- Published on
'Annihilation' Is Coming ... in 2018
There's a reason I always caution readers to take anything (if not everything) I say with a grain of salt.
Unlike other bloggers, I don't pretend to know everything. All I do know is based on my own reading and experiences, as well as facts and tips I get passed on to me (occasionally) from others both in the entertainment business and beyond. And when studio advertising executives try to convince you that they have 'the next big thing' in store for you, don't ever believe it. Their job -- as a matter of fact -- is to make you accept such a promise (and premise) without a second thought, and I'm just not wired that way, especially when it comes to studio executives. (Remember: they were the ones that passed on Star Wars so often that George Lucas pretty much had to do anything he could to get 20th Century Fox to give him a chance.)
2014's Ex Machina was a great Science Fiction feature, but -- in my opinion -- it wasn't all that "original." Alex Garland's deep and personal look at living with Artificial Intelligence is pretty grand and exciting ... but "original"? Well, it's only original if you haven't seen the treasure trove of films and TV series' episodes that had already explored such an idea ad infinitum. What Ex Machina did, however, was bring the topic to the attention of the greater entertainment industry AND its critical intelligentsia; and thus a modest-sized blockbuster was born. (Again, I'm not nitpicking here so much as I'm trying to be brutally honest: I like the film, but I just didn't think it was all that "original" ... so take that, haters!)
Next up for Mr. Garland is Annihilation. It's based on a novel by Jeff VanderMeer. The trailer dropped, and I wanted to get it up here on SciFiHistory.Net for those interested in such projects. Hopefully this one will be (minimally) as interesting as Ex Machina as Garland does do some pretty spiffy work.
Unlike other bloggers, I don't pretend to know everything. All I do know is based on my own reading and experiences, as well as facts and tips I get passed on to me (occasionally) from others both in the entertainment business and beyond. And when studio advertising executives try to convince you that they have 'the next big thing' in store for you, don't ever believe it. Their job -- as a matter of fact -- is to make you accept such a promise (and premise) without a second thought, and I'm just not wired that way, especially when it comes to studio executives. (Remember: they were the ones that passed on Star Wars so often that George Lucas pretty much had to do anything he could to get 20th Century Fox to give him a chance.)
2014's Ex Machina was a great Science Fiction feature, but -- in my opinion -- it wasn't all that "original." Alex Garland's deep and personal look at living with Artificial Intelligence is pretty grand and exciting ... but "original"? Well, it's only original if you haven't seen the treasure trove of films and TV series' episodes that had already explored such an idea ad infinitum. What Ex Machina did, however, was bring the topic to the attention of the greater entertainment industry AND its critical intelligentsia; and thus a modest-sized blockbuster was born. (Again, I'm not nitpicking here so much as I'm trying to be brutally honest: I like the film, but I just didn't think it was all that "original" ... so take that, haters!)
Next up for Mr. Garland is Annihilation. It's based on a novel by Jeff VanderMeer. The trailer dropped, and I wanted to get it up here on SciFiHistory.Net for those interested in such projects. Hopefully this one will be (minimally) as interesting as Ex Machina as Garland does do some pretty spiffy work.
- Published on
Netflix's 'Altered Carbon' Looks Future Noir
Well, ain't that a kick in the seat of the pants ...
Awhile back, I'd read something about SciFi novelist Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon receiving the small screen treatment, but I honestly thought I'd read it was heading to the Starz Network. (I say this only because I'm a Starz subscriber, and I recall being jazzed about the potential.) However, this latest trailer/tease indicates that the property is going the way of Netflix, and -- sadly -- I don't Netflix. (I realize that, to some of you Millennials, that probably makes me the AntiChrist.) Still, I enjoyed the book but found it occasionally a bit muddled if not confusing: I didn't quite always understand Morgan's futureworld, but the premise of'sleeving' from body to body for near-immortality is always appealing.
In any event, the trailer looks spiffy in an almost Blade Runner way. I figure you kids who patronize the anti-American Netflix will have to keep me up-to-date with the show's developments until it drops on home video (DVD). Check out the tease below if you're interested.
Awhile back, I'd read something about SciFi novelist Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon receiving the small screen treatment, but I honestly thought I'd read it was heading to the Starz Network. (I say this only because I'm a Starz subscriber, and I recall being jazzed about the potential.) However, this latest trailer/tease indicates that the property is going the way of Netflix, and -- sadly -- I don't Netflix. (I realize that, to some of you Millennials, that probably makes me the AntiChrist.) Still, I enjoyed the book but found it occasionally a bit muddled if not confusing: I didn't quite always understand Morgan's futureworld, but the premise of'sleeving' from body to body for near-immortality is always appealing.
In any event, the trailer looks spiffy in an almost Blade Runner way. I figure you kids who patronize the anti-American Netflix will have to keep me up-to-date with the show's developments until it drops on home video (DVD). Check out the tease below if you're interested.
- Published on
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) Turns 19 Years Young today!
We can be honest with one another can't we? It's never been easy being a Star Trek fan, and much of that is owed to the ongoing management of the franchise.
Now, I never like to nitpick. Like many, I take pride in admitting what I enjoy as well as what I don't; but Star Trek -- for me -- has often times been its own worst enemy. Launching on the Boob Tube largely as 'the little show that could,' it's enduring a half-century of mocking alongside the occasional mainstream praise, and even many of the actors who were granted small screen and/or big screen careers thanks to the property even malign it from time to time. That and the fact that the suits at Paramount Pictures never quite know what to do with it in order to keep it popular has made for an uphill battle for fans wishing once and for all that society could "come together" out of respect for entertainment.
Still, its bloated stinkers like Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) that I think have largely kept these more modern incarnations of the Roddenberry franchise from finding greater love. Insurrection is often referred to as "The Next Generation's Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (another entry that deservedly takes it on the chin for the original cast), and even upon viewing today -- 19 years later -- it doesn't quite hold up alongside even the TV show's lesser episodes. Although my two cents on greater Trekdom is that each and every incarnation and/or hour has offered me something of substance to think about, I'll still concede that none of TNG's big screen outings meant all that much to me; each of them felt like rehashed episodes given a bigger budget without bigger ideas.
Besides that, I won't nitpick it further. At the end of the day, it is what it is, and maybe I'll take the time to give it a fuller re-examination when it turns two decades old next year. We'll all just have to wait and see.
In the meantime, live long and prosper!
Now, I never like to nitpick. Like many, I take pride in admitting what I enjoy as well as what I don't; but Star Trek -- for me -- has often times been its own worst enemy. Launching on the Boob Tube largely as 'the little show that could,' it's enduring a half-century of mocking alongside the occasional mainstream praise, and even many of the actors who were granted small screen and/or big screen careers thanks to the property even malign it from time to time. That and the fact that the suits at Paramount Pictures never quite know what to do with it in order to keep it popular has made for an uphill battle for fans wishing once and for all that society could "come together" out of respect for entertainment.
Still, its bloated stinkers like Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) that I think have largely kept these more modern incarnations of the Roddenberry franchise from finding greater love. Insurrection is often referred to as "The Next Generation's Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" (another entry that deservedly takes it on the chin for the original cast), and even upon viewing today -- 19 years later -- it doesn't quite hold up alongside even the TV show's lesser episodes. Although my two cents on greater Trekdom is that each and every incarnation and/or hour has offered me something of substance to think about, I'll still concede that none of TNG's big screen outings meant all that much to me; each of them felt like rehashed episodes given a bigger budget without bigger ideas.
Besides that, I won't nitpick it further. At the end of the day, it is what it is, and maybe I'll take the time to give it a fuller re-examination when it turns two decades old next year. We'll all just have to wait and see.
In the meantime, live long and prosper!
- Published on
Thor:Ragnarok Is More Like 'Asgardians Of The Galaxy' Than Need Be
DISCLAIMER: Right up front, I’m going to confess that I’ve never been much of a Marvel guy. Although I grew up on a steady diet of comic books, the heroes like Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Thor just never much kept my attention nor tickled my fancy. When it comes to their movies, I’ve surprisingly felt much the same … but I always hold out hope for enough entertainment to make it worth my buck. So there you are. You’ve been warned.
Ah, Thor, what a wicked spell you weave!
For all intents and purposes, your first cinematic adventure was quite grand, balancing just the right mix of wit and weight for even casual superhero fans to go along for the ride. Thor: The Dark World tried really hard to recapture some of what made the original a winning feature, but I’d be hard pressed to tell you much of what came down the pike in that theatrical outing. (If memory serves, your mom died, no?) Here we are already with your third picture – Thor: Ragnarok – and I find myself where I usually am with most Marvel experiences: I’m not quite interested in all you have to do, but it does make the popcorn go down easily.
The truth is Ragnarok is looking and performing most likely exactly the way the MouseHouse wanted. It’s keeping butts in the seats, clocking up solid box office numbers week after week, and it’s far too soon to say whether or not it’ll be as forgettable as The Dark World was. I suspect it won’t, as its writers coopted some of the bigger elements of Marvel’s epic “Planet Hulk” storyline – now there’s a tale that deserved a big budget telling!
But I digress …
Ah, Thor, what a wicked spell you weave!
For all intents and purposes, your first cinematic adventure was quite grand, balancing just the right mix of wit and weight for even casual superhero fans to go along for the ride. Thor: The Dark World tried really hard to recapture some of what made the original a winning feature, but I’d be hard pressed to tell you much of what came down the pike in that theatrical outing. (If memory serves, your mom died, no?) Here we are already with your third picture – Thor: Ragnarok – and I find myself where I usually am with most Marvel experiences: I’m not quite interested in all you have to do, but it does make the popcorn go down easily.
The truth is Ragnarok is looking and performing most likely exactly the way the MouseHouse wanted. It’s keeping butts in the seats, clocking up solid box office numbers week after week, and it’s far too soon to say whether or not it’ll be as forgettable as The Dark World was. I suspect it won’t, as its writers coopted some of the bigger elements of Marvel’s epic “Planet Hulk” storyline – now there’s a tale that deserved a big budget telling!
But I digress …
Yes, Ragnarok is here, and this installment finds the Asgardian God of Thunder (Chris Hemsworth) chasing down a bit of a mystery regarding his absent father. As one could’ve/should’ve/would’ve predicted, the dreaded Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is yet again behind it all; but before the two of them can fully reconcile they’re torn apart by the sister they never knew they had – Hela (the always interesting Cate Blanchett). As Fate would have it, she is the true firstborn, and she has her sights set on the throne of Asgard, meaning Thor and Loki will have to go, one way or another. Thrown out of the space-traveling vortex, both men find themselves in different circumstances on the planet Sakarr, where an unlikely ally emerges in the form of the Incredible Hulk. Eventually, they’ll team up, but will that be enough to stop Hela?
Rather than run the risk of nitpicking the film to death (as some online critics tend to do these days), I’m content with saying that Ragnarok – much like the other chapters in the ongoing Thor saga – is about as solid a popcorn film as one would expect from Marvel Entertainment. It’s been put together with about as much love and affection as it could, and all involved (mostly) turn in acceptable work, showing just how comfortable they’ve become in these grand disguises. The pace is practically nonstop, and – unlike Thors I and II – III has an appreciable amount of comedy added into the tale. Not all of it works perfectly – the God of Thunder has suddenly become as ‘quippy’ as Deadpool, if I don’t say so myself – but it’s as harmless as can be when you’re pretty much assured everyone is getting out alive come the big finish even though the script occasionally implies they won’t.
Rather than run the risk of nitpicking the film to death (as some online critics tend to do these days), I’m content with saying that Ragnarok – much like the other chapters in the ongoing Thor saga – is about as solid a popcorn film as one would expect from Marvel Entertainment. It’s been put together with about as much love and affection as it could, and all involved (mostly) turn in acceptable work, showing just how comfortable they’ve become in these grand disguises. The pace is practically nonstop, and – unlike Thors I and II – III has an appreciable amount of comedy added into the tale. Not all of it works perfectly – the God of Thunder has suddenly become as ‘quippy’ as Deadpool, if I don’t say so myself – but it’s as harmless as can be when you’re pretty much assured everyone is getting out alive come the big finish even though the script occasionally implies they won’t.
For all of his efforts, however, Mark Ruffalo’s Bruce Banner really seems out of place with the shtick here. Some of his “disorientation” is owed to a plot point I won’t spoil, but he spends far too much time playing bug-eyed with confusion for my tastes. Ruffalo has always prided himself as a serious actor – both onscreen and off – and perhaps he’s been worn down by the Marvel concoctions over several appearances. (I say this as one who like him quite a bit in the first Avengers flick but less so ever since.) He hits his marks, true, though he never seems all that comfortable with the material.
The balance, nonetheless, is provided by saga newcomer Tessa Thompson, a big debut for Valkyrie, a fallen Asgardian warrioress who must reconcile her past with the present in order to secure her own destiny. Though her predicament is a bit formulaic, she’s a breath of fresh air against the usual testosterone, and it’d be terrific to see where she can take the part as Marvel expands their titles in the cineplexes throughout its next phase. Could she get a standalone flick? Don’t count her out just yet.
Otherwise, Jeff Goldblum shows up playing Jeff Goldblum – has there ever been a greater career theft in the history of film – as an all-too-Goldblumesque kinda/sorta dictator with a taste for violence.
The balance, nonetheless, is provided by saga newcomer Tessa Thompson, a big debut for Valkyrie, a fallen Asgardian warrioress who must reconcile her past with the present in order to secure her own destiny. Though her predicament is a bit formulaic, she’s a breath of fresh air against the usual testosterone, and it’d be terrific to see where she can take the part as Marvel expands their titles in the cineplexes throughout its next phase. Could she get a standalone flick? Don’t count her out just yet.
Otherwise, Jeff Goldblum shows up playing Jeff Goldblum – has there ever been a greater career theft in the history of film – as an all-too-Goldblumesque kinda/sorta dictator with a taste for violence.
In the final estimation, Ragnarok is good theatrical entertainment, though there’s an increasing reliance on CGI worlds almost to the point of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy (never a great thing, in my book). It’s less substance than Thor I but vastly more entertaining than II. Still, I couldn’t help feeling like this was more ‘Asgardians of the Galaxy’ than was truly necessary.
- Published on
The Lost Worlds Of Gerry Anderson Have Been Found ... And They're F.A.B.!
Growing up in very rural US heartland wherein didn’t have a major TV station in the area, I grew used to adjusting the ‘rabbit ears’ in order to get a handful of small channels from the nearby cities; and on a few occasions, I was fortunate enough to stumble across the various works of the late Gerry Anderson. When I could, I cherished the adventures of the Thunderbirds. If the inevitable static and white noise held off, I marveled at Stingray. When the planets aligned, the adventures of Space:1999 came into view. For those who are unaware, not all of Anderson’s properties involved marionettes, but most did require a healthy suspension of disbelief in order to be transported from here into a world of action with some of the finest special effects one could expect from the 1960’s and 1970’s. His ‘Space Precinct’ came much latter for me – a mid-1990’s SciFi entry with live action paired with puppeteers to make for a somewhat zany futuristic look at law enforcement – but I still am discovered it via DVD … and loving most of what I’ve found.
Friends and family whom I’ve introduced to Gerry’s projects have often been mildly disappointed. I spoke of these programs with such affection that they perhaps were expecting something more, if not something different. I think the central disconnect between them and me is that – like I explained – these were largely inspirations from an era wherein effects and storytelling were accomplished with more in-camera trickery than modern sensibilities require; that and the marionettes’ inability to convey much emotion tend to lead ‘older folks’ to discover more unintended laughs than anything else, so I’ve since stopped trying to argue Anderson’s greatness in favor of – ahem – sparing me the embarrassment.
Still, I’m thrilled to sound off on THE LOST WORLDS OF GERRY ANDERSON, a DVD collection of assorted ‘other programs’ that either never found greater exposure or were never quite meant to. A few of what’s collected here are nothing more than commercials shilling for products (hey, a guy’s gotta eat!), but that’s not to imply they’re subpar in any way. They’re simply another look at Anderson’s unique storytelling talent, something which I’m happy to celebrate.
Friends and family whom I’ve introduced to Gerry’s projects have often been mildly disappointed. I spoke of these programs with such affection that they perhaps were expecting something more, if not something different. I think the central disconnect between them and me is that – like I explained – these were largely inspirations from an era wherein effects and storytelling were accomplished with more in-camera trickery than modern sensibilities require; that and the marionettes’ inability to convey much emotion tend to lead ‘older folks’ to discover more unintended laughs than anything else, so I’ve since stopped trying to argue Anderson’s greatness in favor of – ahem – sparing me the embarrassment.
Still, I’m thrilled to sound off on THE LOST WORLDS OF GERRY ANDERSON, a DVD collection of assorted ‘other programs’ that either never found greater exposure or were never quite meant to. A few of what’s collected here are nothing more than commercials shilling for products (hey, a guy’s gotta eat!), but that’s not to imply they’re subpar in any way. They’re simply another look at Anderson’s unique storytelling talent, something which I’m happy to celebrate.
The highpoints?
Arguably, the pilot films for “The Investigator” and “The Day After Tomorrow” are worth the price alone.
“The Investigator” – while a bit nebulous in its logic – explores the world of two teens reduced in size to dolls by a mysterious entity known only by the show’s title; this overlord them provides them with an assortment of high-tech vehicles and gadgetry to help fight crime. I’ll admit that the concept doesn’t quite work – the marionettes are far too lifeless, capturing in scenes lying around talking about do-gooding more than they are every engaged in it – but there’s still that Anderson spark at work that made so many other puppet shows exciting.
“The Day After Tomorrow” is a family space drama very much in the vein of Irwin Allen’s Lost In Space and Anderson’s own Space:1999: the Bowen family have been sent into the stars to gather the secrets of science for relaying back to Earth but find themselves racing against time to repair their engines before a nearby star goes supernova. They do, but they find themselves thrust inside the resulting black hole into a whole new galaxy with no hope of return. It’s a grand set-up – think of Walt Disney’s theatrical The Black Hole but accomplished more of a television scale – but the lack of a series pick-up meant that the continuing trips with the Bowen family were not meant to be. The great Alan Tate and equally impressive Brian Blessed headline the telefilm, with the late Joanna Dunham along for the ride. It could’ve been a contender.
Also worthy of a mention is Anderson’s original pilot “Space Police,” an obvious earlier incarnation of what evolved to eventually become the 1990’s Space Precinct. This version gave Anderson regular Shane Rimmer a chance to play a somewhat emotionally-grizzled cop for an unspecified planetary jurisdiction wherein the baddies concoct a very Thunderbirds-esque scenario to kidnap a galactic President on a high-tech train; naturally, this requires the police concoct an equally elaborate rescue attempt. It’s all well and good, though the narrative never quite hammers down a singular focus and clearly needed some retooling in order to be usable as a series foundation. (Interestingly enough, the DVD set includes an alternate version recast with new actors as a second attempt; and the set also includes a wealth of unused footage with alternate takes for those who like to explore such extras.)
As these are ‘lost worlds,’ not each is a glistening gem … but each does remind Anderson fans of what drew us to his unique storytelling in the first place: the inventiveness is present always, and that alone makes it worth the time.
Arguably, the pilot films for “The Investigator” and “The Day After Tomorrow” are worth the price alone.
“The Investigator” – while a bit nebulous in its logic – explores the world of two teens reduced in size to dolls by a mysterious entity known only by the show’s title; this overlord them provides them with an assortment of high-tech vehicles and gadgetry to help fight crime. I’ll admit that the concept doesn’t quite work – the marionettes are far too lifeless, capturing in scenes lying around talking about do-gooding more than they are every engaged in it – but there’s still that Anderson spark at work that made so many other puppet shows exciting.
“The Day After Tomorrow” is a family space drama very much in the vein of Irwin Allen’s Lost In Space and Anderson’s own Space:1999: the Bowen family have been sent into the stars to gather the secrets of science for relaying back to Earth but find themselves racing against time to repair their engines before a nearby star goes supernova. They do, but they find themselves thrust inside the resulting black hole into a whole new galaxy with no hope of return. It’s a grand set-up – think of Walt Disney’s theatrical The Black Hole but accomplished more of a television scale – but the lack of a series pick-up meant that the continuing trips with the Bowen family were not meant to be. The great Alan Tate and equally impressive Brian Blessed headline the telefilm, with the late Joanna Dunham along for the ride. It could’ve been a contender.
Also worthy of a mention is Anderson’s original pilot “Space Police,” an obvious earlier incarnation of what evolved to eventually become the 1990’s Space Precinct. This version gave Anderson regular Shane Rimmer a chance to play a somewhat emotionally-grizzled cop for an unspecified planetary jurisdiction wherein the baddies concoct a very Thunderbirds-esque scenario to kidnap a galactic President on a high-tech train; naturally, this requires the police concoct an equally elaborate rescue attempt. It’s all well and good, though the narrative never quite hammers down a singular focus and clearly needed some retooling in order to be usable as a series foundation. (Interestingly enough, the DVD set includes an alternate version recast with new actors as a second attempt; and the set also includes a wealth of unused footage with alternate takes for those who like to explore such extras.)
As these are ‘lost worlds,’ not each is a glistening gem … but each does remind Anderson fans of what drew us to his unique storytelling in the first place: the inventiveness is present always, and that alone makes it worth the time.
HIGHLY Recommended for purists of Gerry Anderson’s work as there are some worthwhile moments in here, but only MODESTLY Recommended for casual junkies as there’s probably not enough to make this a dream come true. I grew up on the stuff of Supermarionation when I could find it (stateside) in TV syndication, and a few of these had some terrific nostalgic quality to them; the stories are what they are – good or bad – with only a few creative sparks in between to make them worth a second watch.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Home Video provided me with a DVD of THE LOST WORLDS OF GERRY ANDERSON 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.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Home Video provided me with a DVD of THE LOST WORLDS OF GERRY ANDERSON by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
The Eggnog Is Bloody For Red Christmas (2016)
In case you’re unaware, there are rules for the classic slasher picture. Granted, the tenets may not be all that involved, much less rational, but they’re real, nonetheless.
First, you (obviously) must have a slasher. A good one. A real killer. Not so mamby-pamby run’o’the’mill nut-job but a villainous predator who craves the shedding of blood for a purpose.
Second, the deaths should either (A) mean something to the plot or (B) be as cool as Hell. If not, then what’s the point? The slaughter is just gratuitous, and not in a good way.
And, basically, that’s it.
Now, many storytellers throughout the years have tried to tack on other ideas and/or concepts, but the foundation – a cool slasher and memorable deaths – remains the same, regardless of the era, the star power, or the property. Without those, there really isn’t a slasher film, per se, but more likely just a plain old-fashioned story dripping with blood (if not irony).
Well, so far as Red Christmas is concerned? Somebody forgot the rules …
(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 my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
First, you (obviously) must have a slasher. A good one. A real killer. Not so mamby-pamby run’o’the’mill nut-job but a villainous predator who craves the shedding of blood for a purpose.
Second, the deaths should either (A) mean something to the plot or (B) be as cool as Hell. If not, then what’s the point? The slaughter is just gratuitous, and not in a good way.
And, basically, that’s it.
Now, many storytellers throughout the years have tried to tack on other ideas and/or concepts, but the foundation – a cool slasher and memorable deaths – remains the same, regardless of the era, the star power, or the property. Without those, there really isn’t a slasher film, per se, but more likely just a plain old-fashioned story dripping with blood (if not irony).
Well, so far as Red Christmas is concerned? Somebody forgot the rules …
(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 my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From IMDB.com:
“A mother must protect her family on Christmas Day from a demented stranger who is hell-bent on tearing them apart.”
Now – for the record – that synopsis isn’t entirely accurate. It kinda/sorta reads like a premise crafted by a clever marketing executive who knew a thing or two about wooing the widest possible audience with the fewest possible words. And – perhaps as I explained above – maybe that exec even understood what it takes to give the promise of the classic slasher feature. But for all Red Christmas’s obvious posturing – and there is plenty of it – it fails to deliver the blessed yuletide carnage.
Because even independent features have to get into the game of invoking political agendas to spin their yarns, Christmas’s foundation as written and directed by Craig Anderson requires twin acts of terrorism to spawn its villain: a failed abortion along with the medical clinic’s bombing set in motion some less-than-credible events putting Cletus (Sam Campbell) on the path to reuniting with his mother, Diane (the still fabulous-looking Dee Wallace). Cletus was rejected before birth – Diane undertook the abortion upon learning her unborn child who be afflicted with Down’s Syndome – and, naturally, he’d kinda/sorta “rise from the dead” twenty years later in order to wreck vengeance not only on her but also her family this holiday season. (There’s a bit more to it, but that’s enough to get the gist.)
However, Christmas wasn’t content to stop there.
Instead, Anderson layers his story with an entire cavalry of potential victims, each a bit more self-absorbed than the last with no one truly looking out for the other. (Why, what happened to that holiday spirit?) There’s Diane’s drinking and pot-smoking brother Joe (Geoff Morrell). There’s Diane’s daughter Suzy, the financial-strapped wife to a possibly closeted priest (David Collins). There’s Diane’s other daughter Ginny, the anti-establishment kinda/sorta hippie who can’t get through her pregnancy or a holiday meal without the requisite “quickie” in the laundry room with Scott (Bjorn Stewart). And there’s Jerry (Gerard Odwyer), Diane’s Shakespeare-quoting son who also happens to be afflicted with Down’s. This familial mob comes together for what they suspected to be their last gathering at the ol’ family haunt … and, of course, that turns out to be just the case.
“A mother must protect her family on Christmas Day from a demented stranger who is hell-bent on tearing them apart.”
Now – for the record – that synopsis isn’t entirely accurate. It kinda/sorta reads like a premise crafted by a clever marketing executive who knew a thing or two about wooing the widest possible audience with the fewest possible words. And – perhaps as I explained above – maybe that exec even understood what it takes to give the promise of the classic slasher feature. But for all Red Christmas’s obvious posturing – and there is plenty of it – it fails to deliver the blessed yuletide carnage.
Because even independent features have to get into the game of invoking political agendas to spin their yarns, Christmas’s foundation as written and directed by Craig Anderson requires twin acts of terrorism to spawn its villain: a failed abortion along with the medical clinic’s bombing set in motion some less-than-credible events putting Cletus (Sam Campbell) on the path to reuniting with his mother, Diane (the still fabulous-looking Dee Wallace). Cletus was rejected before birth – Diane undertook the abortion upon learning her unborn child who be afflicted with Down’s Syndome – and, naturally, he’d kinda/sorta “rise from the dead” twenty years later in order to wreck vengeance not only on her but also her family this holiday season. (There’s a bit more to it, but that’s enough to get the gist.)
However, Christmas wasn’t content to stop there.
Instead, Anderson layers his story with an entire cavalry of potential victims, each a bit more self-absorbed than the last with no one truly looking out for the other. (Why, what happened to that holiday spirit?) There’s Diane’s drinking and pot-smoking brother Joe (Geoff Morrell). There’s Diane’s daughter Suzy, the financial-strapped wife to a possibly closeted priest (David Collins). There’s Diane’s other daughter Ginny, the anti-establishment kinda/sorta hippie who can’t get through her pregnancy or a holiday meal without the requisite “quickie” in the laundry room with Scott (Bjorn Stewart). And there’s Jerry (Gerard Odwyer), Diane’s Shakespeare-quoting son who also happens to be afflicted with Down’s. This familial mob comes together for what they suspected to be their last gathering at the ol’ family haunt … and, of course, that turns out to be just the case.
As there’s absolutely nothing untoward about revenge finding its way into the classic slasher film, Cletus ends up being the central character here, a curious development given that he spends the bulk of the film wrapped in a black cloak (the same Death tends to wear when personified) with his face covered under bandages. (He implies at one point that he’s a Leper, but that’s far from the truth.) In order for that to have the requisite dramatic payoff, then there needs to be some kind of tie to each of these victims … but there isn’t. What only there is remains the family attachment; given the fact that none of these players are particular happy with the life they’ve lived – the same one that Cletus was denied – the deadly comeuppances serve no narrative purpose other than to be simple deaths.
See, when Jason Voorhees went on his rampage killing camp counselors and the like, his rage was obviously directly figuratively as those who could’ve stopped his untimely demise. (Granted, this becomes less and less true as the franchise wears on, but I think you get the drift.) Likewise, when Freddy Krueger starts carving up those most pubescent and beyond he’s acting out the anger stemming from his own origins story. There’s a purpose behind the bloodletting, and it’s that connection which makes for compelling killing. Without it? Well … like I said, it’s just gratuitous.
Similarly, features like Sorority House Massacre, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Saw, or even The Driller Killer might offer up lightweight versions of narrative attachment like Jason and Freddy; but what they lack in connection they make up for in sheer, unadulterated depravity. These killers function on a different psychological level, one that compels them to really, really enjoy their gory hobby, so much so that the deaths grow more and more ingenious as the picture wears on. There may be connections between the murderer and the victims, but what matters here is how creative can these unfortunate souls be dispatched.
Red Christmas offers neither. Cletus has a tenuous link to these people at best, one that wasn’t enough for me to accept it as the cause for their respective expirations. And – unfortunately – Cletus was a completely unimaginative killer. In fact, I’d argue that there was really only a single death in here that pushed the envelope the way a traditional slasher film would (it involves a certain kitchen appliance, and I won’t spoil it more than that), but all of the rest? Meh. Pretty routine, Cletus. You’re seriously gonna have to up your game if you want to make Santa’s ‘Naughty List’ in a sequel.
See, when Jason Voorhees went on his rampage killing camp counselors and the like, his rage was obviously directly figuratively as those who could’ve stopped his untimely demise. (Granted, this becomes less and less true as the franchise wears on, but I think you get the drift.) Likewise, when Freddy Krueger starts carving up those most pubescent and beyond he’s acting out the anger stemming from his own origins story. There’s a purpose behind the bloodletting, and it’s that connection which makes for compelling killing. Without it? Well … like I said, it’s just gratuitous.
Similarly, features like Sorority House Massacre, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Saw, or even The Driller Killer might offer up lightweight versions of narrative attachment like Jason and Freddy; but what they lack in connection they make up for in sheer, unadulterated depravity. These killers function on a different psychological level, one that compels them to really, really enjoy their gory hobby, so much so that the deaths grow more and more ingenious as the picture wears on. There may be connections between the murderer and the victims, but what matters here is how creative can these unfortunate souls be dispatched.
Red Christmas offers neither. Cletus has a tenuous link to these people at best, one that wasn’t enough for me to accept it as the cause for their respective expirations. And – unfortunately – Cletus was a completely unimaginative killer. In fact, I’d argue that there was really only a single death in here that pushed the envelope the way a traditional slasher film would (it involves a certain kitchen appliance, and I won’t spoil it more than that), but all of the rest? Meh. Pretty routine, Cletus. You’re seriously gonna have to up your game if you want to make Santa’s ‘Naughty List’ in a sequel.
Red Christmas (2016) is produced by Red Christmas. DVD distribution (stateside) for this Australian release is being handled via Artsploitation Films. As for the technical specifications? Most of the film is very good with visuals and sounds, but there was a certain sequence wherein I experienced some weird loss of audio for a few seconds. (It happened upon playback a second time as well, so maybe it’s a flaw in the disc.) If you’re interested in special features? Well, buckle up! The Blu-ray includes a few making-of interviews as well as a director’s commentary for those who like those things. A nice package all under the Xmas tree!
(Mildly) Recommended. It may not be what you wanted from Santa, but it’s what he left for you! Fans of slasher films might be a bit disappointed with Red Christmas, but there’s enough red drippings in here once the bloodshed starts to keep even casual enthusiasts interested. For my tastes (and, yes, I do love all kinds of slasher films), the flick stops just short of where it needed to be, never truly giving Cletus the goods to shine the way great movie villains do. As a killer, he’s far too conventional for my tastes, and another draft with another pair of eyes and ears might have been needed to make this holiday present truly presentable.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Artsploitation Films provided me with a Blu-ray of Red Christmas (2016) for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
(Mildly) Recommended. It may not be what you wanted from Santa, but it’s what he left for you! Fans of slasher films might be a bit disappointed with Red Christmas, but there’s enough red drippings in here once the bloodshed starts to keep even casual enthusiasts interested. For my tastes (and, yes, I do love all kinds of slasher films), the flick stops just short of where it needed to be, never truly giving Cletus the goods to shine the way great movie villains do. As a killer, he’s far too conventional for my tastes, and another draft with another pair of eyes and ears might have been needed to make this holiday present truly presentable.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Artsploitation Films provided me with a Blu-ray of Red Christmas (2016) for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
Marvel's Black Panther Looking To Take a Bite Out Of February Box Office
Being as blunt as I can, I don't dislike the Marvel films. Because I'm probably as big a fan of genre entertainment as the next guy I welcome them to the fold with each and every addition. Granted, I don't see all of them -- having read comic books since the early 1970's, I just never caught the Marvel bug the way most of my contemporaries did -- and, like any moviegoer, I do think that the company is taking a pretty big risk flooding the marketplace the way they have with the megaplexes, TV, and streaming. Eventually, it all feels like overkill, and -- when that happens -- films tend to use the ingredients necessary to make them special if not risk feeling 'routine.'
In any event, Marvel's following up Thor: Ragnarok in November with Black Panther a mere four months later (February, 2018), so the company is well on its way to having one flick on the silver screen every weekend. Hopefully this one won't be as forgettable as the last one, but -- dare I say? -- this one looks an awful lot like Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 ... only set on Earth ... and with African-American actors ... and fewer laughs.
For those of you who may've missed the latest trailer when it dropped the other day, I'll post it here for posterity. Check it out if you're so inclined.
In any event, Marvel's following up Thor: Ragnarok in November with Black Panther a mere four months later (February, 2018), so the company is well on its way to having one flick on the silver screen every weekend. Hopefully this one won't be as forgettable as the last one, but -- dare I say? -- this one looks an awful lot like Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 ... only set on Earth ... and with African-American actors ... and fewer laughs.
For those of you who may've missed the latest trailer when it dropped the other day, I'll post it here for posterity. Check it out if you're so inclined.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Star Wars Rebels Returns For Its Swan Season!
I've mentioned before that I've been a bit hard on Star Wars Rebels.
In my humble opinion, it's first two seasons were loaded with some relative klunkers, not so much owed to bad writing as it was to characters who took quite awhile to "get to know" much less care about. It's central protagonist -- the young Ezra Bridger -- also put me off a bit mostly as he was a bit too young and brash in those early adventures, certainly not someone perhaps seen as the budding hero so much as he was some intergalactic upstart. I was more interested in the supporting players, and they just didn't get near as much screen time in a property obviously geared more for the younglings watching the show (I'm a bit grizzled from a spent youth).
Still, the program took leaps forward in Season Three, allowing greater backstories to flesh out for this merry band of heroes in the galaxy far, far away; and I was a bit disheartened when showrunner Dave Filoni announced not so long ago that Season Four would be the last for the animated series. Just when we were getting to know ye ...
In any event, that fateful Season Four premieres tonight on Disney XD, so I wanted to serve up a kinda/sorta public service announcement for those reading. Make sure to watch or to set your DVRs, as I'm expecting that Filoni and friends will be sending out these Rebels on a high note not unlike what he accomplished with Star Wars: The Clone Wars. And if you're needing a bit of a recap of where the crew has been, then check out this spectacular sizzle reel on YouTube.com below.
As always, thanks for reading ... and May The Force Be With You!
In my humble opinion, it's first two seasons were loaded with some relative klunkers, not so much owed to bad writing as it was to characters who took quite awhile to "get to know" much less care about. It's central protagonist -- the young Ezra Bridger -- also put me off a bit mostly as he was a bit too young and brash in those early adventures, certainly not someone perhaps seen as the budding hero so much as he was some intergalactic upstart. I was more interested in the supporting players, and they just didn't get near as much screen time in a property obviously geared more for the younglings watching the show (I'm a bit grizzled from a spent youth).
Still, the program took leaps forward in Season Three, allowing greater backstories to flesh out for this merry band of heroes in the galaxy far, far away; and I was a bit disheartened when showrunner Dave Filoni announced not so long ago that Season Four would be the last for the animated series. Just when we were getting to know ye ...
In any event, that fateful Season Four premieres tonight on Disney XD, so I wanted to serve up a kinda/sorta public service announcement for those reading. Make sure to watch or to set your DVRs, as I'm expecting that Filoni and friends will be sending out these Rebels on a high note not unlike what he accomplished with Star Wars: The Clone Wars. And if you're needing a bit of a recap of where the crew has been, then check out this spectacular sizzle reel on YouTube.com below.
As always, thanks for reading ... and May The Force Be With You!
- Published on
Blade Runner 2049 Mounts A Slow Climb To A Treacherous Peak In Cinema History
Some days, I’m actually glad that I don’t write professionally for some major media outlets.
It isn’t to say that I wouldn’t welcome the opportunity (especially if you're reading this, major newspaper outlets!); rather, it’s that – on occasion – I find it hard to have something interesting or relevant to say “right outta the gate” with some projects. As a viewer, I do tend from time to time to prefer to think about a film or a TV show before sounding off … and that’s definitely the case with Blade Runner 2049. As a film, it’s richer than most. As a meal, it’s meatier than many. It’s exactly the kind of flick I like to ruminate over a bit before I fully commit to some thoughts, and now that I have I think I have something to say.
Frankly, it might not be all that different from what’s been put out there already, but that won’t stop me from saying it.
(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 my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
It isn’t to say that I wouldn’t welcome the opportunity (especially if you're reading this, major newspaper outlets!); rather, it’s that – on occasion – I find it hard to have something interesting or relevant to say “right outta the gate” with some projects. As a viewer, I do tend from time to time to prefer to think about a film or a TV show before sounding off … and that’s definitely the case with Blade Runner 2049. As a film, it’s richer than most. As a meal, it’s meatier than many. It’s exactly the kind of flick I like to ruminate over a bit before I fully commit to some thoughts, and now that I have I think I have something to say.
Frankly, it might not be all that different from what’s been put out there already, but that won’t stop me from saying it.
(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 my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the IMDB.com summary:
“Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who's been missing for 30 years.”
Yes, everything you’ve probably already read about Blade Runner 2049 is – most definitely – true: it’s a visual masterpiece, one of the best of the modern filmmaking era.
Clearly, director Denis Villeneuve is a fan of the original as I’ve no doubt he spent hours crafting the look of 2049 almost entirely on the Ridley Scott feature, and I suspect film students and scholars will spent the next thirty-five years dissecting the hidden (and not-so-hidden) meanings of each and every construct as they’ve done with the seminal inspiration. Hampton Fancher and Michael Green’s script smartly picks up the core elements of the older film and builds on them in ways that logically expand the universe created, showing not only a passage of time but also the consequences of technology further chipping away at our humanity, leaving even replicants only left with virtual companions in a world nearly void of any human contact.
“Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who's been missing for 30 years.”
Yes, everything you’ve probably already read about Blade Runner 2049 is – most definitely – true: it’s a visual masterpiece, one of the best of the modern filmmaking era.
Clearly, director Denis Villeneuve is a fan of the original as I’ve no doubt he spent hours crafting the look of 2049 almost entirely on the Ridley Scott feature, and I suspect film students and scholars will spent the next thirty-five years dissecting the hidden (and not-so-hidden) meanings of each and every construct as they’ve done with the seminal inspiration. Hampton Fancher and Michael Green’s script smartly picks up the core elements of the older film and builds on them in ways that logically expand the universe created, showing not only a passage of time but also the consequences of technology further chipping away at our humanity, leaving even replicants only left with virtual companions in a world nearly void of any human contact.
Also let it be said simply: much like Scott’s film, 2049 is not going to be to everyone’s liking.
Both the original and the follow-up -- as pure a sequel as can be -- share the distinction of being “stories” that require a certain amount of “storytelling” for the events to unfold. Neither project is heavy on exposition – visual or otherwise – and one might admit to feeling the passage of time itself while waiting for developments from one event to the next. Neither motion picture is heavy on action; both are tales requiring an investment of character in order for them to make the kind of narrative sense the viewer is rewarded with in the conclusion, but that’s quite possibly the greatest distinction I found between them separately.
Scott’s Blade Runner was a yarn built around the parallel existential discoveries of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) and Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer): both men are driven personally to shape the unforgiving world they were built for, though Deckard’s shaping is owed more to riding out the ebbs and flows of his job at first blush. As the ride grows more intense, Deckard realizes he can take command – falling in love with Rachel (Sean Young), bucking the requirements of his police boss in pursuit of further bloodshed, etc. – so much so that he loses sight of his own civilization in the process. Necessarily, he’s fallen so far off the beaten path that he needs the bloody, primal clash and near-failure with Batty in order to have humanity restored to him. It's a kind of redemption, one that leads to an even greater but understandable sin.
For years, I’ve argued that the central idea behind the original film is the pursuit of mercy, perhaps the ultimate expression of (dare I say?) Godliness for we mere mortals. “God giveth life” is what we’re taught, and so much of human history deals with how “man taketh it” away. Blade Runner is the tale of two men chasing the shared demon for different reasons, Deckard because it’s all he knows and Batty because he wants to, relishes in the pursuit. In the end, it’s mercy that redeems both sinners: the hunted saves the hunter’s life in the final reel, and it’s the hunter then who reciprocates – showing mercy – allowing the hunted to die on his own terms.
Both the original and the follow-up -- as pure a sequel as can be -- share the distinction of being “stories” that require a certain amount of “storytelling” for the events to unfold. Neither project is heavy on exposition – visual or otherwise – and one might admit to feeling the passage of time itself while waiting for developments from one event to the next. Neither motion picture is heavy on action; both are tales requiring an investment of character in order for them to make the kind of narrative sense the viewer is rewarded with in the conclusion, but that’s quite possibly the greatest distinction I found between them separately.
Scott’s Blade Runner was a yarn built around the parallel existential discoveries of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) and Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer): both men are driven personally to shape the unforgiving world they were built for, though Deckard’s shaping is owed more to riding out the ebbs and flows of his job at first blush. As the ride grows more intense, Deckard realizes he can take command – falling in love with Rachel (Sean Young), bucking the requirements of his police boss in pursuit of further bloodshed, etc. – so much so that he loses sight of his own civilization in the process. Necessarily, he’s fallen so far off the beaten path that he needs the bloody, primal clash and near-failure with Batty in order to have humanity restored to him. It's a kind of redemption, one that leads to an even greater but understandable sin.
For years, I’ve argued that the central idea behind the original film is the pursuit of mercy, perhaps the ultimate expression of (dare I say?) Godliness for we mere mortals. “God giveth life” is what we’re taught, and so much of human history deals with how “man taketh it” away. Blade Runner is the tale of two men chasing the shared demon for different reasons, Deckard because it’s all he knows and Batty because he wants to, relishes in the pursuit. In the end, it’s mercy that redeems both sinners: the hunted saves the hunter’s life in the final reel, and it’s the hunter then who reciprocates – showing mercy – allowing the hunted to die on his own terms.
By contrast, I’m hard pressed to develop a theory as to what 2049’s central theme could be.
The film and its characters seem to be entirely constructed instead to comment on humanity (or the lack thereof) in this bombed-out world of near-tomorrow, but these various ingredients don’t quite congeal into any single ‘moral of the story.’ K’s so inhuman he isn’t even provided a full name by his manufacturers. Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright) is a pale bureaucratic functionary who lives and dies by the job, once entertaining dropping her guard for some sexual facetime with her engineered subordinate only to dismiss it when he kinda/sorta rebuffs her. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is a replicant sternly dedicated to maintaining the corporate status quo no matter where such dedication takes her; her narrative counterpart – Joi (Ana de Armas) – is the only ‘human’ in all of this, and that’s ironic owed to the fact that’s she’s the film’s quasi-sentient hologram meant to represent near-technologic perfection, intimacy of the highest order.
Unlike Scott’s original, 2049 seems content with maintaining a stronger degree of individuality from start-to-finish: the players might interact (narrative conflict requires it), but they all seem to stay on separate roads, never gelling around a central message the viewer might relate to. And – who knows? – perhaps that’s all Villeneuve wanted to say about tomorrow, that no matter how technologically advanced we might be we’re still destined to live and die alone? Indeed, K’s last moments would seem to bear out such fruit; and – without spoiling the surprise – even Deckard’s final reveal might underscore how even reunions ultimately might be denied that which we all inevitable seek: human touch.
The film and its characters seem to be entirely constructed instead to comment on humanity (or the lack thereof) in this bombed-out world of near-tomorrow, but these various ingredients don’t quite congeal into any single ‘moral of the story.’ K’s so inhuman he isn’t even provided a full name by his manufacturers. Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright) is a pale bureaucratic functionary who lives and dies by the job, once entertaining dropping her guard for some sexual facetime with her engineered subordinate only to dismiss it when he kinda/sorta rebuffs her. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is a replicant sternly dedicated to maintaining the corporate status quo no matter where such dedication takes her; her narrative counterpart – Joi (Ana de Armas) – is the only ‘human’ in all of this, and that’s ironic owed to the fact that’s she’s the film’s quasi-sentient hologram meant to represent near-technologic perfection, intimacy of the highest order.
Unlike Scott’s original, 2049 seems content with maintaining a stronger degree of individuality from start-to-finish: the players might interact (narrative conflict requires it), but they all seem to stay on separate roads, never gelling around a central message the viewer might relate to. And – who knows? – perhaps that’s all Villeneuve wanted to say about tomorrow, that no matter how technologically advanced we might be we’re still destined to live and die alone? Indeed, K’s last moments would seem to bear out such fruit; and – without spoiling the surprise – even Deckard’s final reveal might underscore how even reunions ultimately might be denied that which we all inevitable seek: human touch.
Still, if subtle moments matter, then 2049 matches its predecessor’s intensity, and – as I said – I suspect it’s a film that’ll take some time to find the reputation its owed and earned.
As an aside, I’m at a loss to understand why industry insiders believed 2049 would be some break-out box office superstar. Those of us familiar with the original know that it took its sweet time (along with several subsequent ‘editions’) to reach its deserved perch in cinema history. While Mr. Ford’s box office clout may’ve been overestimated by some, I tend to think Ryan Gosling remains a bit of a ‘critical darling’ at best; Hollywood creations rarely find blockbuster status entirely on the merits of ‘the work,’ and he still has miles to go before he sleeps (if you’ll pardon the expression). Also, today’s ADHD-obsessed audiences can’t sit for nearly three hours on a narrative payoff, especially one lacking constant explosions, a pulse-pounding score, and Marvel-designed spandex. In my humble estimation, 2049 always had a hill to climb, and I’m accepting this theatrical release as only its first step.
As an aside, I’m at a loss to understand why industry insiders believed 2049 would be some break-out box office superstar. Those of us familiar with the original know that it took its sweet time (along with several subsequent ‘editions’) to reach its deserved perch in cinema history. While Mr. Ford’s box office clout may’ve been overestimated by some, I tend to think Ryan Gosling remains a bit of a ‘critical darling’ at best; Hollywood creations rarely find blockbuster status entirely on the merits of ‘the work,’ and he still has miles to go before he sleeps (if you’ll pardon the expression). Also, today’s ADHD-obsessed audiences can’t sit for nearly three hours on a narrative payoff, especially one lacking constant explosions, a pulse-pounding score, and Marvel-designed spandex. In my humble estimation, 2049 always had a hill to climb, and I’m accepting this theatrical release as only its first step.
- Published on
Matt Lucas Reflects On HIs Time Aboard Who
I have to admit that I don't follow the press accounts all that closely regarding the BBC's long-running Doctor Who. Oh, I do read a piece from time-to-time -- especially now that I've learned that the legendary time traveler will be morphing from male to female -- but I honestly don't pay all that much attention to much in the press largely because it tends to be written for hype and not substance. At my advanced age (though I'm not nearly as old as the good Doctor), hype just doesn't interest me all that much.
Consequently, I was completely unaware of any controversy surrounding funnyman Matt Lucas's casting as a kinda/sorta companion for the show. In some respects, I guess I can understand how some comedians joining a program might be greeted with some disdain, but Lucas's talents are quite broad, meaning he has the chops to be far more dramatic should the need arrive in any script. I didn't much care for his character, but I had absolutely no bones with what he did.
The website We Got It Covered made a lengthy blurb regarding Lucas's thoughts on the controversy, and I thought it was worth sharing. So there it is ...
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
Consequently, I was completely unaware of any controversy surrounding funnyman Matt Lucas's casting as a kinda/sorta companion for the show. In some respects, I guess I can understand how some comedians joining a program might be greeted with some disdain, but Lucas's talents are quite broad, meaning he has the chops to be far more dramatic should the need arrive in any script. I didn't much care for his character, but I had absolutely no bones with what he did.
The website We Got It Covered made a lengthy blurb regarding Lucas's thoughts on the controversy, and I thought it was worth sharing. So there it is ...
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!