- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1967 (in Italy), The Three Fantastic Supermen first swung into cinematic action. Written (in part) and directed by Gianfranco Parolini, the film starred Tony Kendall, Brad Harris, Aldo Canti, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"FBI agent Brad joins Tony and Nick, the self styled Supermen who battle crime wearing bullet-proof super-suits. They are on a case involving radioactive counterfeit money and people who can be broken down into precious jewels."
-- EZ
On this day in 1967 (in Italy), The Three Fantastic Supermen first swung into cinematic action. Written (in part) and directed by Gianfranco Parolini, the film starred Tony Kendall, Brad Harris, Aldo Canti, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"FBI agent Brad joins Tony and Nick, the self styled Supermen who battle crime wearing bullet-proof super-suits. They are on a case involving radioactive counterfeit money and people who can be broken down into precious jewels."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2022 (in the U.S.), The Long Night enjoyed a limited theatrical release. Directed by Rich Ragsdale from a story by Mark Young and Robert Sheppe, the film starred Scout Taylor-Compton, Nolan Gerard Funk, Deborah Kara Unger, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A devoted couple's quiet weekend takes a bizarre turn when a nightmarish cult and their maniacal leader come to fulfill an apocalyptic prophesy."
-- EZ
On this day in 2022 (in the U.S.), The Long Night enjoyed a limited theatrical release. Directed by Rich Ragsdale from a story by Mark Young and Robert Sheppe, the film starred Scout Taylor-Compton, Nolan Gerard Funk, Deborah Kara Unger, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A devoted couple's quiet weekend takes a bizarre turn when a nightmarish cult and their maniacal leader come to fulfill an apocalyptic prophesy."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2018 (in Turkey, Australia, Canada, and the U.S.), The Cloverfield Paradox came to life with its general release via the Information Superhighway. Directed by Julius Onah from a story by Oren Uziel and Doug Jung, the film starred Gugu Mbatha-Raw, John Ortiz, Ziyi Zhang, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Orbiting a planet on the brink of war, scientists test a device to solve an energy crisis, and end up face-to-face with a dark alternate reality."
-- EZ
On this day in 2018 (in Turkey, Australia, Canada, and the U.S.), The Cloverfield Paradox came to life with its general release via the Information Superhighway. Directed by Julius Onah from a story by Oren Uziel and Doug Jung, the film starred Gugu Mbatha-Raw, John Ortiz, Ziyi Zhang, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Orbiting a planet on the brink of war, scientists test a device to solve an energy crisis, and end up face-to-face with a dark alternate reality."
-- EZ
About Bad Robot (from Google.com):
Bad Robot Productions is a Santa Monica-based production company founded by J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk in 1998, known for producing major films (Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission: Impossible) and hit TV series (Lost, Alias, Westworld). Known for sci-fi, thriller, and action genres, it often incorporates advanced visual effects. The company has expanded into video games (Bad Robot Games) and music (Loud Robot).
Bad Robot Productions is a Santa Monica-based production company founded by J.J. Abrams and Bryan Burk in 1998, known for producing major films (Star Wars, Star Trek, Mission: Impossible) and hit TV series (Lost, Alias, Westworld). Known for sci-fi, thriller, and action genres, it often incorporates advanced visual effects. The company has expanded into video games (Bad Robot Games) and music (Loud Robot).
- Published on
For those of you who don’t know it, the 1980’s was a fabulous time for cinematic Fantasy at the box office.
The wave of innovative storytelling that had burst the studio floodgates with the advent of George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) was going in high gear. Producers were hungrily searching for any property that could be spun into light and shadow, with a great many of them taking to scouring bookshelves for the kind of fare that original set imaginations ablaze. If fans were willing to embrace a dazzling yarn in print, then it stood to reason that millions would flock to see it on the silver screen. Granted, a good many opportunists also dug their hooks into the trend knowing that even their minimal contribution and effort might double or triple their net worth; but discerning storytellers were willing to show their bosses that Science Fiction and Fantasy – when done right – wasn’t so much a fad as it was here to stay.
Fueled by a long personal fascination with the legend of King Arthur, celebrated producer, writer, and director John Boorman finally decided the time was right to bring a proper version of the Knight of the Round Table to life. From what many knew, the auteur had dabbled with the themes introduced in the myth before – in some surprisingly non-Fantasy properties – but society’s embrace of the truly Fantastic meant that such ideas no longer had to be cleverly nestled into modern stories and could now take center stage in all of its regal glory. No longer just theatrical metaphors, Arthur and Lancelot and Guinevere and Merlin and the Lady of the Lake graduated to marquee sensations; and, thus, Excalibur (1981) was delivered to the multiplexes.
From what I’ve been able to research, the only existing box office for the film indicates that the picture grossed an impressive $35M (in the U.S. and Canada) off an astonishingly low $11M budget. At the 1982 Academy Awards, Excalibur surprisingly only received a nomination in the category of 'Best Cinematography’ (which it lost to the drama Reds), something which is a bit insulting given the high praise the project garnered from the 1982 Saturn Awards. Though it only took home their trophy for ‘Best Costumes,’ it also enjoyed nods in the categories of ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actor’ (Nicol Williamson), ‘Best Supporting Actress’ (Helen Mirren), and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ Perhaps the big leagues of the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts And Sciences just weren’t ready to fully acknowledge that Fantasy had arrived; but, thankfully, Arrow Films has resurrected this mildly forgotten gem with an incredible package for 2026 that deserves your attention.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Merlin the magician helps Arthur Pendragon unite the Britons around the Round Table of Camelot, even as dark forces conspire to tear it apart.”
Here’s the thing, folks: our intellectual betters will likely never give Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror the attention they deserve.
While many suggest such disdain is owed to the fact that – ahem – typically these films don’t just make money but garner massively impressive returns, I’ve always tried to give these academics the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they just don’t understand how persuasive mythology is as entertainment, or perhaps they just don’t relate to stories told against the backdrop of pure imagination. All one need do is take a serious gander into the volume of financially successful projects over the years to know that such diversions do tickle the fancies of so many; and – maybe if they did – these critics would realize that properties like Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and more are beloved around the world for reasons greater than just being pure escapism.
Now, I’m not here today to argue that John Boorman’s Excalibur is as deserving of their attention as are other Fantasies of the ‘80’s such as 1981’s Dragonslayer, 1982’s Conan The Barbarian, 1982’s The Beastmaster, or 1982’s The Sword And The Sorcerer. The truth is that big Fantasy was really just kinda/sorta coming into its own in that decade; and – factually – Excalibur is a markedly different attempt in adapting classical mythology for the screen. But I will say that intellectuals often prefer lumping the tale of King Arthur and his knights in with those other entries, and I think this does a huge disservice to what Boorman and his talented cast and crew accomplished at the dawn of this new style. In this film, everything is approached with a degree of dramatic seriousness – with the notable exception to the characterization of Merlin the wizard (as played by Nicol Williamson) – making Excalibur more of an exception to the rule than a great many films that followed.
Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) has established dominance over several kingdoms, and now he’s found something which entirely escapes his grasp: the ravenous Igrayne (Katrine Boorman) – the Duke of Cornwall’s wife – is a vision of beauty he’s willing to risk his kingdom to bed. Rather than go to war over possession of the woman, Uther convinces Merlin to cast a spell that will give him the outer appearance of the Duke one evening while her husband is away. What Uther didn’t know was that the Duke would die in combat that evening; and thus Pendragon’s momentary moral weakness could have been otherwise avoided. Now, he’s brought a curse on himself by impregnating Igrayne; and Merlin demands the child – Arthur, the once and future king – as payment for his spectral services.
Years later, Arthur (Nigel Terry) eventually pulls the sword Excalibur from stone, proving to those who believe in the legend that he’s destined to bring peace and prosperity to all lands; and – to a degree – that happens. But the man’s unwillingness to stand up for the honor of his wife Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) eventually pushes the woman into the arms of his friend and loyal servant – Sir Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) – a development that ultimately sets in motion Arthur’s own downfall at the hands of his half-sister Morgan (Helen Mirren). Inevitably, the king recovers once he’s rejuvenated from the Holy Grail; and yet he’s destined to meet his demise on the field of battle against Mordred (Robert Addie) when myth and mortality converge in a final showdown.
So, again, Excalibur both is and isn’t the kind of stuff audiences who flock to theatrical Fantasies expect. Yes, it’s filled with fighting and sorcery – both in reasonably limited supply – because Boorman chose to be as true to the Arthurian legends as possible. (Mind you: the director is on record acknowledging that he combined multiple translations in an attempt to represent several versions.) Still, because there are great discussions of nobility and faith (and faithlessness) sprinkled across the script the resulting film gets into some heady waters where other filmmakers might’ve taken easier paths. In fact, the last third of the film wherein Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) goes off in pursuit of the Grail ventures into some visual territory that requires some heavy lifting on the part of the audience; and this is why I’d argue that the film shouldn’t necessarily be looked at in the same manner of works that followed in its wake. It’s infinitely smarter and even infinitely slower.
Even though it’s a picture I’ve always loved, I’ll also concede it has its own share of drawbacks. Terry’s performance is occasionally a bit stiff, almost as if the actor wasn’t quite sure what to make of Arthur’s central motivations. Lunghi – while impressive in a few sequences – is anchored by standing around or sitting too much of the time, giving us only the benefit of facial expressions to make of what we will; and I found it underwhelming. Clay’s work as Lancelot is exceptional, so much so that it’s his character that definitely brings the middle third to life in just the right way; but the film languishes just a bit once he vanishes into the background owed to his sins. Everything clicks on a different level when Mirren and Williamson are allowed to work a bit of magic: though Williamson’s bits alone feel a bit too much like vintage ‘Doctor Who’ (the great Tom Baker comes to mind), there’s no denying the chemistry of their pairing when it comes full circle.
Excalibur (1981) was produced by Ardmore Studios, Cinema ’84, and Orion Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds to this reported 4K upgrade are phenomenal: occasionally, there’s a bit of dip in the audio quality, and I can only guess this is attributed back to the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Holy mother of dragons, you’d better buckle up! This 3-disc set contains multiple edits of the flick itself along with three audio commentaries (two of which are current) and a huge, huge, huge assortment of all-new produced features as well as a 60-minute behind-the-scenes making-of documentary (which is exceptional) shot by filmmaker Neil Jordan. Folks, I’ve seen a lot of packages from Arrow; but – by far – this ranks up there as one of the best. It’s a fascinating back-stage pass to the mechanics associated with bringing this unique vision to life; and it shouldn’t be missed by fans. Well done.
Highly Recommended.
Here’s the thing: 1981’s Excalibur is one of those rare flicks that I – as a critic – have an admittedly hard time reviewing with a level head because it’s both a nostalgic throwback to a time when I was really first discovering my love of motion pictures and it conceived and shot in an age before all of the CGI wizardry and still looks far more impressive without the advent of visual technology. No, I don’t see the performances and certain elements of the plot the same way – not with these age-wizened eyes – but the magic and wizardry of the Arthurian mythos is as alive and well as it’s ever been. There have been other attempts to capture this story – or it might be correct to suggest that there have been other interpretations – but Boorman’s effort remains a truly inspired original. It should be seen and appreciated on that level alone … blemishes be damned.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Excalibur (1981) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The wave of innovative storytelling that had burst the studio floodgates with the advent of George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) was going in high gear. Producers were hungrily searching for any property that could be spun into light and shadow, with a great many of them taking to scouring bookshelves for the kind of fare that original set imaginations ablaze. If fans were willing to embrace a dazzling yarn in print, then it stood to reason that millions would flock to see it on the silver screen. Granted, a good many opportunists also dug their hooks into the trend knowing that even their minimal contribution and effort might double or triple their net worth; but discerning storytellers were willing to show their bosses that Science Fiction and Fantasy – when done right – wasn’t so much a fad as it was here to stay.
Fueled by a long personal fascination with the legend of King Arthur, celebrated producer, writer, and director John Boorman finally decided the time was right to bring a proper version of the Knight of the Round Table to life. From what many knew, the auteur had dabbled with the themes introduced in the myth before – in some surprisingly non-Fantasy properties – but society’s embrace of the truly Fantastic meant that such ideas no longer had to be cleverly nestled into modern stories and could now take center stage in all of its regal glory. No longer just theatrical metaphors, Arthur and Lancelot and Guinevere and Merlin and the Lady of the Lake graduated to marquee sensations; and, thus, Excalibur (1981) was delivered to the multiplexes.
From what I’ve been able to research, the only existing box office for the film indicates that the picture grossed an impressive $35M (in the U.S. and Canada) off an astonishingly low $11M budget. At the 1982 Academy Awards, Excalibur surprisingly only received a nomination in the category of 'Best Cinematography’ (which it lost to the drama Reds), something which is a bit insulting given the high praise the project garnered from the 1982 Saturn Awards. Though it only took home their trophy for ‘Best Costumes,’ it also enjoyed nods in the categories of ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Director,’ ‘Best Supporting Actor’ (Nicol Williamson), ‘Best Supporting Actress’ (Helen Mirren), and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ Perhaps the big leagues of the Motion Picture Academy Of Arts And Sciences just weren’t ready to fully acknowledge that Fantasy had arrived; but, thankfully, Arrow Films has resurrected this mildly forgotten gem with an incredible package for 2026 that deserves your attention.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Merlin the magician helps Arthur Pendragon unite the Britons around the Round Table of Camelot, even as dark forces conspire to tear it apart.”
Here’s the thing, folks: our intellectual betters will likely never give Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror the attention they deserve.
While many suggest such disdain is owed to the fact that – ahem – typically these films don’t just make money but garner massively impressive returns, I’ve always tried to give these academics the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they just don’t understand how persuasive mythology is as entertainment, or perhaps they just don’t relate to stories told against the backdrop of pure imagination. All one need do is take a serious gander into the volume of financially successful projects over the years to know that such diversions do tickle the fancies of so many; and – maybe if they did – these critics would realize that properties like Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and more are beloved around the world for reasons greater than just being pure escapism.
Now, I’m not here today to argue that John Boorman’s Excalibur is as deserving of their attention as are other Fantasies of the ‘80’s such as 1981’s Dragonslayer, 1982’s Conan The Barbarian, 1982’s The Beastmaster, or 1982’s The Sword And The Sorcerer. The truth is that big Fantasy was really just kinda/sorta coming into its own in that decade; and – factually – Excalibur is a markedly different attempt in adapting classical mythology for the screen. But I will say that intellectuals often prefer lumping the tale of King Arthur and his knights in with those other entries, and I think this does a huge disservice to what Boorman and his talented cast and crew accomplished at the dawn of this new style. In this film, everything is approached with a degree of dramatic seriousness – with the notable exception to the characterization of Merlin the wizard (as played by Nicol Williamson) – making Excalibur more of an exception to the rule than a great many films that followed.
Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne) has established dominance over several kingdoms, and now he’s found something which entirely escapes his grasp: the ravenous Igrayne (Katrine Boorman) – the Duke of Cornwall’s wife – is a vision of beauty he’s willing to risk his kingdom to bed. Rather than go to war over possession of the woman, Uther convinces Merlin to cast a spell that will give him the outer appearance of the Duke one evening while her husband is away. What Uther didn’t know was that the Duke would die in combat that evening; and thus Pendragon’s momentary moral weakness could have been otherwise avoided. Now, he’s brought a curse on himself by impregnating Igrayne; and Merlin demands the child – Arthur, the once and future king – as payment for his spectral services.
Years later, Arthur (Nigel Terry) eventually pulls the sword Excalibur from stone, proving to those who believe in the legend that he’s destined to bring peace and prosperity to all lands; and – to a degree – that happens. But the man’s unwillingness to stand up for the honor of his wife Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi) eventually pushes the woman into the arms of his friend and loyal servant – Sir Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) – a development that ultimately sets in motion Arthur’s own downfall at the hands of his half-sister Morgan (Helen Mirren). Inevitably, the king recovers once he’s rejuvenated from the Holy Grail; and yet he’s destined to meet his demise on the field of battle against Mordred (Robert Addie) when myth and mortality converge in a final showdown.
So, again, Excalibur both is and isn’t the kind of stuff audiences who flock to theatrical Fantasies expect. Yes, it’s filled with fighting and sorcery – both in reasonably limited supply – because Boorman chose to be as true to the Arthurian legends as possible. (Mind you: the director is on record acknowledging that he combined multiple translations in an attempt to represent several versions.) Still, because there are great discussions of nobility and faith (and faithlessness) sprinkled across the script the resulting film gets into some heady waters where other filmmakers might’ve taken easier paths. In fact, the last third of the film wherein Perceval (Paul Geoffrey) goes off in pursuit of the Grail ventures into some visual territory that requires some heavy lifting on the part of the audience; and this is why I’d argue that the film shouldn’t necessarily be looked at in the same manner of works that followed in its wake. It’s infinitely smarter and even infinitely slower.
Even though it’s a picture I’ve always loved, I’ll also concede it has its own share of drawbacks. Terry’s performance is occasionally a bit stiff, almost as if the actor wasn’t quite sure what to make of Arthur’s central motivations. Lunghi – while impressive in a few sequences – is anchored by standing around or sitting too much of the time, giving us only the benefit of facial expressions to make of what we will; and I found it underwhelming. Clay’s work as Lancelot is exceptional, so much so that it’s his character that definitely brings the middle third to life in just the right way; but the film languishes just a bit once he vanishes into the background owed to his sins. Everything clicks on a different level when Mirren and Williamson are allowed to work a bit of magic: though Williamson’s bits alone feel a bit too much like vintage ‘Doctor Who’ (the great Tom Baker comes to mind), there’s no denying the chemistry of their pairing when it comes full circle.
Excalibur (1981) was produced by Ardmore Studios, Cinema ’84, and Orion Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds to this reported 4K upgrade are phenomenal: occasionally, there’s a bit of dip in the audio quality, and I can only guess this is attributed back to the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Holy mother of dragons, you’d better buckle up! This 3-disc set contains multiple edits of the flick itself along with three audio commentaries (two of which are current) and a huge, huge, huge assortment of all-new produced features as well as a 60-minute behind-the-scenes making-of documentary (which is exceptional) shot by filmmaker Neil Jordan. Folks, I’ve seen a lot of packages from Arrow; but – by far – this ranks up there as one of the best. It’s a fascinating back-stage pass to the mechanics associated with bringing this unique vision to life; and it shouldn’t be missed by fans. Well done.
Highly Recommended.
Here’s the thing: 1981’s Excalibur is one of those rare flicks that I – as a critic – have an admittedly hard time reviewing with a level head because it’s both a nostalgic throwback to a time when I was really first discovering my love of motion pictures and it conceived and shot in an age before all of the CGI wizardry and still looks far more impressive without the advent of visual technology. No, I don’t see the performances and certain elements of the plot the same way – not with these age-wizened eyes – but the magic and wizardry of the Arthurian mythos is as alive and well as it’s ever been. There have been other attempts to capture this story – or it might be correct to suggest that there have been other interpretations – but Boorman’s effort remains a truly inspired original. It should be seen and appreciated on that level alone … blemishes be damned.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Excalibur (1981) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2014 (in the U.S.), Android Cop reported to protect and serve with its original release on home video. Written (in part) and directed by Mark Atkins, the film starred Michael Jai White, Kadeem Hardison, Randy Wayne, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In the year 2045, a L.A.P.D. detective and his new Android partner enter the Zone, which is a forbidden section of the city plagued with an unknown disease. Together, they discover the reason everyone is sick, and try to stop the illness."
-- EZ
On this day in 2014 (in the U.S.), Android Cop reported to protect and serve with its original release on home video. Written (in part) and directed by Mark Atkins, the film starred Michael Jai White, Kadeem Hardison, Randy Wayne, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In the year 2045, a L.A.P.D. detective and his new Android partner enter the Zone, which is a forbidden section of the city plagued with an unknown disease. Together, they discover the reason everyone is sick, and try to stop the illness."
-- EZ
About The Asylum:
The Asylum is a prolific independent film studio famous for producing low-budget, high-concept "mockbusters" designed to capitalize on major Hollywood releases, such as Transmorphers (Transformers) and The Da Vinci Treasure (The Da Vinci Code). Since 1997, they have produced over 500 films, including the Sharknado franchise, Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, and TV series like Z Nation and Black Summer.
The Asylum is a prolific independent film studio famous for producing low-budget, high-concept "mockbusters" designed to capitalize on major Hollywood releases, such as Transmorphers (Transformers) and The Da Vinci Treasure (The Da Vinci Code). Since 1997, they have produced over 500 films, including the Sharknado franchise, Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, and TV series like Z Nation and Black Summer.
- Published on
Unlike so many others who opine about movies, I do require – minimally – that the Horrors I celebrate are cerebral.
In other words, I – as a consumer of frights – prefer understanding these worlds in toto as opposed to showing up to merely be scared silly. I have to know how the world works and why these particular characters are deserving of my attention. Each should be one piece to the total puzzle; and, while I don’t have to know exactly how each may or may not figure into the overall story, there should still be a sufficient enough foundation so that what we share in the dark makes perfect sense. Jason Voorhees’ best efforts were directed at adulterous camp counselors because – when he was young – their inability to control their own hormones led to his ‘death.’ Similarly, the wildest campaigns of Freddy Krueger saw the lunatic targeting the children of townspeople who bullied him in his youth. Knowing this core motivation means fully grasping why evil does what it does; and the lack of a clear, concise, and relatable through-line has a great many chillers falling apart on closer examination.
This is why a picture like Diabolic (2025) – an affable enough possession story from writer/director Daniel J. Phillips – might be highly regarded by some but fails to muster much attention ‘round here at SciFiHistory.Net. A Folk Horror woven into the fabric of a backwoods Mormon community, it has great moments of palpable tension and frightening atmosphere, all built around performances pitting uncharacteristically good-looking young folks coming face-to-face with the oppressively ‘plain Janes’ of this nearby polygamist sect. Yet, Diabolic fails to establish a mythology sufficient enough to explain just who Laru is, the central witch or demon or entity or ghostly what’s-it inhabiting young Elise from start-to-finish.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A woman's hope for a miracle cure turns into a nightmare when she confronts the vengeful spirit of a cursed witch, determined to claim her as a vessel for her evil power.”
Elise (played by Elizabeth Cullen) is a young artist with a troubled past. Exiled from the Mormon community of her youth, she’s found herself struggling to recover the memories of yesterday and what actions may’ve lead to her excommunication. Plagued by blackouts and now unable to move forward in a healthy relationship with her beau Adam (John Kim), she’s finally encouraged by her psychiatrist to try ‘Exposure Therapy,’ a practice wherein she re-immerses herself – alongside a Mormon healer – in her past environment with hopes of unlocking whatever trauma has her living a life beside herself. So with Adam and her gal-pal Gwen (Mia Challis) in tow, the trio embark on a road trip to what remains of Haventon, the backwater Mormon enclave where she was originally baptized in her faith.
There, Elise and her friends are greeted by Hyrum (Robin Goldsworthy) and Sister Alma Jessup (Genevieve Mooy), two practitioners who have agreed to assist in the young woman’s recovery. In the nighttime ceremony, the trio of outsiders are given hallucinogens to induce a kinda/sorta spirit journey into the land of memory though why Adam and Gwen needed to partake of the drugs is a bit dubious and unclear. Eventually, Sister Alma senses that Elise has been infected by the spirit of a trickster we’ll learn is named Laru; and the woman manages to pull the being out through the young woman’s mouth with what looks to be a long, wet, bloody black ponytail. Now that Elise is presumably free, Hyrum encourages them to – ahem – get out while the getting’s good.
But because they’re all young and presumably irresponsible, they stay. Elise is intent upon knowing more about her time in Haventon; and – lo and behold – it isn’t long before she comes to realization that it was her partaking of lesbian shenanigans with the bishop’s fetching daughter Clara (Luca Asta Sardelis) – who claimed innocence – led to the young woman’s banishment. Before leaving the community in shame, Elise choked her jilted paramour to death and (apparently) stowed her body in a nearby root cellar. Precisely how all of this ties specifically back to Laru, however, is never clearly (or clearly enough) explained, though Sister Alma makes a brief and confusing confession on her death bed later in the picture.
Additionally, there’s a bit more to the chronicle that’s equally vague.
Hyrum appears to have been smitten with young Elise’s charms back in her days with the community, so much so that he now tears her face from a picture and places it in a heart locket he wears about his neck. What this is supposed to mean remains unclear, but there’s the suggestion that he expected more from their reunion than to help her put the past to rest. It’s this baffling development that symbolizes a great deal of my frustration with Diabolic: what writers Phillip and collaborators Ticia Madsen and Mike Harding think they spelled out perfectly winds up being murky, counterproductive, and sometimes downright befuddling. As a viewer, I shouldn’t have to fill in the gaps, but – because I do – there are events that just don’t make enough narrative sense. For example, why did Laru possess Elise in the first place, during her baptism? There’s never any grounding to it – other than apparently Mormons will baptize others by proxy, a practice which seemed a bit unusual to my untrained eyes – and I needed to know more. Barring further answers, Diabolic felt diabolically nebulous too much of the time.
What Diabolic does well is craft some of its nightmare visions for the benefit of the audience. Watching Elise as a troubled artist, we’re given hints as to what might unfold – the film opens with her painting little more than the ominous cellar door as well as periods wherein she’s reduced to digging holes in her backyard – so her descent here isn’t without a bit of creative nuance. Once she succumbs to full possession, actress Cullen almost gleefully goes about dispensing her brand of bloody justice, as a good demon should; and – rest assured – these are the sights fans of Horror show up to see. Those who’ve put troubles upon Elise’s shoulders suffer as a consequence, though there’s really no logic behind why Laru would’ve deemed it necessary … well, other than the fact she’s pure evil.
All things said, some might celebrate Diabolic because it understandably takes aim at the institution of faith, a kinda/sorta cultural boiling point amongst the cultural elite. Over the years, Mormons have been criticized for their doctrines, their practices, and some of their stances on social issues; so is chucking a soul-jumping witch into that critical bonfire really all that much of a stretch? Honestly, I’ve no bones about assessing religion at all: as I said in the opening, my only bugaboo as it applies to stories of any backdrop is that they’re accessible and everything properly coalesces in the narrative. I’ll concede that happens to a small degree for Elise, Clara, Adam, Gwen, and Alma here, but the true narrative spine – Laru’s origins – remains incomplete. Ultimately, this lessens the film’s ability to fully stand on its own in the pantheon of Horror.
Diabolic (2025) was produced by Empire Road Pictures, Diabolic Productions, SunJive Studios, and The South Australian Film Corporation. A quick search of Google.com indicates that the film is presently available for viewing via a variety of streaming platforms. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the film boasts some excellent practical effects work and some winning cinematography that definitely goes a long way in crafting the picture’s thrills, chills, and spills: some of it is a bit overlong – pacing in the second half is dreadful and could’ve used some modest trimming here and there – and there was a continuity gaffe (regarding a certain cellar door) – that didn’t need to be. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Since I viewed the flick via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
The difficulty in not only ‘getting’ Horror – especially Folk Horror – as opposed to ‘getting Horror done right’ is on full display in Diabolic: its good elements are too few and far between, nestling between not enough backstory and far too much exposition to give the effort anything greater than entirely circumstantial thrills. Lacking a clear origin story to Laru – much less something clarifying why she’s got such a chip on her spectral shoulder regarding Mormons (beyond the obvious systemic misogyny) – leaves what story there is being entirely predictable if not downright leaden from the largely stoic performances we’ve already seen elsewhere hundreds of times before. While jump scares and technical merits are impressive, if that’s all there is then why bother to make this road trip in the first place?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Brainstorm Media provided me with a complimentary streaming access to Diabolic (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
In other words, I – as a consumer of frights – prefer understanding these worlds in toto as opposed to showing up to merely be scared silly. I have to know how the world works and why these particular characters are deserving of my attention. Each should be one piece to the total puzzle; and, while I don’t have to know exactly how each may or may not figure into the overall story, there should still be a sufficient enough foundation so that what we share in the dark makes perfect sense. Jason Voorhees’ best efforts were directed at adulterous camp counselors because – when he was young – their inability to control their own hormones led to his ‘death.’ Similarly, the wildest campaigns of Freddy Krueger saw the lunatic targeting the children of townspeople who bullied him in his youth. Knowing this core motivation means fully grasping why evil does what it does; and the lack of a clear, concise, and relatable through-line has a great many chillers falling apart on closer examination.
This is why a picture like Diabolic (2025) – an affable enough possession story from writer/director Daniel J. Phillips – might be highly regarded by some but fails to muster much attention ‘round here at SciFiHistory.Net. A Folk Horror woven into the fabric of a backwoods Mormon community, it has great moments of palpable tension and frightening atmosphere, all built around performances pitting uncharacteristically good-looking young folks coming face-to-face with the oppressively ‘plain Janes’ of this nearby polygamist sect. Yet, Diabolic fails to establish a mythology sufficient enough to explain just who Laru is, the central witch or demon or entity or ghostly what’s-it inhabiting young Elise from start-to-finish.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A woman's hope for a miracle cure turns into a nightmare when she confronts the vengeful spirit of a cursed witch, determined to claim her as a vessel for her evil power.”
Elise (played by Elizabeth Cullen) is a young artist with a troubled past. Exiled from the Mormon community of her youth, she’s found herself struggling to recover the memories of yesterday and what actions may’ve lead to her excommunication. Plagued by blackouts and now unable to move forward in a healthy relationship with her beau Adam (John Kim), she’s finally encouraged by her psychiatrist to try ‘Exposure Therapy,’ a practice wherein she re-immerses herself – alongside a Mormon healer – in her past environment with hopes of unlocking whatever trauma has her living a life beside herself. So with Adam and her gal-pal Gwen (Mia Challis) in tow, the trio embark on a road trip to what remains of Haventon, the backwater Mormon enclave where she was originally baptized in her faith.
There, Elise and her friends are greeted by Hyrum (Robin Goldsworthy) and Sister Alma Jessup (Genevieve Mooy), two practitioners who have agreed to assist in the young woman’s recovery. In the nighttime ceremony, the trio of outsiders are given hallucinogens to induce a kinda/sorta spirit journey into the land of memory though why Adam and Gwen needed to partake of the drugs is a bit dubious and unclear. Eventually, Sister Alma senses that Elise has been infected by the spirit of a trickster we’ll learn is named Laru; and the woman manages to pull the being out through the young woman’s mouth with what looks to be a long, wet, bloody black ponytail. Now that Elise is presumably free, Hyrum encourages them to – ahem – get out while the getting’s good.
But because they’re all young and presumably irresponsible, they stay. Elise is intent upon knowing more about her time in Haventon; and – lo and behold – it isn’t long before she comes to realization that it was her partaking of lesbian shenanigans with the bishop’s fetching daughter Clara (Luca Asta Sardelis) – who claimed innocence – led to the young woman’s banishment. Before leaving the community in shame, Elise choked her jilted paramour to death and (apparently) stowed her body in a nearby root cellar. Precisely how all of this ties specifically back to Laru, however, is never clearly (or clearly enough) explained, though Sister Alma makes a brief and confusing confession on her death bed later in the picture.
Additionally, there’s a bit more to the chronicle that’s equally vague.
Hyrum appears to have been smitten with young Elise’s charms back in her days with the community, so much so that he now tears her face from a picture and places it in a heart locket he wears about his neck. What this is supposed to mean remains unclear, but there’s the suggestion that he expected more from their reunion than to help her put the past to rest. It’s this baffling development that symbolizes a great deal of my frustration with Diabolic: what writers Phillip and collaborators Ticia Madsen and Mike Harding think they spelled out perfectly winds up being murky, counterproductive, and sometimes downright befuddling. As a viewer, I shouldn’t have to fill in the gaps, but – because I do – there are events that just don’t make enough narrative sense. For example, why did Laru possess Elise in the first place, during her baptism? There’s never any grounding to it – other than apparently Mormons will baptize others by proxy, a practice which seemed a bit unusual to my untrained eyes – and I needed to know more. Barring further answers, Diabolic felt diabolically nebulous too much of the time.
What Diabolic does well is craft some of its nightmare visions for the benefit of the audience. Watching Elise as a troubled artist, we’re given hints as to what might unfold – the film opens with her painting little more than the ominous cellar door as well as periods wherein she’s reduced to digging holes in her backyard – so her descent here isn’t without a bit of creative nuance. Once she succumbs to full possession, actress Cullen almost gleefully goes about dispensing her brand of bloody justice, as a good demon should; and – rest assured – these are the sights fans of Horror show up to see. Those who’ve put troubles upon Elise’s shoulders suffer as a consequence, though there’s really no logic behind why Laru would’ve deemed it necessary … well, other than the fact she’s pure evil.
All things said, some might celebrate Diabolic because it understandably takes aim at the institution of faith, a kinda/sorta cultural boiling point amongst the cultural elite. Over the years, Mormons have been criticized for their doctrines, their practices, and some of their stances on social issues; so is chucking a soul-jumping witch into that critical bonfire really all that much of a stretch? Honestly, I’ve no bones about assessing religion at all: as I said in the opening, my only bugaboo as it applies to stories of any backdrop is that they’re accessible and everything properly coalesces in the narrative. I’ll concede that happens to a small degree for Elise, Clara, Adam, Gwen, and Alma here, but the true narrative spine – Laru’s origins – remains incomplete. Ultimately, this lessens the film’s ability to fully stand on its own in the pantheon of Horror.
Diabolic (2025) was produced by Empire Road Pictures, Diabolic Productions, SunJive Studios, and The South Australian Film Corporation. A quick search of Google.com indicates that the film is presently available for viewing via a variety of streaming platforms. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the film boasts some excellent practical effects work and some winning cinematography that definitely goes a long way in crafting the picture’s thrills, chills, and spills: some of it is a bit overlong – pacing in the second half is dreadful and could’ve used some modest trimming here and there – and there was a continuity gaffe (regarding a certain cellar door) – that didn’t need to be. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Since I viewed the flick via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
The difficulty in not only ‘getting’ Horror – especially Folk Horror – as opposed to ‘getting Horror done right’ is on full display in Diabolic: its good elements are too few and far between, nestling between not enough backstory and far too much exposition to give the effort anything greater than entirely circumstantial thrills. Lacking a clear origin story to Laru – much less something clarifying why she’s got such a chip on her spectral shoulder regarding Mormons (beyond the obvious systemic misogyny) – leaves what story there is being entirely predictable if not downright leaden from the largely stoic performances we’ve already seen elsewhere hundreds of times before. While jump scares and technical merits are impressive, if that’s all there is then why bother to make this road trip in the first place?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Brainstorm Media provided me with a complimentary streaming access to Diabolic (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2018 (in the Philippines), Winchester scared audiences silly with its tale of real-life inspiration. Written (in part) and directed by the team of Michael and Peter Spierig, the film starred Helen Mirren, Sarah Snook, Jason Clarke, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Ensconced in her sprawling San Jose, California mansion, eccentric firearm heiress Sarah Winchester believes she is haunted by the souls of people killed by the Winchester repeating rifle."
For the record:
Bluntly, Winchester was a bit of a sensation at the 2019 Razzie Awards where the project received nominations (but no wins) in the categories of 'Worst Actress' (Mirren), 'Worst Screenplay,' 'Worst Director,' and 'Worst Picture.'
-- EZ
On this day in 2018 (in the Philippines), Winchester scared audiences silly with its tale of real-life inspiration. Written (in part) and directed by the team of Michael and Peter Spierig, the film starred Helen Mirren, Sarah Snook, Jason Clarke, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Ensconced in her sprawling San Jose, California mansion, eccentric firearm heiress Sarah Winchester believes she is haunted by the souls of people killed by the Winchester repeating rifle."
For the record:
Bluntly, Winchester was a bit of a sensation at the 2019 Razzie Awards where the project received nominations (but no wins) in the categories of 'Worst Actress' (Mirren), 'Worst Screenplay,' 'Worst Director,' and 'Worst Picture.'
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1960 (in the United Kingdom), the big city of London, England played host for an exclusive theatrical premiere engagement of The Flesh And The Fiends. Written (in part) and directed by John Gilling, the film starred Peter Cushing, June Laverick, Donald Pleasence, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In 1828 Scotland, Edinburgh surgeon Dr. Knox does medical research on cadavers he buys from murderers Burke and Hare, without questioning the unethical procurement methods."
Editor's Note:
According to what I've read on The Flesh And The Fiends, the picture is considered a British Horror movie that dramatizes the true-life story of killers William Burke and William Hare who were caught providing fresh corpses to a real anatomist for research purposes. Ouch. It's also said to be the first Horror project that billed actor Peter Cushing that was not associated with Hammer Films. Those wanting to know a bit more about the original history of Burke and Hare might wish to pick up a copy of Lisa Rosner's book "The Anatomy Murders" as it has been regarded as a good source.
-- EZ
On this day in 1960 (in the United Kingdom), the big city of London, England played host for an exclusive theatrical premiere engagement of The Flesh And The Fiends. Written (in part) and directed by John Gilling, the film starred Peter Cushing, June Laverick, Donald Pleasence, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In 1828 Scotland, Edinburgh surgeon Dr. Knox does medical research on cadavers he buys from murderers Burke and Hare, without questioning the unethical procurement methods."
Editor's Note:
According to what I've read on The Flesh And The Fiends, the picture is considered a British Horror movie that dramatizes the true-life story of killers William Burke and William Hare who were caught providing fresh corpses to a real anatomist for research purposes. Ouch. It's also said to be the first Horror project that billed actor Peter Cushing that was not associated with Hammer Films. Those wanting to know a bit more about the original history of Burke and Hare might wish to pick up a copy of Lisa Rosner's book "The Anatomy Murders" as it has been regarded as a good source.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1994 (in the U.S.), Trancers 4: Jack Of Swords brought Jack Deth back to theatrical life with its very first home video release. Directed by David Nutter from a story by Danny Bilson, Peter David, and Paul De Meo, the film starred Tim Thomerson, Stacie Randall, Ty Miller, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Lost somewhere in the future, lawman Jack learns he's lost his wife to another and lands in a new, dangerous dimension, where evil Lord Caliban rules."
-- EZ
On this day in 1994 (in the U.S.), Trancers 4: Jack Of Swords brought Jack Deth back to theatrical life with its very first home video release. Directed by David Nutter from a story by Danny Bilson, Peter David, and Paul De Meo, the film starred Tim Thomerson, Stacie Randall, Ty Miller, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Lost somewhere in the future, lawman Jack learns he's lost his wife to another and lands in a new, dangerous dimension, where evil Lord Caliban rules."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2007 (in Canada and the U.S.), The Messengers delivered its message of pure evil to the cinemas. Directed by Danny Pang and Oxide Chun Pang from a story by Mark Wheaton and Todd Farmer, the film starred Dylan McDermott, Penelope Ann Miller, and Kristen Stewart.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"An ominous darkness invades a seemingly serene sunflower farm in North Dakota, and the Solomon family is torn apart by suspicion, mayhem and murder."
-- EZ
On this day in 2007 (in Canada and the U.S.), The Messengers delivered its message of pure evil to the cinemas. Directed by Danny Pang and Oxide Chun Pang from a story by Mark Wheaton and Todd Farmer, the film starred Dylan McDermott, Penelope Ann Miller, and Kristen Stewart.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"An ominous darkness invades a seemingly serene sunflower farm in North Dakota, and the Solomon family is torn apart by suspicion, mayhem and murder."
-- EZ