of feature that really only kinda/sorta flirts with SciFi and Fantasy elements in such a soft way, so I don’t see them as real contenders to genre greatness. Honestly, Phantom is more slasher than anything else. Thematically, it only circumstantially touches a chord – drawing up some grand comparison to Gaston Leroux’s Phantom Of The Opera (1909) – whereas other films play a symphony of notes. But because it’s close enough, I decided to give this one a watch and review. I’m glad I did.
Mind you: this is no big budget production. It’s a small(ish) film, so its investment in developing a metaphor back to the original Phantom is very, very weak. It isn’t a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it size, but it is trivial by comparison to other features that have put more sizzle to the steak. At best, it’s pleasant – though occasionally gruesome – if not a bit theatrical.
So I’ll dispense with the usual preamble because it really isn’t all that relevant. Instead, let’s get right to the main feature, shall we?
This isn’t because I don’t like them because that’s far from the truth. Rather, Phantom is the kind of feature that really only kinda/sorta flirts with SciFi and Fantasy elements in such a soft way, so I don’t see them as real contenders to genre greatness. Honestly, Phantom is more slasher than anything else. Thematically, it only circumstantially touches a chord – drawing up some grand comparison to Gaston Leroux’s Phantom Of The Opera (1909) – whereas other films play a symphony of notes. But because it’s close enough, I decided to give this one a watch and review. I’m glad I did.
Mind you: this is no big budget production. It’s a small(ish) film, so its investment in developing a metaphor back to the original Phantom is very, very weak. It isn’t a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it size, but it is trivial by comparison to other features that have put more sizzle to the steak. At best, it’s pleasant – though occasionally gruesome – if not a bit theatrical.
So I’ll dispense with the usual preamble because it really isn’t all that relevant. Instead, let’s get right to the main feature, shall we?
(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:
“A year after her boyfriend Eric burns to death in a mysterious fire, Melody vows to put her traumatic past behind her. But the past isn’t ready to let go. When Melody and her friends get jobs at the new mall, haunting reminders and inexplicable events begin to occur. With the help of a newspaper photographer, she learns the truth about Eric and the trail of grisly murders at the mall.”
What makes the original Phantom Of The Opera (the book, not the musical) so memorable is the fact that it’s one of those tragic love stories: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, but – alas – they’re not destined to be. In comparison, Phantom Of The Mall does pick up on that central premise – Eric (played by Derek Rydall) meets Melody (Kari Whitman aka Playboy Playmate Kari Kennell), they fall in love, etc. – but the circumstances of their parting gets a contemporary, anti-capitalist makeover. As fate (or a good screenplay) would have it, Eric’s house stood in the wall of the local establishment erecting a state-of-the-art indoor shopping mall; so the boy, his parents, and their home went up with what looked to be the small community’s most fortunate case of arson ever.
But like a good neighbor, Eric faked his death so that he could come back a year later and serve as the bloodthirsty thorn in the side to those developers. He sacrificed his love, his family, and his future … all for the sake of revenge. And rest assured that the man will stop at nothing to see that Sam Goody, Waldenbooks, and Radio Shack get exactly what’s coming to them!
Setting a traditional Horror picture in a mall remains a curious choice.
Malls – by design – are not dark and moody places, so director Richard Friedman had his screenwriters working hard at figuring out ways to amp up some of that needed darkness literally and thematically. The mall’s secreted hallways and air ducts do get a bit of needed exposure; and the writing team ended up giving Eric his own subterranean lair (every Phantom needs one, after all) complete with cable access, a good couch, and a workout space. (???) I guess it’s a charming way to convey some of the doom and gloom needed to make all of this work, and I think it’s safe to say that those are the only sequences that truly gelled perfectly in this otherwise lukewarm reimagining.
From the product packaging:
“A year after her boyfriend Eric burns to death in a mysterious fire, Melody vows to put her traumatic past behind her. But the past isn’t ready to let go. When Melody and her friends get jobs at the new mall, haunting reminders and inexplicable events begin to occur. With the help of a newspaper photographer, she learns the truth about Eric and the trail of grisly murders at the mall.”
What makes the original Phantom Of The Opera (the book, not the musical) so memorable is the fact that it’s one of those tragic love stories: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, but – alas – they’re not destined to be. In comparison, Phantom Of The Mall does pick up on that central premise – Eric (played by Derek Rydall) meets Melody (Kari Whitman aka Playboy Playmate Kari Kennell), they fall in love, etc. – but the circumstances of their parting gets a contemporary, anti-capitalist makeover. As fate (or a good screenplay) would have it, Eric’s house stood in the wall of the local establishment erecting a state-of-the-art indoor shopping mall; so the boy, his parents, and their home went up with what looked to be the small community’s most fortunate case of arson ever.
But like a good neighbor, Eric faked his death so that he could come back a year later and serve as the bloodthirsty thorn in the side to those developers. He sacrificed his love, his family, and his future … all for the sake of revenge. And rest assured that the man will stop at nothing to see that Sam Goody, Waldenbooks, and Radio Shack get exactly what’s coming to them!
Setting a traditional Horror picture in a mall remains a curious choice.
Malls – by design – are not dark and moody places, so director Richard Friedman had his screenwriters working hard at figuring out ways to amp up some of that needed darkness literally and thematically. The mall’s secreted hallways and air ducts do get a bit of needed exposure; and the writing team ended up giving Eric his own subterranean lair (every Phantom needs one, after all) complete with cable access, a good couch, and a workout space. (???) I guess it’s a charming way to convey some of the doom and gloom needed to make all of this work, and I think it’s safe to say that those are the only sequences that truly gelled perfectly in this otherwise lukewarm reimagining.
Every tragic hero needs a dastardly antagonist, and this Phantom had a few. The commercial establishment’s developer, Harv Posner (Jonathan Goldsmith), is the foul-mouthed main baddie hell bent on making a buck, and his crew is rounded out by his equally villainous shoplifter-of-a-son, a trio of crooked cops, and small-town mayor Karen Wilton (Morgan Fairchild). The downside to their collective spirit is that they spend the bulk of the picture reacting to what Eric is doing – no one really has what I’d call an active role in evildom – and it becomes clear with the increasing body count that none of them are a physical, emotional, or mental match for the disfigured athlete. Such can be the nature of B-Movies.
And when it comes to B-Movies, just how does Phantom match up?
Well …
Therein lies the problem I had with it.
Because this is a smaller picture, I suspect only folks truly committed to Horror have ever heard of it. The film’s ‘big draw’ was Morgan Fairchild, and her career at the box office was never that expansive to begin with. In fact, I’d argue that she was far more well known for her work in television, so banking on her participation to put butts in the seats was a risky proposition. But as Horror releases are already considered “niche,” this Phantom probably needed a bigger script with bigger risks if it was ever going to break out.
Alas, even as a Horror feature, it’s fairly tame. Eric’s victims are mostly deserving of the fate they suffer (one could argue otherwise in a few places), so the emphasis on ‘revenge’ may’ve elevated it above the more mundane competition. His kills aren’t all that bloody – certainly not by comparison to what, say, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger accomplished – and I think a case could be made that the film suffered by not properly reveling in the butchery the way other franchises do. And when one of your villains is as beautiful as – gasp – Morgan Fairchild? I hope you get the point. (FYI: she does.)
This Phantom played it too safe. He should’ve come out from behind that mask a bit more often, and he should’ve embraced the theatricality that goes hand-in-hand with being a celebrity killer. He may not have had a longer reign at the box office, but I guarantee more people would’ve remembered his name.
And when it comes to B-Movies, just how does Phantom match up?
Well …
Therein lies the problem I had with it.
Because this is a smaller picture, I suspect only folks truly committed to Horror have ever heard of it. The film’s ‘big draw’ was Morgan Fairchild, and her career at the box office was never that expansive to begin with. In fact, I’d argue that she was far more well known for her work in television, so banking on her participation to put butts in the seats was a risky proposition. But as Horror releases are already considered “niche,” this Phantom probably needed a bigger script with bigger risks if it was ever going to break out.
Alas, even as a Horror feature, it’s fairly tame. Eric’s victims are mostly deserving of the fate they suffer (one could argue otherwise in a few places), so the emphasis on ‘revenge’ may’ve elevated it above the more mundane competition. His kills aren’t all that bloody – certainly not by comparison to what, say, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger accomplished – and I think a case could be made that the film suffered by not properly reveling in the butchery the way other franchises do. And when one of your villains is as beautiful as – gasp – Morgan Fairchild? I hope you get the point. (FYI: she does.)
This Phantom played it too safe. He should’ve come out from behind that mask a bit more often, and he should’ve embraced the theatricality that goes hand-in-hand with being a celebrity killer. He may not have had a longer reign at the box office, but I guarantee more people would’ve remembered his name.
Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) is produced by Fries Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? This restoration looks and sounds surprisingly good especially given the fact that there are a handful of sequences shot in extreme darkness; the new balance looks very crisp (in most places), and I suspect this will probably be the ‘go-to’ version for cinema purists for some time.
As for the technical specifications? Again: kudos to Arrow Video for ponying up an incredible package. While I’m no fan of this specific title, I spent a few hours yesterday with these extras, and even I was impressed at the depth of material. The disc boasts three different commentary tracks. (FYI: I’ve only listened to two at this point.) The first features director Friedman (with a moderator); while it’s good, I felt that the host spent a bit more time discussing subjects just beyond the scope of the film, only bringing things into sharper focus around key moments. The second features disc producer Ewan Cant and historian Amanda Reyes; it’s a track I wanted to like more than I did – mostly because the two are affable and definitely know their stuff – but, again, far too much time was spent in topics only tangentially related to Phantom. They honestly allowed whole swaths of the picture to go by without a mention about what was happening, production discussions, etc. Nice but disappointing. As is common with Arrow’s limited-edition sets, this is packed with shorts, mini-documentaries, trailers, and the like. There’s more than enough to explore. Fabulous.
Recommended only for fans of B-Movies or slash films as that’s really all this one has to offer. Sometimes it’s hard to find something positive to say about a flick, and I had that struggle with Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge. In short, it just struggled to find what it wanted to be. At times, it appeared to be poking fun at the tropes of Horror and revenge movies, stopping just short of embracing comic sensibilities because none of it was all that funny. I think the director and screenwriters had an interesting idea worth exploring, but what they ended up collaborating on played it way too safe for a feature about retribution. A missed opportunity.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) 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 technical specifications? Again: kudos to Arrow Video for ponying up an incredible package. While I’m no fan of this specific title, I spent a few hours yesterday with these extras, and even I was impressed at the depth of material. The disc boasts three different commentary tracks. (FYI: I’ve only listened to two at this point.) The first features director Friedman (with a moderator); while it’s good, I felt that the host spent a bit more time discussing subjects just beyond the scope of the film, only bringing things into sharper focus around key moments. The second features disc producer Ewan Cant and historian Amanda Reyes; it’s a track I wanted to like more than I did – mostly because the two are affable and definitely know their stuff – but, again, far too much time was spent in topics only tangentially related to Phantom. They honestly allowed whole swaths of the picture to go by without a mention about what was happening, production discussions, etc. Nice but disappointing. As is common with Arrow’s limited-edition sets, this is packed with shorts, mini-documentaries, trailers, and the like. There’s more than enough to explore. Fabulous.
Recommended only for fans of B-Movies or slash films as that’s really all this one has to offer. Sometimes it’s hard to find something positive to say about a flick, and I had that struggle with Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge. In short, it just struggled to find what it wanted to be. At times, it appeared to be poking fun at the tropes of Horror and revenge movies, stopping just short of embracing comic sensibilities because none of it was all that funny. I think the director and screenwriters had an interesting idea worth exploring, but what they ended up collaborating on played it way too safe for a feature about retribution. A missed opportunity.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) 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