- Published on
Earlier this morning, I received word via email that Kino Lorber was prepping a handful of Science Fiction and Fantasy flicks for their December release portfolio, and I'll be sprinkling these announcements throughout the MainPage on SciFiHistory.Net today. If I can find them up on Amazon.com for pre-order, then I'll also be inserting those links in the announcements as well.
1987's The Barbarians is one of those cult oddities that ends up being rediscovered from time-to-time mostly due to its tongue-in-cheek charm: the film never quite takes itself seriously, so it's easy to forgive moments that might otherwise sink its buoyancy. Richard Lynch was an actor whose looks alone made it easy for audiences to embrace his chewing scenery as a big or small screen villain, and the twin Paul brothers certainly look the part of barbarians for their particular moment in screen history. Plus the film introduces a young and lovely Eva LaRue as a kinda/sorta sidekick in what was only her second screen credit. Kudos on that casting!
If you're interested in pre-ordered, the Blu-ray is up on Amazon.com right here.
Per the Kino Lorber email:
An evil ruler Kadar (Richard Lynch; Invasion USA, Bad Dreams, Cut and Run) enslaves Canary, a beautiful young queen (Virginia Bryant; Demons 2), and two twin boys from her clan. Canary’s faithful servant takes one of the twins to a distant land where he grows strong and powerful, while the other twin stays with the evil Kadar. With the help of a young outlaw woman (Eva LaRue; All My Children), the twins set out to free their mother. Starring The Barbarian Brothers (Peter Paul and David Paul - D.C. Cab, Think Big, Double Trouble) and Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, Cut and Run, Armed Response). Directed by cult filmmaker Ruggero Deodato (Cannibal Holocaust, Cut and Run). Now see this cult classic from a brand-new HD master!
Label: KL Studio Classics
Street Date: 12/1/20
BD SRP: 29.95
BD Item #: K25182
BD UPC: 738329251826
Genre: Adventure
Year: 1987
Rating: R
Runtime: 87
Director: Ruggero Deodato
Actors: David Paul, Peter Paul, Richard Lynch, Eva La Rue, Birginia Bryant
Language: English
1987's The Barbarians is one of those cult oddities that ends up being rediscovered from time-to-time mostly due to its tongue-in-cheek charm: the film never quite takes itself seriously, so it's easy to forgive moments that might otherwise sink its buoyancy. Richard Lynch was an actor whose looks alone made it easy for audiences to embrace his chewing scenery as a big or small screen villain, and the twin Paul brothers certainly look the part of barbarians for their particular moment in screen history. Plus the film introduces a young and lovely Eva LaRue as a kinda/sorta sidekick in what was only her second screen credit. Kudos on that casting!
If you're interested in pre-ordered, the Blu-ray is up on Amazon.com right here.
Per the Kino Lorber email:
An evil ruler Kadar (Richard Lynch; Invasion USA, Bad Dreams, Cut and Run) enslaves Canary, a beautiful young queen (Virginia Bryant; Demons 2), and two twin boys from her clan. Canary’s faithful servant takes one of the twins to a distant land where he grows strong and powerful, while the other twin stays with the evil Kadar. With the help of a young outlaw woman (Eva LaRue; All My Children), the twins set out to free their mother. Starring The Barbarian Brothers (Peter Paul and David Paul - D.C. Cab, Think Big, Double Trouble) and Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, Cut and Run, Armed Response). Directed by cult filmmaker Ruggero Deodato (Cannibal Holocaust, Cut and Run). Now see this cult classic from a brand-new HD master!
Label: KL Studio Classics
Street Date: 12/1/20
BD SRP: 29.95
BD Item #: K25182
BD UPC: 738329251826
Genre: Adventure
Year: 1987
Rating: R
Runtime: 87
Director: Ruggero Deodato
Actors: David Paul, Peter Paul, Richard Lynch, Eva La Rue, Birginia Bryant
Language: English
- Published on
I know, I know, I know: everybody hated Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice, so I must, too, right? Well, the truth is I actually enjoyed significant parts of the flawed film. I don't feel the need to justify the good, the bad, and the ugly within the motion picture from start-to-finish, but I will say this: as arguably one of the oldest, truest, most serious Batman fans on the web these days, I'd strongly argue that the feature's depiction of the Caped Crusader is one of the best captured on film.
I know, I know, I know: what about the Christopher Nolan films?
Meh.
The issue I had with the Nolan films (the first two especially) was that the central beats of the story were such that the flick could've been done around ANY billionaire playboy who discovered a desire to fight crime. It didn't have to be Bruce Wayne. Seriously. It could've been any billionaire who'd made the same commitment. Too little of the story developed the relationships between the villains of Gotham City and its Dark Knight; and I felt each of the feature's suffered as a consequence. Sure, they were well-made; I'd never argue otherwise. I just wasn't drawn into the greater mythology of Gotham. Likewise, it could've been any big city.
About the time that Nolan kinda/sorta figured out how to truly made a Batman film -- as I'd argue he did with The Dark Knight Rises -- he was essentially stepping away from the DC property. Methinks he had to do this with the way he had structured his trilogy, true, but I would've loved to see what he could've done next, if that makes any sense.
As is always the case, I understand fully that my opinion goes against the grain with what fandom believes are three of the best Superhero films of the modern era ... but I'm not losing any sleep over it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I digress ...
Batman V. Superman, as flawed as it may be, finally showed audiences a Bruce Wayne with an all-consuming, driven passion to remake the world the way he wanted it. Critics felt that was perhaps a bridge too far for what's basically meant to be a comic book character, and they're wrong: Batman of the comic books has spent decades in his own never-ending battle to do just that ... to clean up the streets of Gotham City (and occasionally beyond) from the low-level punks to the high-level kingpins. The living embodiment of his own Greek tragedy, Batman is a relentless vigilante who'll stop at nothing to see justice delivered, and that usually means getting in fast-and-furious fisticuffs with the most overwhelming odds imaginable.
And that's why the film's titular warehouse fight remains a favorite with this old dog: this was the first time that a Batman flick showed audiences what the Dark Knight does fairly routinely in the comic books and graphic novels. He gets in there. He gets up-close-and-personal. He busts heads. He cracks skulls. He bloodies his knuckles. He takes blow after blow and blow and still refuses to go down or bend the knee. When necessary, he pull something from his belt -- a batarang, a smokebomb -- and he'll unleash it to better his odds. He does it with the theatricality required of the moment. And he wins. He survives against incredible odds.
And he does this every other night in Gotham City.
It was glorious to see on the screen finally.
Whether you like the Zack Snyder flick or not in ultimately inconsequential. This fight sequence for me defines the character as well as the potential for future Batflicks so far as this viewer is concerned. It was a highwater mark in the DC Cinematic Universe, and I stand by that.
This morning, I stumbled across an article wherein Men's Health asked an physician to actually break down this fight regarding its displayed injuries. I chuckled when I watched the video. I think you will, too.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I know, I know, I know: what about the Christopher Nolan films?
Meh.
The issue I had with the Nolan films (the first two especially) was that the central beats of the story were such that the flick could've been done around ANY billionaire playboy who discovered a desire to fight crime. It didn't have to be Bruce Wayne. Seriously. It could've been any billionaire who'd made the same commitment. Too little of the story developed the relationships between the villains of Gotham City and its Dark Knight; and I felt each of the feature's suffered as a consequence. Sure, they were well-made; I'd never argue otherwise. I just wasn't drawn into the greater mythology of Gotham. Likewise, it could've been any big city.
About the time that Nolan kinda/sorta figured out how to truly made a Batman film -- as I'd argue he did with The Dark Knight Rises -- he was essentially stepping away from the DC property. Methinks he had to do this with the way he had structured his trilogy, true, but I would've loved to see what he could've done next, if that makes any sense.
As is always the case, I understand fully that my opinion goes against the grain with what fandom believes are three of the best Superhero films of the modern era ... but I'm not losing any sleep over it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
But I digress ...
Batman V. Superman, as flawed as it may be, finally showed audiences a Bruce Wayne with an all-consuming, driven passion to remake the world the way he wanted it. Critics felt that was perhaps a bridge too far for what's basically meant to be a comic book character, and they're wrong: Batman of the comic books has spent decades in his own never-ending battle to do just that ... to clean up the streets of Gotham City (and occasionally beyond) from the low-level punks to the high-level kingpins. The living embodiment of his own Greek tragedy, Batman is a relentless vigilante who'll stop at nothing to see justice delivered, and that usually means getting in fast-and-furious fisticuffs with the most overwhelming odds imaginable.
And that's why the film's titular warehouse fight remains a favorite with this old dog: this was the first time that a Batman flick showed audiences what the Dark Knight does fairly routinely in the comic books and graphic novels. He gets in there. He gets up-close-and-personal. He busts heads. He cracks skulls. He bloodies his knuckles. He takes blow after blow and blow and still refuses to go down or bend the knee. When necessary, he pull something from his belt -- a batarang, a smokebomb -- and he'll unleash it to better his odds. He does it with the theatricality required of the moment. And he wins. He survives against incredible odds.
And he does this every other night in Gotham City.
It was glorious to see on the screen finally.
Whether you like the Zack Snyder flick or not in ultimately inconsequential. This fight sequence for me defines the character as well as the potential for future Batflicks so far as this viewer is concerned. It was a highwater mark in the DC Cinematic Universe, and I stand by that.
This morning, I stumbled across an article wherein Men's Health asked an physician to actually break down this fight regarding its displayed injuries. I chuckled when I watched the video. I think you will, too.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Imagine -- if you will -- that there's a way to cross from our world into a parallel one wherein you can watch yourself making all of the wrong decisions you make every day. Then imagine you could cross back into your original universe to stop those wrongs from happening. What could be gained from such knowledge? Wealth? Power? Status? Maybe even the secret to existence itself?
Such is the fertile ground which appears to be covered in Parallel, a forthcoming release that's apparently been playing the film festival circuit since completed back in 2018. I stumbled across the trailer for the impending release, and I'll put it up below. It would appear that the film has certainly been warmly rewarded by audiences who've had the good fortune to see it, and that certainly bodes well for genre fans looking for a suitable escape from the days of this plague if theatres do get fully opened and up-to-speed this month and next.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A group of friends stumble upon a mirror that serves as a portal to a "multiverse", but soon discover that importing knowledge from the other side in order to better their lives brings increasingly dangerous consequences."
Such is the fertile ground which appears to be covered in Parallel, a forthcoming release that's apparently been playing the film festival circuit since completed back in 2018. I stumbled across the trailer for the impending release, and I'll put it up below. It would appear that the film has certainly been warmly rewarded by audiences who've had the good fortune to see it, and that certainly bodes well for genre fans looking for a suitable escape from the days of this plague if theatres do get fully opened and up-to-speed this month and next.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A group of friends stumble upon a mirror that serves as a portal to a "multiverse", but soon discover that importing knowledge from the other side in order to better their lives brings increasingly dangerous consequences."
Looks suitably creepy, no?
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
With a mythology as vast and as deep as the fifty-plus years of Doctor Who, there's an incredible number of villains to draw from ... but do you wanna see something really scary?
The Radio Times is reporting that -- from a list of twenty possibilities -- the Weeping Angels won the top title as the scariest monster to appear in all of Whodom, and I, for one, would have to agree with them: this is probably the only creature-of-a-sort in the franchise's plethora of possibilites that kinda/sorta creeps out yours truly. Why, do you ask? Do I have some deep-rooted fear of statues? Well, I think that's not out of the realm of reason ... do you?
Statues are an embodiment of people, and maybe -- just maybe -- the maker gets too close to the mark, you see. By recreating someone in stone, is it absolutely unheard of that we open ourselves up to the possibility that somehow a spirit trapped within could re-animate the figure whilst we're not looking? The Weeping Angels tapped into that grand 'what if' scenario, and viewers embraced such creepiness like no other in Who's backlot.
If you're unaware with them, then I strongly encourage you to find Doctor Who's stellar episode "Blink" on whatever streaming platform you can. It's a great episode -- honestly one that can be viewed by even someone not all that familiar with the greater world of Who as the good Doctor appears in only a few minutes of it (the focus is on another character -- one entirely unrelated to the franchise -- for the bulk of the show). It's an incredible tale, and, yes, it's reasonably scary as well.
Don't say that I didn't warn you.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
The Radio Times is reporting that -- from a list of twenty possibilities -- the Weeping Angels won the top title as the scariest monster to appear in all of Whodom, and I, for one, would have to agree with them: this is probably the only creature-of-a-sort in the franchise's plethora of possibilites that kinda/sorta creeps out yours truly. Why, do you ask? Do I have some deep-rooted fear of statues? Well, I think that's not out of the realm of reason ... do you?
Statues are an embodiment of people, and maybe -- just maybe -- the maker gets too close to the mark, you see. By recreating someone in stone, is it absolutely unheard of that we open ourselves up to the possibility that somehow a spirit trapped within could re-animate the figure whilst we're not looking? The Weeping Angels tapped into that grand 'what if' scenario, and viewers embraced such creepiness like no other in Who's backlot.
If you're unaware with them, then I strongly encourage you to find Doctor Who's stellar episode "Blink" on whatever streaming platform you can. It's a great episode -- honestly one that can be viewed by even someone not all that familiar with the greater world of Who as the good Doctor appears in only a few minutes of it (the focus is on another character -- one entirely unrelated to the franchise -- for the bulk of the show). It's an incredible tale, and, yes, it's reasonably scary as well.
Don't say that I didn't warn you.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Ugh.
Look, peeps. I do try to keep politics as much out of SciFiHistory.Net's pages as is humanly possible, but therein lies the problem: I'm a human, and -- like a human -- some things just bug the heck out of me to the point where I have to sound off on them, if even for only a few words.
This whole mask issue? I'm long past the point wherein I think it's all overblown.
No, I'm not being 'anti-science, and I can say this because I've read enough of the reported data and information about mask-wearing to know that the mask poses very little threat to a legitimate airborne virus. This isn't to say that they serve no purpose as they clearly do: folks who are at risk (or performing surgery) definitely can benefit to even a small degree by putting something over the nose and mouth for good measure, especially when out-and-about, exposed to a high number of folks, in populated environments, etc. But the benefit to a healthy person? Well, the science is still out on that point.
At some point, a virus has to be a virus. It'll run its course. It'll infect those who at the greatest risk, and it'll do what it does. Nothing can stop it. Sorry. That's the truth. Whatever's gonna get you is going to get you. 'Flattening the curve' isn't eliminating all threats; it's actually spacing the threat out for a longer period. Viruses come and go. Some are stronger and some are weaker, but it's still a virus. There is no cure.
But eight months later? We're still fighting the same virus? Clearly that says to me that all of the mask wearing we've been doing for the last eight months has produced questionable results, no?
Alright. I've said enough.
If you want to read the piece regarding the DC Comics characters giving mankind their public service announcement, it's available at Bleeding Cool.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Look, peeps. I do try to keep politics as much out of SciFiHistory.Net's pages as is humanly possible, but therein lies the problem: I'm a human, and -- like a human -- some things just bug the heck out of me to the point where I have to sound off on them, if even for only a few words.
This whole mask issue? I'm long past the point wherein I think it's all overblown.
No, I'm not being 'anti-science, and I can say this because I've read enough of the reported data and information about mask-wearing to know that the mask poses very little threat to a legitimate airborne virus. This isn't to say that they serve no purpose as they clearly do: folks who are at risk (or performing surgery) definitely can benefit to even a small degree by putting something over the nose and mouth for good measure, especially when out-and-about, exposed to a high number of folks, in populated environments, etc. But the benefit to a healthy person? Well, the science is still out on that point.
At some point, a virus has to be a virus. It'll run its course. It'll infect those who at the greatest risk, and it'll do what it does. Nothing can stop it. Sorry. That's the truth. Whatever's gonna get you is going to get you. 'Flattening the curve' isn't eliminating all threats; it's actually spacing the threat out for a longer period. Viruses come and go. Some are stronger and some are weaker, but it's still a virus. There is no cure.
But eight months later? We're still fighting the same virus? Clearly that says to me that all of the mask wearing we've been doing for the last eight months has produced questionable results, no?
Alright. I've said enough.
If you want to read the piece regarding the DC Comics characters giving mankind their public service announcement, it's available at Bleeding Cool.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the things about Science Fiction films and television programs that never ceases to amaze me is the incredible number of possibilities for what a new species might look like when we come across it.
Star Trek has pretty much built its bones on all species essentially having the basic 'man' shape. According to the Gene Roddenberry franchise, the vast majority of races have the basic one head, two arms, two legs, etc. approach; all that seems to get bandied about are skin, scales, and ridges. Other franchises have mixed it up a bit, but -- in the end -- the economics of presenting life out there (once it comes here) pretty much follows the same approach -- they're gonna take our basic shape and tinker with the appendages.
That's been a big buggaboo for Science Fiction purists down the ages: while our understanding of Science certainly suggests life could (and maybe should) evolve similarly on different worlds, with the elements and evolution of a new environment pushing the form in differing ways. Why haven't we seen more energy creatures or collections of mist and fog? Well, that would require a bigger budget, and Hollywood still prefers putting something on the silver screen within a respectable dollar amount.
In any event, I stumbled upon a small think piece about this question and more on the 90.7 WFME Radio Station site this morning, and I thought it worth sharing. Take a gander when you're on your coffee break; it's a quick read.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Star Trek has pretty much built its bones on all species essentially having the basic 'man' shape. According to the Gene Roddenberry franchise, the vast majority of races have the basic one head, two arms, two legs, etc. approach; all that seems to get bandied about are skin, scales, and ridges. Other franchises have mixed it up a bit, but -- in the end -- the economics of presenting life out there (once it comes here) pretty much follows the same approach -- they're gonna take our basic shape and tinker with the appendages.
That's been a big buggaboo for Science Fiction purists down the ages: while our understanding of Science certainly suggests life could (and maybe should) evolve similarly on different worlds, with the elements and evolution of a new environment pushing the form in differing ways. Why haven't we seen more energy creatures or collections of mist and fog? Well, that would require a bigger budget, and Hollywood still prefers putting something on the silver screen within a respectable dollar amount.
In any event, I stumbled upon a small think piece about this question and more on the 90.7 WFME Radio Station site this morning, and I thought it worth sharing. Take a gander when you're on your coffee break; it's a quick read.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Take it from this old dog: never get too excited about reboot news too early.
As far as genre properties go, there have been countless stops and starts throughout history. As many times as fans have been promised a revisitation to a popular commodity, it's faded into the ether. Generally speaking, I stopped getting excited about new programming probably back in the 1990's when I realized Hollywood has a way of tempting audiences for the sake of gauging their interest in a new program; when the excitement doesn't materialize the way a studio thought it should, the announced project instead falls back into limbo, and it'll probably get another brushing off five or ten years down the line.
For example, how many times has a director or producer attached himself to a new film or television program around The Shadow? I don't have enough fingers to count.
In any event, word has been up and down the Information Superhighway for a few years now that NBC Universal has wanted to bring Battlestar Galactica back to life yet again. For those unaware, the original Galactica was launched on television in the late 1970's and was intended to be a small screen alternative to the silver screen's Star Wars. Methinks everyone knew a show's potential to deliver such star saga thrills on the Boob Tube couldn't last and would hardly be affordable, and the show was only granted a single season. A year or two later, the property was mildly reconceived in the short-lived Galactica 1980, an incarnation that saw Adama limp over the finish line to finding Earth, serving up little more than a half-season of sadly low-brow entertainmet for a franchise that deserved better. (Yeah, I said it.) And, of course, Syfy and NBC Universal went back to the well again in the early 2000's for a much more militant-themed version of the 'Saga Of A Star World,' one that was treated to tremendous critical praise but kinda/sorta lost its wings as it flew along so far as fans were concerned.
These days, I guess you can't get the Galactica grounded as word comes via Film Daily that NBC is toying with not one but two new prospects for the former Colonials: Simon Kinberg and Dylan Clark are spearheading the effort (apparently) for both a silver and small screen adventure. While potentially ambitious in scope, the details are under wrap at this point; and I suppose that's likely owed to the fact that NBC's streaming platform is not quite yet in-shape to embrace a bold new program.
I want to say that I'd read elsewhere in the recent past that Kinberg intended for this show to kinda/sorta follow-up on Syfy's presentation; but Googling this morning I'm not finding anything of particular merit on that point. That wouldn't make sense to me -- Syfy's show ended with the crew finding Earth and coming to peace with where and when they were in that particular timeline -- as opportunities to continue that narrative as it was wouldn't be all that interesting. Let's hope I'm just confusing the elements with something else I've read.
But as mentioned above, take this all with a grain of salt: projects come and projects go, and Galactica has been a favorite for a certain generation of storytellers to revisit. Once cast announcements are underway, then it might be safe to say we're well on our way back to the Twelve Colonies for their story to begin anew.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As far as genre properties go, there have been countless stops and starts throughout history. As many times as fans have been promised a revisitation to a popular commodity, it's faded into the ether. Generally speaking, I stopped getting excited about new programming probably back in the 1990's when I realized Hollywood has a way of tempting audiences for the sake of gauging their interest in a new program; when the excitement doesn't materialize the way a studio thought it should, the announced project instead falls back into limbo, and it'll probably get another brushing off five or ten years down the line.
For example, how many times has a director or producer attached himself to a new film or television program around The Shadow? I don't have enough fingers to count.
In any event, word has been up and down the Information Superhighway for a few years now that NBC Universal has wanted to bring Battlestar Galactica back to life yet again. For those unaware, the original Galactica was launched on television in the late 1970's and was intended to be a small screen alternative to the silver screen's Star Wars. Methinks everyone knew a show's potential to deliver such star saga thrills on the Boob Tube couldn't last and would hardly be affordable, and the show was only granted a single season. A year or two later, the property was mildly reconceived in the short-lived Galactica 1980, an incarnation that saw Adama limp over the finish line to finding Earth, serving up little more than a half-season of sadly low-brow entertainmet for a franchise that deserved better. (Yeah, I said it.) And, of course, Syfy and NBC Universal went back to the well again in the early 2000's for a much more militant-themed version of the 'Saga Of A Star World,' one that was treated to tremendous critical praise but kinda/sorta lost its wings as it flew along so far as fans were concerned.
These days, I guess you can't get the Galactica grounded as word comes via Film Daily that NBC is toying with not one but two new prospects for the former Colonials: Simon Kinberg and Dylan Clark are spearheading the effort (apparently) for both a silver and small screen adventure. While potentially ambitious in scope, the details are under wrap at this point; and I suppose that's likely owed to the fact that NBC's streaming platform is not quite yet in-shape to embrace a bold new program.
I want to say that I'd read elsewhere in the recent past that Kinberg intended for this show to kinda/sorta follow-up on Syfy's presentation; but Googling this morning I'm not finding anything of particular merit on that point. That wouldn't make sense to me -- Syfy's show ended with the crew finding Earth and coming to peace with where and when they were in that particular timeline -- as opportunities to continue that narrative as it was wouldn't be all that interesting. Let's hope I'm just confusing the elements with something else I've read.
But as mentioned above, take this all with a grain of salt: projects come and projects go, and Galactica has been a favorite for a certain generation of storytellers to revisit. Once cast announcements are underway, then it might be safe to say we're well on our way back to the Twelve Colonies for their story to begin anew.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Honestly, I've never been much of a fan of George Clooney. Some of it could be his politics -- in interviews, he always seems a bit too eager to discuss the state of the world from his perspective, and I personally loath when actors use their platforms for that kind of thing -- and some of it could be that I've just never seen a break-out performance of his that was worth watching more than once. If he appears in stories that I don't find compelling enough to explore further, then I tune him out -- generally speaking -- and I move on to folks who do tweak my interest.
Still, he maintains a solid measure of box office clout so long as studios are concerned, and maybe (just maybe) he can use some of that charisma to tap into the genre market with The Midnight Sky, a cinematic adaptation of the novel Good Morning, Midnight by Lily Brooks-Dalton. Based on the book's Amazon profile, it would certainly appear to have a solid following (three hundred plus reviews and a strong near-five-point rating), so let's hope the actor can transcend his work in mainstream fare long enough to wipe the stink off of what he did to Batman And Robin in the 1990's.
For those interested, here's the trailer for the Netflix release which is slated for select theatres as well as the streaming service.
Still, he maintains a solid measure of box office clout so long as studios are concerned, and maybe (just maybe) he can use some of that charisma to tap into the genre market with The Midnight Sky, a cinematic adaptation of the novel Good Morning, Midnight by Lily Brooks-Dalton. Based on the book's Amazon profile, it would certainly appear to have a solid following (three hundred plus reviews and a strong near-five-point rating), so let's hope the actor can transcend his work in mainstream fare long enough to wipe the stink off of what he did to Batman And Robin in the 1990's.
For those interested, here's the trailer for the Netflix release which is slated for select theatres as well as the streaming service.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
I vaguely remember telling folks (online) that I struggled with The Expanse when it was originally part of Syfy's line-up. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed what I was seeing (up through Season Two, anyway), but I didn't think the first season was assembled in such a fashion that it lent itself to bingeable viewing easily. It took awhile for the story to iron out its 'through-points,' and I can't help but wonder if that's part and parcel of why it kinda/sorta failed to garner the kind of ratings the cable channel expected and thus cancelled it. Kudos to Amazon for picking it up and carrying on the story, as I've been told by those still following along that it remains a quality property.
Eventually -- when time permits -- I'll catch up with Season Three and onward. I just have to find the time to put in for some meatier storytelling that what one gets with other programming. Again, that's not an insult: The Expanse is smart television, and just like I'm a slow reader I tend to rewatch scenes if I don't catch the development is real-time viewing. That's just who I am, peeps.
Season Five is coming soon, and I thought I'd share the trailer for those interested.
Eventually -- when time permits -- I'll catch up with Season Three and onward. I just have to find the time to put in for some meatier storytelling that what one gets with other programming. Again, that's not an insult: The Expanse is smart television, and just like I'm a slow reader I tend to rewatch scenes if I don't catch the development is real-time viewing. That's just who I am, peeps.
Season Five is coming soon, and I thought I'd share the trailer for those interested.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
True story: yours truly has a form of degenerative scloliosis.
Honestly, it sounds worse than it is. Basically what that means is I have a curvature of the spine which just so happens to be very, very near the base of it (one of the worst places it can be). What this means is that I have a bad back (not all that uncommon) which like so many my age (don't ask) can get twisted out of whack from the simple task of bending over slightly just to pick up a bag of groceries. Seriously, one never knows what's gonna cause me some aches and pains; I just have to exercise a bit more care, keep my weight under control, and do the stretches regularly that my physical therapist has recommended to keep me limber and loose.
How did I come by this, you might ask? Well, I suspect it's partly inherited (others in my family have back issues), and I suspect it's the long-term end result of being left-handed in a right-handed world. So many of us who are lefties spent the bulk of our childhood being forced to sit in desks designed for right-handed people, meaning we'd have to scrunch sideways in order to write comfortably throughout the K-12 education system. Some day, I say all of us lefties get together and process a massive class action lawsuit against the world.
In any event, that's not the reason I bring this up. Where I'm going with this is that I've found over time that it helps to have good shoes: the better support I get while walking and/or standing, the less strain I endure on my lower back. So I'm used to paying a bit more for my footwear ... but Adidas would have me pay as much not so much for posture as it is to show off my love of the Star Wars franchise!
Just in time for the holidays, Adidas has unveiled their newest assortment of Star Wars themed tennis shoes. While some of these do look as though they have reasonable support, I'm not all that interested in them myself for the above-stated reason. I do think some of SciFiHistory.Net's longtime readers might find something for that special someone, if you've got the extra scratch and are looking for gift ideas. The link to the Adidas website is right here, and I encouraged interested parties to check 'em out.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
Honestly, it sounds worse than it is. Basically what that means is I have a curvature of the spine which just so happens to be very, very near the base of it (one of the worst places it can be). What this means is that I have a bad back (not all that uncommon) which like so many my age (don't ask) can get twisted out of whack from the simple task of bending over slightly just to pick up a bag of groceries. Seriously, one never knows what's gonna cause me some aches and pains; I just have to exercise a bit more care, keep my weight under control, and do the stretches regularly that my physical therapist has recommended to keep me limber and loose.
How did I come by this, you might ask? Well, I suspect it's partly inherited (others in my family have back issues), and I suspect it's the long-term end result of being left-handed in a right-handed world. So many of us who are lefties spent the bulk of our childhood being forced to sit in desks designed for right-handed people, meaning we'd have to scrunch sideways in order to write comfortably throughout the K-12 education system. Some day, I say all of us lefties get together and process a massive class action lawsuit against the world.
In any event, that's not the reason I bring this up. Where I'm going with this is that I've found over time that it helps to have good shoes: the better support I get while walking and/or standing, the less strain I endure on my lower back. So I'm used to paying a bit more for my footwear ... but Adidas would have me pay as much not so much for posture as it is to show off my love of the Star Wars franchise!
Just in time for the holidays, Adidas has unveiled their newest assortment of Star Wars themed tennis shoes. While some of these do look as though they have reasonable support, I'm not all that interested in them myself for the above-stated reason. I do think some of SciFiHistory.Net's longtime readers might find something for that special someone, if you've got the extra scratch and are looking for gift ideas. The link to the Adidas website is right here, and I encouraged interested parties to check 'em out.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!