- Published on
The Force Is Strong With This One: Man Pleads
Guilty To Rancho Obi-Wan Museum Heist
I have a vague recollection of seeing a video recently wherein long-time Star Wars collector and fandom expert Steve Sansweet had discussed the theft of some highly-sought-after collectibles from the Rancho Obi-Wan Museum, and this article reports that the suspected guilty culprit indeed turned out to be not-to-innocent after all. The man pled guilty to having absconded with over $100,000 worth of items. Who would've guessed that trying to sell something so inconceivably rare that there might only be two or three of them in mint condition could've led to so relatively easy a discovery? Perhaps this is a case of the mastermind not being so smart after all ...
Let this be a lesson to you, peeps: the weed of crime bears bitter fruit.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
Let this be a lesson to you, peeps: the weed of crime bears bitter fruit.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Star Trek: Discovery To Respect Canon
This is one of those promotional interviews that I'd strongly caution all serious Star Trek enthusiasts to take with a few grains of salt, but -- according to the piece on ScienceFiction.Com -- Star Trek: Discovery producer Alex Kurtzman alleges that his show will respect canon. (For those unaware, 'canon' refers to the already previously established history and/or fictional mythology surrounding a universe's characters, places, and events.)
One of the strongest criticisms of Paramount Pictures' big budget Star Trek reboot masterminded by JJ Abrams has been that Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and Star Trek Beyond (2016) have played fast and loose with the established facts of the Gene Roddenberry franchise. In fact, I think it was JJ Abrams who has publicly admitted that he was never a fan of the space saga set in the twenty-third century, and it was his intention to "boldly go" wherever he wanted to go with these characters. I do know that both Kurtzman and screenwriter Roberto Orci have gone on record with their open disdain for Star Trek's most loyal fans, essentially thumbing their nose at the very people who helped make the starship Enterprise the institution it once was and remains today.
In any event, Kurtzman was one of the creative crew who long insisted that popular British actor Benedict Cumberbatch would not be appearing as 'Khan' in Star Trek Into Darkness -- a bold-faced lie if there ever were one -- so I'm not encouraging anyone to take the producer at his word. My suspicion here is that Discovery possibly isn't polling well online or some such phenomenon -- loyalists are upset at having to subscribe to CBS All Access in order to experience this next incarnation of their franchise (as well they should be) -- so studio suits are trying to create a buzz the only way they know how: telling half-truths to dupe fans they've already dismissed a 'rubes.'
If that sounds a bit cynical on my part, then so be it. I've already said that because of CBS's insistence on taking Star Trek only into the realm of streaming and for-pay viewing that this is probably the only series in Trek's pantheon I won't be watching as it unfolds: once it releases on home video or the like I'll check it out for posterity's sake. Still, I'm finding it hard to get excited about it as it all looks like so much more of the same ... despite Kurtzman's insistence that it isn't.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
One of the strongest criticisms of Paramount Pictures' big budget Star Trek reboot masterminded by JJ Abrams has been that Star Trek (2009), Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), and Star Trek Beyond (2016) have played fast and loose with the established facts of the Gene Roddenberry franchise. In fact, I think it was JJ Abrams who has publicly admitted that he was never a fan of the space saga set in the twenty-third century, and it was his intention to "boldly go" wherever he wanted to go with these characters. I do know that both Kurtzman and screenwriter Roberto Orci have gone on record with their open disdain for Star Trek's most loyal fans, essentially thumbing their nose at the very people who helped make the starship Enterprise the institution it once was and remains today.
In any event, Kurtzman was one of the creative crew who long insisted that popular British actor Benedict Cumberbatch would not be appearing as 'Khan' in Star Trek Into Darkness -- a bold-faced lie if there ever were one -- so I'm not encouraging anyone to take the producer at his word. My suspicion here is that Discovery possibly isn't polling well online or some such phenomenon -- loyalists are upset at having to subscribe to CBS All Access in order to experience this next incarnation of their franchise (as well they should be) -- so studio suits are trying to create a buzz the only way they know how: telling half-truths to dupe fans they've already dismissed a 'rubes.'
If that sounds a bit cynical on my part, then so be it. I've already said that because of CBS's insistence on taking Star Trek only into the realm of streaming and for-pay viewing that this is probably the only series in Trek's pantheon I won't be watching as it unfolds: once it releases on home video or the like I'll check it out for posterity's sake. Still, I'm finding it hard to get excited about it as it all looks like so much more of the same ... despite Kurtzman's insistence that it isn't.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Smallville's Super-girl Lois Lane Joining
The CW's Supergirl In Surprise Role
Happy Monday, peeps!
I saw this article last week on Deadline.com (link), and I thought it worth a mention on SciFiHistory.Net's Mainpage. Certainly, it's always an interesting development when folks from one incarnation of a superhero program jump aboard another one: the always lovely Erica Durance -- formerly known as Lois Lane aboard Smallville -- is taking over the role of Alura (aka Supergirl's Kryptonian mother) for the show. As it would appear, the lovely Laura Benanti has had to bow out due to commitments back in the States (for those unaware, production on The CW program shifted from the U.S. to Canada when the actioner switched from CBS).
It's hard to tell what developments this may mean for Supergirl's ongoing storylines, but let's hope it's all positive. While I wasn't thrilled with Season 2 in all respects, it's hard to argue that the showrunners didn't deliver a measure of excitement before all was said and done.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
I saw this article last week on Deadline.com (link), and I thought it worth a mention on SciFiHistory.Net's Mainpage. Certainly, it's always an interesting development when folks from one incarnation of a superhero program jump aboard another one: the always lovely Erica Durance -- formerly known as Lois Lane aboard Smallville -- is taking over the role of Alura (aka Supergirl's Kryptonian mother) for the show. As it would appear, the lovely Laura Benanti has had to bow out due to commitments back in the States (for those unaware, production on The CW program shifted from the U.S. to Canada when the actioner switched from CBS).
It's hard to tell what developments this may mean for Supergirl's ongoing storylines, but let's hope it's all positive. While I wasn't thrilled with Season 2 in all respects, it's hard to argue that the showrunners didn't deliver a measure of excitement before all was said and done.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Steampunk's Origins Traced To ... New Jersey?!
Recently, I figured out a way to sign up and receive some various News Alerts relating to the general world of Science Fiction, and one of the very first blurbs received was this interested story I thought worth sharing here on SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage: it would seem that the SciFi genre of Steampunk might very well owe a nod to a relatively curious development relating to the city of Newark, New Jersey. If you're so inclined, then follow the link right here and check out the particulars.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
"That Is Why You Fail": Wars Vs Trek Unfriendly
Debate Ends With Arrest
I don't know if it's safe to say that "we've all been there" because I know that even I -- with my strong opinions regarding various SciFi properties -- have never served a night in jail over claiming A was better than B; but I guess it is safe to say that it happens.
In any event, I thought this 'Fandom Fail' was worth sharing if for no other purpose than to remind fellow geeks, nerds, and enthusiasts that it IS just a movie, after all. Yes, if pushed to the limit then I'd probably admit I've enjoyed more Star Trek than Star Wars; still I'm not going to jail over it. Check out the kinda/sorta humorous story right here.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper so long as the Force is with us all!
In any event, I thought this 'Fandom Fail' was worth sharing if for no other purpose than to remind fellow geeks, nerds, and enthusiasts that it IS just a movie, after all. Yes, if pushed to the limit then I'd probably admit I've enjoyed more Star Trek than Star Wars; still I'm not going to jail over it. Check out the kinda/sorta humorous story right here.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper so long as the Force is with us all!
- Published on
Kino Lorber's Star Slammer Release ReMasters
The Campy Space Prison Flick
As I’ve often warned, Comedy and Science Fiction are not easily combined.
When done right, filmmakers have the potential to deliver audiences the next Back To The Future, a crowd-pleasing gem that’s not only fondly remembered by those who saw it first but also the generations who’ve discovered it since being released. When done wrong? Well, I think it’s safe to conclude that you get something that looks, sounds, and ages like Fred Olen Ray’s Star Slammer (1986), the tale of a lovely lady (in space!) thrown behind bars (in space!) with nowhere left to turn (in space!).
Now – for clarity’s sake – Slammer isn’t an awful film. (Those who’ve seen it are sure to take issue with that statement.) In fact, I’d argue that it’s awfully ambitious – perhaps too much for its own good – as it tried to not only deliver Comedy and Science Fiction but also hoped to serve up a heaping helping of old-fashioned Exploitation. That’s an awful lot to chew much less digest, and it’s usually why some cult films typically don’t enjoy a longer shelf life: they appear endlessly and unnecessarily silly.
Still, what I’m thankful for in this regard is that Kino Lorber has opened the door to others getting the opportunity to discover some of the B-Movies of my younger days as so much of today’s efforts are overrun with some awful CGI animation: Star Slammer – even with all its blemishes (and there are plenty) – is a labor of love from the bygone days of small studios cross-pollinating their projects with one another. It may not mean much to some, but it means plenty to those of us who grew up watching this shlock.
(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 …)
When done right, filmmakers have the potential to deliver audiences the next Back To The Future, a crowd-pleasing gem that’s not only fondly remembered by those who saw it first but also the generations who’ve discovered it since being released. When done wrong? Well, I think it’s safe to conclude that you get something that looks, sounds, and ages like Fred Olen Ray’s Star Slammer (1986), the tale of a lovely lady (in space!) thrown behind bars (in space!) with nowhere left to turn (in space!).
Now – for clarity’s sake – Slammer isn’t an awful film. (Those who’ve seen it are sure to take issue with that statement.) In fact, I’d argue that it’s awfully ambitious – perhaps too much for its own good – as it tried to not only deliver Comedy and Science Fiction but also hoped to serve up a heaping helping of old-fashioned Exploitation. That’s an awful lot to chew much less digest, and it’s usually why some cult films typically don’t enjoy a longer shelf life: they appear endlessly and unnecessarily silly.
Still, what I’m thankful for in this regard is that Kino Lorber has opened the door to others getting the opportunity to discover some of the B-Movies of my younger days as so much of today’s efforts are overrun with some awful CGI animation: Star Slammer – even with all its blemishes (and there are plenty) – is a labor of love from the bygone days of small studios cross-pollinating their projects with one another. It may not mean much to some, but it means plenty to those of us who grew up watching this shlock.
(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 …)
(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 product packaging:
“Taura, a voluptuous Amazonian beauty, finds herself mounting a battle against the forces of evil when she tangles with Bantor, a sadistic government official. Soon she is sentenced to hard labor aboard the prison ship Star Slammer and must prove herself to her young female cellmates before earning their respect and leading them in a daring prison break …”
Naturally, there’s plenty more, but I’ll diverge from there. What’s essential to know about this Slammer can be gleaned precisely from what director Ray tells you on the commentary track: “I was making a Saturday afternoon serial with tits.”
From the product packaging:
“Taura, a voluptuous Amazonian beauty, finds herself mounting a battle against the forces of evil when she tangles with Bantor, a sadistic government official. Soon she is sentenced to hard labor aboard the prison ship Star Slammer and must prove herself to her young female cellmates before earning their respect and leading them in a daring prison break …”
Naturally, there’s plenty more, but I’ll diverge from there. What’s essential to know about this Slammer can be gleaned precisely from what director Ray tells you on the commentary track: “I was making a Saturday afternoon serial with tits.”
In that regard, Slammer succeeds. Ray’s structured the narrative to play out over four chapters – much in the way the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930’s and 1940’s did (albeit in much longer reels) – and indeed includes healthy flashes of leading actress Sandy Brooke’s perpetually erect nipples and full-on breasts. They’re a wondrous centerpiece to this bare bones plot (pun intended) as Brooke and a bevy of attractive ladies spend the bulk of ninety minutes going from one (mis)adventure to the next, all the while managing to keep their hair and make-up as close to cinematographically perfect as it can get.
Beyond that perspective, however, Slammer is widely uneven, so much so that it’s hard to really figure out where all of this came from much less how it all managed to come together. Like so many B-Movies from the 1980’s, Slammer feels like an invention loosely plotted out on paper and heavily conceived on set. Michael Sonye’s screenplay only manages to pay lip service to the conventions of Comedy, Science Fiction, and Exploitation as most of the jokes are groaners, much of the ‘science’ we’ve seen before, and the sexiness is rather tame (even by 80’s standards).
Beyond that perspective, however, Slammer is widely uneven, so much so that it’s hard to really figure out where all of this came from much less how it all managed to come together. Like so many B-Movies from the 1980’s, Slammer feels like an invention loosely plotted out on paper and heavily conceived on set. Michael Sonye’s screenplay only manages to pay lip service to the conventions of Comedy, Science Fiction, and Exploitation as most of the jokes are groaners, much of the ‘science’ we’ve seen before, and the sexiness is rather tame (even by 80’s standards).
Still, because of I’m fan of that era and equally excited by SciFi, I did have a lot of harmless fun with it, much of it owed to the fact that Ray’s picture incorporated footage, props, and sets from other features of the period. For example, I noticed costumes from both Galaxy Of Terror (1981) and Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn (1983). I saw footage previously used in such motion pictures as Dark Star (1974), Battle Beyond The Stars (1980), and even television’s Buck Rogers In The 25th Century. Listening to Ray’s commentary, he even cites a wealth of other inclusions beyond my memory, many of which were aligned with Roger Corman or New Line Cinema; and it’s throwbacks like this that often make this old viewer smile.
Of course, intentional nostalgia for those kinder, simpler days of filmmaking (largely before CGI) is no reason to dismiss Slammer’s deficiencies, but Ray and company do manage to pull off what they started out to do here, no small feat regardless of the era. Any filmmaker worth his or her salt will tell you how much the work is a ‘labor of love,’ and back before everything could be “fixed in post” there were a wealth of craftsmen and women who had to get it up there on the silver screen. (George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron have really ruined audiences as so much of their worlds are conceived digitally: if that makes me sound old, then get off my lawn.) So if you can do like I did and set aside some modern preconceptions then you may find some guilty pleasure in a single viewing, though I suspect you’ll be hard-pressed to spin this disc again.
Also, as one who grew up watching those old black’n’white serials of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, Slammer worked for me probably as well as Ray intended. While it may not have the same grit or spirit of escape, it’s heart was obviously in the right place.
Of course, intentional nostalgia for those kinder, simpler days of filmmaking (largely before CGI) is no reason to dismiss Slammer’s deficiencies, but Ray and company do manage to pull off what they started out to do here, no small feat regardless of the era. Any filmmaker worth his or her salt will tell you how much the work is a ‘labor of love,’ and back before everything could be “fixed in post” there were a wealth of craftsmen and women who had to get it up there on the silver screen. (George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron have really ruined audiences as so much of their worlds are conceived digitally: if that makes me sound old, then get off my lawn.) So if you can do like I did and set aside some modern preconceptions then you may find some guilty pleasure in a single viewing, though I suspect you’ll be hard-pressed to spin this disc again.
Also, as one who grew up watching those old black’n’white serials of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, Slammer worked for me probably as well as Ray intended. While it may not have the same grit or spirit of escape, it’s heart was obviously in the right place.
Star Slammer (1986) was produced by Viking International Pictures and Worldwide Entertainment Corporation. DVD distribution for this particular release is being handled by Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Kino Lorber has remastered the print, and dare I say that it may look and sound better today than it did back in the mid-1980’s? There are a few sequences wherein the audio was a bit substandard (hard to hear), but none of it detracted from my enjoyment of the film. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Director Ray has provided a pretty astute audio commentary for those interested in such a thing, and I enjoyed listening (as I often do) to the stories of where the picture came from, how it all came together, and maybe even what it all means.
RECOMMENDED. Clearly, Star Slammer isn’t for everyone, but for those of us who grew up in the days when home video was a bit more adventurous with practical in-camera effects it should hit the spot just right. Yes, much of it may be unintentionally laughable, but I’ve often said that’s half the fun in discovering or re-discovering some of these lesser entries from the films of yesterday. I’ve no doubt everyone involved had a hand in the merriment, and Kino Lorber’s release is definitely worth a look (as is the commentary) for budding auteurs to learn a thing or two you can’t find in the books.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a Blu-ray of Star Slammer for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
RECOMMENDED. Clearly, Star Slammer isn’t for everyone, but for those of us who grew up in the days when home video was a bit more adventurous with practical in-camera effects it should hit the spot just right. Yes, much of it may be unintentionally laughable, but I’ve often said that’s half the fun in discovering or re-discovering some of these lesser entries from the films of yesterday. I’ve no doubt everyone involved had a hand in the merriment, and Kino Lorber’s release is definitely worth a look (as is the commentary) for budding auteurs to learn a thing or two you can’t find in the books.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a Blu-ray of Star Slammer for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
Still want to know more? Then feel free to check out SciFiHistory.Net's small collection of screencaps from Star Slammer right here.
- Published on
Morgan's Twist Ending Can't Quite Salvage
The Film's Utter Predictability
The central problem with reviewing features with ‘twist endings’ is that it’s damn near impossible to discuss it without spoiling something along the way.
Think of trying to tell someone the plot behind 80 percent of The Twilight Zone’s best episodes without mentioning any element of the climax whatsoever, and you get what I mean: you end up letting something slip that ruins the surprise should he try to go and check it out on his own. This isn’t to say a critic can’t wax on about how good a script is or how great a performance might be; it’s only to underscore that concealing what’s beneath gets harder and harder the more one says.
And – rest assured – Scott Free Productions’ Morgan does have a ‘twist ending.’ It may not be all that original, and it may not be all that well veiled; but it still presents the challenge of what to do once you know where it’s all headed … which just might be the film’s biggest problem.
(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 minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Think of trying to tell someone the plot behind 80 percent of The Twilight Zone’s best episodes without mentioning any element of the climax whatsoever, and you get what I mean: you end up letting something slip that ruins the surprise should he try to go and check it out on his own. This isn’t to say a critic can’t wax on about how good a script is or how great a performance might be; it’s only to underscore that concealing what’s beneath gets harder and harder the more one says.
And – rest assured – Scott Free Productions’ Morgan does have a ‘twist ending.’ It may not be all that original, and it may not be all that well veiled; but it still presents the challenge of what to do once you know where it’s all headed … which just might be the film’s biggest problem.
(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 minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com profile:
“A corporate risk-management consultant must decide whether or not to terminate an artificially created humanoid being.”
Mark my words: that clever li’l synopsis is probably all one can truthfully divulge about Morgan’s one-note plot without fully revealing what screenwriter Seth Owen and director Luke Scott tried to hide until the last reel, but even film aficionados might see right through that wrapper on second blush. Without mentioning it myself, I will say that (yes) it was pretty clear to me early on that the sign posts shouting “watch over here and not over there” weren’t secreted away well enough to make the film work on all levels. Still, what ended up being mostly predictable was thankfully watchable thanks largely to the strength of its players.
The always reliable Kate Mara ably carries the weight of the film on her shoulders: her Lee Weathers obsesses over the kind of crispness long assigned to corporate bean counters right down to the stiffly pressed shirts, emotionless attachments, and black-and-white ensembles. She’s sent in to do a job, and she’ll let absolutely nothing stand in her way of achieving the results desired of her superiors, even if it means ruffling every feather along the way. Mara’s Weathers only hints at a potential humanity buried far beneath, and she brushes off any hints of sentimentality with the ease of a corporate villainess.
Joining Mara in this cautionary SciFi film, relative newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy carries almost equal weight as Morgan, the genetic hybrid who’s not quite Pinocchio much less a little boy. (FYI: she’s a girl, but I couldn’t resist the play on words.) Morgan’s problem is that she’s ‘evolved’ beyond the scope of her inbred emotions allow, and let’s just say the young experiment has some serious anger issues. Taylor-Joy handles the spectrum here quite well – while spending large chunks of the film appearing sedate, her explosive fits of rage are delivered with equal thematic intensity.
“A corporate risk-management consultant must decide whether or not to terminate an artificially created humanoid being.”
Mark my words: that clever li’l synopsis is probably all one can truthfully divulge about Morgan’s one-note plot without fully revealing what screenwriter Seth Owen and director Luke Scott tried to hide until the last reel, but even film aficionados might see right through that wrapper on second blush. Without mentioning it myself, I will say that (yes) it was pretty clear to me early on that the sign posts shouting “watch over here and not over there” weren’t secreted away well enough to make the film work on all levels. Still, what ended up being mostly predictable was thankfully watchable thanks largely to the strength of its players.
The always reliable Kate Mara ably carries the weight of the film on her shoulders: her Lee Weathers obsesses over the kind of crispness long assigned to corporate bean counters right down to the stiffly pressed shirts, emotionless attachments, and black-and-white ensembles. She’s sent in to do a job, and she’ll let absolutely nothing stand in her way of achieving the results desired of her superiors, even if it means ruffling every feather along the way. Mara’s Weathers only hints at a potential humanity buried far beneath, and she brushes off any hints of sentimentality with the ease of a corporate villainess.
Joining Mara in this cautionary SciFi film, relative newcomer Anya Taylor-Joy carries almost equal weight as Morgan, the genetic hybrid who’s not quite Pinocchio much less a little boy. (FYI: she’s a girl, but I couldn’t resist the play on words.) Morgan’s problem is that she’s ‘evolved’ beyond the scope of her inbred emotions allow, and let’s just say the young experiment has some serious anger issues. Taylor-Joy handles the spectrum here quite well – while spending large chunks of the film appearing sedate, her explosive fits of rage are delivered with equal thematic intensity.
That said, Morgan does share a lot of ideas in common with 2014’s Ex Machina, an effort arguably vastly superior for many reasons. Both motion pictures center in on not only how a living Artificial Intelligence might evolve but also how we (as humans) might respond and adapt to such evolution. Whereas Ex Machina’s approach centered more on an intimate exploration (one-on-one), Morgan takes a team approach, giving its humanoid an extended family and (thus) potentially more complicated relationships to resolve. Therein, however, lies one serious drawback: audiences eventually discover that the young mind’s attachments were never all that complex to begin with.
It's at this point that Owens’ script takes the somewhat easy way out, diverting an otherwise clever film into a relatively traditional (and bloody) thriller, giving Morgan basically a chance to kill each of her successive victims a bit more creatively than the last. Unfortunately, such a turn compressed into what was largely a one location shoot also opened the door to previously intelligent characters doing downright stupid things only so that they each could end up yet one more victim of technology gone wrong. You’d think by now such brainiacs would think twice about messing with Mother Nature, but it just wasn’t in the science.
By that last reveal (and, trust me: most of you will see it coming), I’m not sure whether or not I’m supposed to care about these characters or merely loathe their cookie-cutter circumstances … but I do know that it was well enough put together that I didn’t mind it.
(MODESTLY) RECOMMENDED.
The downside to Morgan is that there’s far too much weight invested in its seemingly dramatic twist ending, one that I suspect most folks will see coming a mile away. That said, it does what it does fairly efficiently, and – while there’s always something to be said for that – all involved still deliver a story which feels far too much like we’ve been here before.
It's at this point that Owens’ script takes the somewhat easy way out, diverting an otherwise clever film into a relatively traditional (and bloody) thriller, giving Morgan basically a chance to kill each of her successive victims a bit more creatively than the last. Unfortunately, such a turn compressed into what was largely a one location shoot also opened the door to previously intelligent characters doing downright stupid things only so that they each could end up yet one more victim of technology gone wrong. You’d think by now such brainiacs would think twice about messing with Mother Nature, but it just wasn’t in the science.
By that last reveal (and, trust me: most of you will see it coming), I’m not sure whether or not I’m supposed to care about these characters or merely loathe their cookie-cutter circumstances … but I do know that it was well enough put together that I didn’t mind it.
(MODESTLY) RECOMMENDED.
The downside to Morgan is that there’s far too much weight invested in its seemingly dramatic twist ending, one that I suspect most folks will see coming a mile away. That said, it does what it does fairly efficiently, and – while there’s always something to be said for that – all involved still deliver a story which feels far too much like we’ve been here before.
- Published on
Kino Lorber Resurrects Star Crystal (1986),
But Should They Have?
There are bad movies ... and then there are BAD movies.
By bad movies, I mean that the film just isn’t all that good, though some of its performances and/or technical details and/or narrative merits might deserve a bit of thoughtful examination. And by BAD movies, I generally mean that the motion picture fails on perhaps every single level to achieve any measure of praise much less consistency. The truth is that all of us have probably suffered the misfortune of viewing both types of flicks, and we’ve probably confused one with the other on more than one occasion.
Still, somehow storytellers persist in exploring good ideas in flawed ways, and that’s probably part and parcel of how something like 1986’s Star Crystal got off the ground in the first place. It’s a feature quite probably conceived by amateurs, staffed with wannabes, and eventually handled by studio laypersons who either never sat through a single viewing or did, realized it had some “issues,” and then tried duping audiences with advertising that had little to nothing to do with the principle tale of space exploration gone equally as awry as this film’s attempt.
But I still have something to say about that ...
(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 …)
By bad movies, I mean that the film just isn’t all that good, though some of its performances and/or technical details and/or narrative merits might deserve a bit of thoughtful examination. And by BAD movies, I generally mean that the motion picture fails on perhaps every single level to achieve any measure of praise much less consistency. The truth is that all of us have probably suffered the misfortune of viewing both types of flicks, and we’ve probably confused one with the other on more than one occasion.
Still, somehow storytellers persist in exploring good ideas in flawed ways, and that’s probably part and parcel of how something like 1986’s Star Crystal got off the ground in the first place. It’s a feature quite probably conceived by amateurs, staffed with wannabes, and eventually handled by studio laypersons who either never sat through a single viewing or did, realized it had some “issues,” and then tried duping audiences with advertising that had little to nothing to do with the principle tale of space exploration gone equally as awry as this film’s attempt.
But I still have something to say about that ...
(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 product packaging:
“In the year 2035 scientists discovered a new life form … they wish they hadn’t. It was found during a routine expedition to Mars, buried just beneath the surface of the angry red planet. But what was initially thought to be just a curiously shaped rock turned out to be something much more: hidden within was an unknown alien species unlike any that science had ever encountered …”
There’s more, but I’ll leave it at that as the synopsis goes into more plot detail than I typically involve myself with, though I will say this: I’ve done a fair amount of reading on the web of available reviews, and I could consequently build a case that many have done a disservice to Star Crystal by ignoring the film as a whole and merely picking apart the plot (endlessly). Yes, I concur: the feature is perhaps boundless with errors, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies, but (I’m paraphrasing) “nitpicking will never make an author great.”
As I’ve always said, there are two ways to be exceptional in this great big world of ours: you can either visibly work to be the best you can be OR you can tear down those who’ve come before. Just as Star Crystal suffers from its own shortcomings, it quite possibly has found new life on the web and in various B-Movie forums thanks to those constantly dissecting it. So – let’s just get this out of the way right up front: this is a BAD movie.
But I’m still going to give it the time of day it deserves. After all, someone put it together. Someone wrote its script. Someone built its set. And plenty of someones starred in it. Something needs to be said about those someones as well, and I’ll try in my own humble way to set the record straight.
“In the year 2035 scientists discovered a new life form … they wish they hadn’t. It was found during a routine expedition to Mars, buried just beneath the surface of the angry red planet. But what was initially thought to be just a curiously shaped rock turned out to be something much more: hidden within was an unknown alien species unlike any that science had ever encountered …”
There’s more, but I’ll leave it at that as the synopsis goes into more plot detail than I typically involve myself with, though I will say this: I’ve done a fair amount of reading on the web of available reviews, and I could consequently build a case that many have done a disservice to Star Crystal by ignoring the film as a whole and merely picking apart the plot (endlessly). Yes, I concur: the feature is perhaps boundless with errors, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies, but (I’m paraphrasing) “nitpicking will never make an author great.”
As I’ve always said, there are two ways to be exceptional in this great big world of ours: you can either visibly work to be the best you can be OR you can tear down those who’ve come before. Just as Star Crystal suffers from its own shortcomings, it quite possibly has found new life on the web and in various B-Movie forums thanks to those constantly dissecting it. So – let’s just get this out of the way right up front: this is a BAD movie.
But I’m still going to give it the time of day it deserves. After all, someone put it together. Someone wrote its script. Someone built its set. And plenty of someones starred in it. Something needs to be said about those someones as well, and I’ll try in my own humble way to set the record straight.
Crystal’s credits indicate that Eric Woster and Lance Lindsay both had hands in writing the story, and both are cited as serving in several roles behind-the-scenes. While I could be wrong, there’s a part of me that honestly suspects though they conceived this mildly disjointed premise, the cast and crew probably ad-libbed some of this on the fly. I say this because Crystal story shifts gears so many times that even a cursory examination of a completed script should’ve alerted even a young mind to some of its more obvious plot holes.
In fashioning their tale, Woster and Lindsay clearly drew upon some influences of like-minded motion pictures, of which Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982) are top contenders. (One might question how to seamlessly blend perhaps the polar opposites of alien encounter films – the Xenomorph is the ultimate space killer while E.T. is the lovable stuffed animal – so let it be said that, minimally, these writers were indeed ambitious!) But there are also hints of ideas explored in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Silent Running (1972) in there as well, though it’s hard to conclude all of this was deliberate. My point here is that Woster and Lindsay occasionally pushed for higher ideas (Crystal’s vicious alien reformed itself when exposed to the influence of religion) over the obvious crowd-pleasing elements (the hunting and killing of the helpless human crew), and that alone shows some forethought. (Granted, it could’ve been handled better, but it is what it is.)
As B-Movies go, Crystal occasionally benefits from its more practical elements, that being in-camera effects work and set construction. The evolving creature effects – though ultimately uneven – do flourish from time-to-time the way pictures used to do in the era bereft of CGI; and the modelmakers showed an understanding of what it took to make handsome spacecraft with respectable detail. (Thankfully, the space station highlighted in the film’s set-up isn’t around for long, as it’s probably the weakest of the bunch.) Also, the shuttlecraft’s bridge interiors are good to look at, though someone should’ve walked the technical staff through the ways and means to alternate the blinking panel lights as obvious stock patterns are detectable thanks to the long takes. Still, I suspect budget limitations probably required so many interiors be designed as crawlspaces (think of Star Trek’s ‘Jefferies Tubes’) rather than corridors, and this construct made it somewhat difficult to increase tension given human beings can only crawl so fast to begin with, much less when they’re being chased.
In fashioning their tale, Woster and Lindsay clearly drew upon some influences of like-minded motion pictures, of which Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and Steven Spielberg’s E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982) are top contenders. (One might question how to seamlessly blend perhaps the polar opposites of alien encounter films – the Xenomorph is the ultimate space killer while E.T. is the lovable stuffed animal – so let it be said that, minimally, these writers were indeed ambitious!) But there are also hints of ideas explored in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Silent Running (1972) in there as well, though it’s hard to conclude all of this was deliberate. My point here is that Woster and Lindsay occasionally pushed for higher ideas (Crystal’s vicious alien reformed itself when exposed to the influence of religion) over the obvious crowd-pleasing elements (the hunting and killing of the helpless human crew), and that alone shows some forethought. (Granted, it could’ve been handled better, but it is what it is.)
As B-Movies go, Crystal occasionally benefits from its more practical elements, that being in-camera effects work and set construction. The evolving creature effects – though ultimately uneven – do flourish from time-to-time the way pictures used to do in the era bereft of CGI; and the modelmakers showed an understanding of what it took to make handsome spacecraft with respectable detail. (Thankfully, the space station highlighted in the film’s set-up isn’t around for long, as it’s probably the weakest of the bunch.) Also, the shuttlecraft’s bridge interiors are good to look at, though someone should’ve walked the technical staff through the ways and means to alternate the blinking panel lights as obvious stock patterns are detectable thanks to the long takes. Still, I suspect budget limitations probably required so many interiors be designed as crawlspaces (think of Star Trek’s ‘Jefferies Tubes’) rather than corridors, and this construct made it somewhat difficult to increase tension given human beings can only crawl so fast to begin with, much less when they’re being chased.
Now … about those actors and actresses?
Any reasonable view of the available IMDB.com profile suggests that most of the on-camera talent appeared in just Crystal and maybe one or two other films, another clue as to the availability of resources to pay for name players. (Again) I could be wrong, but this also suggests to me that the film was a labor of love – think of it as the ultimate “community theatre project” – thrown together by folks who wanted to make their own SciFi flick, and all did the best they could with the skills God and man had given them. Lines are delivered like words off a page far too often, and – on a few occasions – they aren’t even lines so much as they are ‘asides’ filling space between the action, another reason why I suggested some of the feature was ad-libbed. And, yes, a few scenes are downright cringeworthy – the ultimate happenstance long tied to (you guessed it) B-Movie failures.
Still, I’m a SciFi junkie. Always have been. Always will be. So you’ll have to pardon me if I conclude that there’s enough charm in here – some of it good, much of it bad – to make for a single viewing. Definitively: no, I’ll probably never watch this one again, but if you’ve a knack for some slow pacing, stilted storytelling, and curious failures then this one might be worth your time as well. Again, knowing that so many have found this a BAD movie didn’t keep me from enjoying my 91 minutes with it: in fact, maybe I did it for spite.
Ultimately, I suppose it’s fair to say that Star Crystal deserves an awful lot of the derision its suffered throughout the decades since its release. The story is a hodge-podge, the acting is unintentionally laughable (at times), and much of it makes little sense … who’s to say that isn’t how it was intended?
Any reasonable view of the available IMDB.com profile suggests that most of the on-camera talent appeared in just Crystal and maybe one or two other films, another clue as to the availability of resources to pay for name players. (Again) I could be wrong, but this also suggests to me that the film was a labor of love – think of it as the ultimate “community theatre project” – thrown together by folks who wanted to make their own SciFi flick, and all did the best they could with the skills God and man had given them. Lines are delivered like words off a page far too often, and – on a few occasions – they aren’t even lines so much as they are ‘asides’ filling space between the action, another reason why I suggested some of the feature was ad-libbed. And, yes, a few scenes are downright cringeworthy – the ultimate happenstance long tied to (you guessed it) B-Movie failures.
Still, I’m a SciFi junkie. Always have been. Always will be. So you’ll have to pardon me if I conclude that there’s enough charm in here – some of it good, much of it bad – to make for a single viewing. Definitively: no, I’ll probably never watch this one again, but if you’ve a knack for some slow pacing, stilted storytelling, and curious failures then this one might be worth your time as well. Again, knowing that so many have found this a BAD movie didn’t keep me from enjoying my 91 minutes with it: in fact, maybe I did it for spite.
Ultimately, I suppose it’s fair to say that Star Crystal deserves an awful lot of the derision its suffered throughout the decades since its release. The story is a hodge-podge, the acting is unintentionally laughable (at times), and much of it makes little sense … who’s to say that isn’t how it was intended?
Star Crystal (1986) was produced by Balcor Film Investors and Eric Woster. DVD Distribution for this release was handled by Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Meh. Kino Lorber’s Blu-ray actually looks quite good (especially given the age), but the audio suffers most likely from sub-standard efforts at recording this during production (volume goes up and down from time to time for no obvious reasons save for bad mike work). Sadly, there are no special features related to the production (the disc does have trailers for related Kino Lorber releases); I suspect that’s probably as most of these folks were somewhat unheard of then, remain unheard of today, or have passed on. (Woster’s IMDB.com details do confirm that he left us at the young, young age of 33.)
(MODESTLY) RECOMMENDED but only for serious, die-hard SciFi junkies like myself OR cinema buffs interested in the occasional curiosity. As I said above, I wanted to check this one out for two reasons: (1) I’d never seen it, and (2) so many who had seen it ripped it to shreds. While I do find it hard to argue against the feature’s obvious failures, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Star Crystal still represents what SciFi was for so many of us who grew up on 70’s and 80’s disposable films: it’s great that Kino Lorber has given this one what’ll probably still be a short second coming.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a Blu-ray of Star Crystal (1986) for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
(MODESTLY) RECOMMENDED but only for serious, die-hard SciFi junkies like myself OR cinema buffs interested in the occasional curiosity. As I said above, I wanted to check this one out for two reasons: (1) I’d never seen it, and (2) so many who had seen it ripped it to shreds. While I do find it hard to argue against the feature’s obvious failures, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Star Crystal still represents what SciFi was for so many of us who grew up on 70’s and 80’s disposable films: it’s great that Kino Lorber has given this one what’ll probably still be a short second coming.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a Blu-ray of Star Crystal (1986) for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Discovery Getting Discovered September 24th
After several high profile delays, Paramount has announced that they're finally premiering the forthcoming addition into the Star Trek franchise -- Star Trek: Discovery -- this September 24th on CBS. (Link) After the pilot episode airs, subsequent hours will be available in the United States only via CBS All Access, the network's online subscriber platform.
Like so many die-hard Trek enthusiasts, I'm surprising uninterested in this new series. I think they've got a solid cast, sure, but streaming? Streaming ONLY? Pay $10 a month for only 15 hours and still have to sit through commercials, albeit limited ones? Seems like more than a buzzkill to me, and I do hope the suits know what they're doing with this one.
I'm far more inclined to wait for this one to drop on home video (DVD/Blu-ray) and then pick up a copy as that seems like a fairer expense than venturing into the streaming business. That way, I'll get some extras (most likely) and be able to spend the rest of my savings on hats.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
Like so many die-hard Trek enthusiasts, I'm surprising uninterested in this new series. I think they've got a solid cast, sure, but streaming? Streaming ONLY? Pay $10 a month for only 15 hours and still have to sit through commercials, albeit limited ones? Seems like more than a buzzkill to me, and I do hope the suits know what they're doing with this one.
I'm far more inclined to wait for this one to drop on home video (DVD/Blu-ray) and then pick up a copy as that seems like a fairer expense than venturing into the streaming business. That way, I'll get some extras (most likely) and be able to spend the rest of my savings on hats.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
- Published on
Lord And Miller Exit The Han Solo Movie
Let me just say that I am not the least bit surprised that Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have dropped out of Disney’s impending Han Solo stand-alone feature (link) citing “creative differences.” (Ahem!) Again, NOT the least bit surprised. In fact, I was one of the few voices on what will remain an unnamed website who questioned what achievement of theirs that got them cast onto the project in the first place. Lego-lovers (Lord and Miller are responsible for The Lego Movie) bashed me endlessly, proclaiming that their singular comic vision would make for the most innovative if not downright hilarious Star Wars movie ever, and that’s when I knew I was better off arguing with sand.
See, franchise pictures – like it or not – have to incorporate what I’ve always called “narrative sameness.” In other words, while any big property might have several separate entries within their cinematic mythology – each if not every one of them helmed by different directors – all of the films are still expected to fit within the overall aesthetic expected by the owners (not necessarily the producers as some roles blend within differing corporate structures).
It wasn’t all that long ago that the revered Edgar Wright was cast with the responsibility of bringing Marvel’s Ant-Man to the silver screen, and the Marvel fans were out on the web in full force claiming that his “singular comic vision would make for the most innovative if not downright hilarious Marvel movie ever.” (Sound familiar?) At that time, I remarked that I suspected Wright would have some “technical difficulties” in adapting his particular style of Marvel and Walt Disney’s wishes, and (naturally) I was poopooed endlessly for not knowing anything about the business and warned that I’d do better sticking to picking out the curtains in my parent’s basement. (Snarks can be so vicious sometimes.)
Like back then, I say this not to impugn anyone’s character, certainly not the likes of Wright, Lord, or Miller. I think that they’re all talented individuals, and while I may not have found some or even all of their films to be to my liking I’d never argue that they aren’t good products … and that’s the key word: “product.”
Disney expects a certain product. Lucasfilm expects a certain product. That’s part and parcel of their identity: they supply products to the marketplace with their logo somewhere on them.
If Wright wasn’t about to deliver an Ant-Man film that shared a certain amount of “narrative sameness” with the other Marvel events, then that was cause for concern. Similarly, if Lord and Miller weren’t going to deliver a Star Wars film that … I suspect you get the point by now.
Incidentally, the same thing may’ve happened with Gareth Edwards time on Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. If you recall, that picture made headlines when it was revealed that it would be undergoing (heavy) “reshoots” in order to fill in some holes in the story. While reshoots are not uncommon certainly with a picture on the scale of any of the Star Wars films, the internet abounds with theories about Rogue One’s original storyline and ending as even footage from the authorized theatrical trailers and set photos clearly highlight events and developments that didn’t take place in the completed motion picture. In fact, you can Google the subject, and there are some very, very interesting theories about what may’ve happened to certain characters based on the analysis of some clever pundits. While we’ll probably never know for sure, it still makes for some interesting reading.
Don’t take any of this as an “I told you so” moment from yours truly as that’s rarely if ever my point. All I’ve saying is that I’m far from surprised that these two have stepped aside (even though I’ve read they were heartily pushed out the door as was Josh Trank and his possible Boba Fett standalone project). I’ll wish them well, and I’ll keep my eyes open for what THEIR version of a Han Solo picture may’ve looked like.
See, franchise pictures – like it or not – have to incorporate what I’ve always called “narrative sameness.” In other words, while any big property might have several separate entries within their cinematic mythology – each if not every one of them helmed by different directors – all of the films are still expected to fit within the overall aesthetic expected by the owners (not necessarily the producers as some roles blend within differing corporate structures).
It wasn’t all that long ago that the revered Edgar Wright was cast with the responsibility of bringing Marvel’s Ant-Man to the silver screen, and the Marvel fans were out on the web in full force claiming that his “singular comic vision would make for the most innovative if not downright hilarious Marvel movie ever.” (Sound familiar?) At that time, I remarked that I suspected Wright would have some “technical difficulties” in adapting his particular style of Marvel and Walt Disney’s wishes, and (naturally) I was poopooed endlessly for not knowing anything about the business and warned that I’d do better sticking to picking out the curtains in my parent’s basement. (Snarks can be so vicious sometimes.)
Like back then, I say this not to impugn anyone’s character, certainly not the likes of Wright, Lord, or Miller. I think that they’re all talented individuals, and while I may not have found some or even all of their films to be to my liking I’d never argue that they aren’t good products … and that’s the key word: “product.”
Disney expects a certain product. Lucasfilm expects a certain product. That’s part and parcel of their identity: they supply products to the marketplace with their logo somewhere on them.
If Wright wasn’t about to deliver an Ant-Man film that shared a certain amount of “narrative sameness” with the other Marvel events, then that was cause for concern. Similarly, if Lord and Miller weren’t going to deliver a Star Wars film that … I suspect you get the point by now.
Incidentally, the same thing may’ve happened with Gareth Edwards time on Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. If you recall, that picture made headlines when it was revealed that it would be undergoing (heavy) “reshoots” in order to fill in some holes in the story. While reshoots are not uncommon certainly with a picture on the scale of any of the Star Wars films, the internet abounds with theories about Rogue One’s original storyline and ending as even footage from the authorized theatrical trailers and set photos clearly highlight events and developments that didn’t take place in the completed motion picture. In fact, you can Google the subject, and there are some very, very interesting theories about what may’ve happened to certain characters based on the analysis of some clever pundits. While we’ll probably never know for sure, it still makes for some interesting reading.
Don’t take any of this as an “I told you so” moment from yours truly as that’s rarely if ever my point. All I’ve saying is that I’m far from surprised that these two have stepped aside (even though I’ve read they were heartily pushed out the door as was Josh Trank and his possible Boba Fett standalone project). I’ll wish them well, and I’ll keep my eyes open for what THEIR version of a Han Solo picture may’ve looked like.