​On February 24, the medieval epic fantasy Excalibur makes its world premiere on 4K UHD. Director John Boorman (Deliverance) brings you the definitive cinematic telling of the life and enduring legend of King Arthur, not seen in previous family friendly movies about Camelot. The Limited Edition release features a brand new 4K restoration from the original 35mm negative by Arrow Films presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.66:1 for the first time on home video, hours of special features, and newly commissioned extras. There is also a Blu-ray release.

The wizard Merlin (Nicol Williamson, The Exorcist III) acquires the powerful sword Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake for Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne, The Usual Suspects). The magical weapon allows Uther to be recognized as the King of the Britons. During a feast, Uther begs Merlin to cast a spell that will allow him to sleep with a duke’s wife. Merlin agrees, but only after being promised the king’s future child. Months later, Merlin claims the newborn. When Uther attempts to reclaim the baby, he is ambushed, and before dying, he drives Excalibur into a stone. Legend foretells that only the next true king can free the sword. Merlin places the child, Arthur, with Sir Ector to be raised as a squire. During a tournament to determine England’s new ruler, a grown Arthur (Nigel Terry, The Lion in Winter) unknowingly pulls Excalibur from the stone and is crowned king. He gathers extraordinary knights to his legendary Round Table at Camelot, but his reunion with his magical sister Morgana (Helen Mirren, The Queen) ushers in dark times for his reign. To restore the kingdom, Arthur sends his knights on a perilous quest for the Holy Grail. Among the warriors clad in shining armor are Patrick Stewart (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Liam Neeson (Taken), and Ciarán Hinds (Miami Vice).

Special features include a 4K (2160p) UHD Blu-ray presentation in Dolby Vision (HDR10 compatible); restored original lossless mono and DTS-HD MA 5.1 audio options; optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing; two brand new audio commentaries; archival audio commentary by director John Boorman; The Making of Excalibur: Myth into Movie, a never before released 48-minute documentary directed by Neil Jordan (The Crying Game); newly filmed interviews with director John Boorman, actor Charley Boorman, co-writer Rospo Pallenberg; creative associate Neil Jordan and others; the 120-minute TV version of the film; a retrospective documentary with cast and crew interviews; trailers; image galleries; a perfect-bound booklet; double-sided fold-out poster; and six postcard-sized reproduction art cards.
​

​On February 17, the star-studded intergalactic paranormal cult epic The Visitor makes its universal 4K UHD debut. Producer Ovidio G. Assonitis (Beyond The Door) conjures up a brilliantly bizarre battle between good and evil. The Limited Edition release features a brand new 4K restoration of the 109-min European version of the film from the original 35mm camera negative by Arrow Films, hours of special features, and newly commissioned extras. 

Heavenly leader Yahweh (Franco Nero, Django) assigns Jerzy Colsowicz (John Huston, Chinatown) to locate the children of his vanquished rival, Zatteen. Jerzy’s trail leads to Atlanta, where one of the offspring, Katy Collins (Paige Conner, Little Darlings), uses her telekinetic powers to trigger a massive explosion at the end of a professional basketball game. The chaos pleases Raymond Armstead (Lance Henriksen, Aliens), the owner of the victorious team and the lover of Katy’s mother, Barbara (Joanne Nail, Switchblade Sisters). Armstead and a cabal of secretive men harbor a diabolical plan involving both mother and daughter to resurrect Zatteen. As Katy’s mystical powers grow stronger by the day, the threat becomes increasingly uncontrollable. Mel Ferrer (The Pyjama Girl Case), Shelley Winters (Lolita), and Sam Peckinpah (director of The Wild Bunch) appear in a hallucinatory, genre-defying battle that stretches across the cosmos.

Special features include a 4K (2160p) UHD Blu-ray presentation in Dolby Vision (HDR10 compatible); original lossless mono audio and an optional remixed 5.1 DTS-HD MA surround audio; optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing; a brand new audio commentary, brand new visual essays; archival interviews with actor Lance Henriksen and others; the theatrical trailer; image gallery; and a collectors booklet.
​​

Readers, believe it or not: there used to be a time when Hollywood could be relied on for being complimentary of all branches of the United States military machine.
 
Now, this isn’t to suggest in any way that such studio productions were all ‘rah-rah-sis-boom-bah!’  Producers, directors, and screenwriters still took issue with the national military apparatus and their various missions or campaigns in a great many features spaced out across the Cold War and well into the Reagan Presidency.  My point is that there was also room for stories that celebrated the bravado, machismo, and heroism of the brave men and women who wore the uniform and even sometimes died for their country.  Not all of it was based in reality – a good number of pictures were entirely fictional though sometimes based on a kernel of truth – but the studio system generally allowed for heroes to be heroes because the mighty dollar of box office returns spoke louder than did the institutional critics who couldn’t stand for any flag-waving on their collective watch.
 
Somewhere in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Tinseltown’s driving sentiments started to drift into some darker territory.  Cultural watershed moments like Vietnam and Watergate started to seep into stories and themes, often times meaning that anyone in service to the government – including soldiers – couldn’t and shouldn’t be portrayed as courageous so pervasively.  Why, these folks were as crooked and corrupt as the institutions they served, and this development pushed a great number of otherwise pro-military scripts into turnaround or saw their budgets so dramatically slashed that few talents could do justice to what was envisioned.  These pro-Army, pro-Navy, pro-Air Force, and pro-Marines adventures continued, but they largely found life in the realm of B-Movies.  Yes, there were exceptions – as 1986’s Top Gun proved definitively that viewers were still interested – but the norm was that the American military industrial complex should receive little positive praise in the years ahead.
 
Surprisingly, the movers and shakers behind 1992’s Under Siege apparently never got the memo.  If they did get it, thank God they ignored it.  
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for 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:
“Ex US Navy Seal turned cook, Casey Ryback, is the only person who can stop a group of terrorists when they seize control of the US battleship The Missouri to obtain it's nuclear warheads.”
 
Near the beginning of his career on the silver screen, Steven Seagal proved that – against all odds – he was a force to be reckoned with in many, many, many more ways than one.  His skills as a martial artist were reasonably unmatched onscreen; and – though his dramatic range was decidedly limited – the actor and athlete still managed to break through the usual Hollywood noise to build a small but faithful following amongst moviegoers.  While it may not have lasted as long as he hoped for, the truth remains that those first handful of flicks were the kind of thing that audiences wanted.  He made a living off of bringing the ultimate killing machine and underestimated underdog to every outing, and kudos to the man for both knowing and respecting constraints.  On him, it all looked good.
 
1992’s Under Siege was the kind of vehicle that studios used to do very well.  It was decidedly pro-government, with J.F. Lawton’s script cleverly reminding us that, yes, institutions trafficked in some dark territory but also somehow managed to build patriots of unquestionable character to serve in times of strife.  Director Andrew Davis took great advantage of shooting locations – an aircraft carrier, some subterranean facility housing the heads of the military, etc. – and, by keeping things lean and mean, kept the focus lightly on character while pushing just enough action sequences to keep watchers interested.  Sure, there were a few nefarious baddies – one even in uniform – but was there ever any doubt that any of the villains involved were destined to be dispatched in some grisly demise?  I don’t think so … and that’s just what happened.
 
Ryback (played by Seagal) is a former Navy SEAL who – by his own characteristic insubordination – has been busted all the way back to the lowest rank possible.  Because his service has earned him friends in the right places, Captain Adams (Patrick O’Neal) wouldn’t allow for the soldier to be drummed out of the Navy and, instead, allows the man to serve out the remainder of his tenure as the chief cook aboard the USS Missouri.  Of course, it helps that Ryback is a surprisingly good chef, but his continued flippant attitude nevertheless has him constantly at odds with other members of the administrative staff, especially Commander Krill (Gary Busey).
 
Hoping to surprise Adams for his birthday, Krill has arranged for not only a rock’n’roll band – headlined by William Strannix (Tommy Lee Jones) – to come aboard the ship but also he’s importing a lavish dinner spread for which Ryback’s services will not be needed.  Krill has even opted to sneak Playboy Playmate Jordan Tate (real-life Playboy model and actress Erika Eleniak), hoping to have the lovely lady – sans some clothing – pop out of a giant birthday cake at the start of the festivities.  Not long the big shebang is supposed to begin, a disagreement between Krill and Ryback leaves the cook sequestered into the kitchen’s meat locker over his non-compliance with an order from a superior officer … and I suspect, at this point, everyone knew that Seagal’s character would be free to ‘do his thing’ once terrorists seized the Missouri and turned it into the United States’ worst nightmare: a nuclear-weapon-laden vessel in the hands of our enemies.
 
Naturally, there’s a great deal more to Under Siege, but what works here most effectively is how the film is the spiritual descendent of 1989’s Die Hard.  In that picture, police veteran John McClane (Bruce Willis) finds himself locked inside the Nakatomi Towers on Christmas Eve where terrorists have taken hostages and are seeking some unimaginable ransom.  Because McClane wasn’t officially on any guest list, he’s free to run about in the background, at every turn trying to either outsmart or outshoot the bad guys who weren’t anticipating any kind of internal resistance.  Seagal’s Ryback is essentially cast in that same mold – a veteran soldier who can match wits with the flock of CIA-trained operatives schooled in seizing foreign military resources – and he’s constantly staying one step ahead of the criminals throughout the flick.
 
Granted, Under Siege isn’t exactly a Die Hard clone.  While it might stick to much of the same architecture, its second half has Ryback and a handful of soldiers he’s rescued going about some serious MacGyver tactics – a late 1980’s action series that built around a central character who would seemingly build a timebomb from things found in your mother’s kitchen cupboard – and, alas, not a good deal of it gets adequately explained.  As such, the audience is left to watch and discover what the cook and his cohorts are up to; and I think Lawton’s script could’ve used a little helpful exposition.  But when the chips are down for the big finale, you’d be a fool to not bet on Ryback and his merry band of men and their Playboy Playmate as, together, they prove themselves more than capable of taking up whatever patriotic task is required.
 
Under Siege (1992) was produced by Warner Bros., Regency Enterprises, Le Studio Canal+, Alcor Films, and Arnon Milchan Productions.  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 still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are pretty damn spiffy: Davies fills each frame to its fullest, cleverly using the potentially claustrophobic confines of the military ship to great effect.  It’s an exceptionally well-photographed picture, and the upgrade looks wonderful.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The disc boasts an audio commentary along with several newly-produced interviews, all of which are good for a listening but none really add anything earth-shattering in any respect.  Still, it’s worth it for those thinking of making the leap.
 
Strongly Recommended.
 
While it would be easy to dismiss something like Under Siege (1992) for being a bit saccharin and over-the-top – both mostly owed to Busey and Jones’ screen-chewing presence here – I have nothing but respect for what Davis, Lawton, and Seagal achieved here.  It’s that rare middle-of-the-road actioner that knows what it’s meant to be, sticks to its formula, and manages to hit the landing.  Secondary character casting is even pretty damn impressive, filling out the flick with a cadre of actors you’ve likely seen before but don’t know their names (not an insult, just being honest).  Lastly, Under Siege is that breath of fresh air – that mild throwback to when Hollywood didn’t feel bad about producing something admittedly pro-military – and I’d love to see a return to more of those days in the years ahead.  Call me old-fashioned, but I love it.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary UltraHD Blu-ray copy of Under Siege (1992) 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
​

So many movies ... so little time ...

On this day in 2015 (in the United States), Justice League: Throne Of Atlantis enjoyed its first release ever via the Information Superhighway.  Directed by Ethan Spaulding from a story by Heath Corson and others, the film featured the voice talents of Sean Astin, Rosario Dawson, Christopher Gorham, and others. 

According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

"When Atlantian troops assault Metropolis as revenge for the death of their king, the Queen seeks help from the Justice League to find her son who has gone missing during the madness."

-- EZ

So many movies ... so little time ...

On this day in 2019 (in the United Kingdom), Cleavers: Killer Clowns enjoyed its theatrical debut when it was first screened for audiences of the Horror On Sea Film Festival.  Written and directed by MJ Dixon, the film starred Georgie Smibert, Paul Rogers, Holly-Anne Dodkins, and others. 

​According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

"Mind your head. Cleaver is back. And this time he's brought family."

-- EZ

(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:
“While house-sitting for the mysterious and wealthy Harold Finch, three friends find themselves hunted by a masked killer. As they fight to survive, chilling clues hidden throughout the home reveal that this suburban nightmare may be part of something far more sinister.”
 
It’s often been said that the upside of Horror – as a genre – is that almost any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a camera and a cast and a small crew can throw one together in a weekend.
 
Equally arguable is the fact that the downside to the same is that almost any Tom, Dick, or Harry with the same can throw together a flick in a weekend … but should they?
 
Now, that might see a bit harsh at first blush but let me assure that this wasn’t always the case when in comes to the world of chillers.  The early 1980’s – with the home video explosion – saw an incredible number of auteurs leaping bravely into the filmmaking fold; and – whether you liked their resulting pictures or not – there was something to be said for the efforts made.  About the same could be said today with an indie piece like House Sitter (2025) from director Christopher Leto and screenwriter Beux Leto: there’s an interesting premise at work within their 80+ minute tale, but it’s all presented in too opaque and bland a package that very little good comes from the expense.
 
Perky and young Kayla (played by Jenna Forcier) is all set to have a mildly wild weekend housesitting for her pal (???), the somewhat grizzled-looking Mr. Harold Finch (David Verrieur).  After securing the man’s approval for her to be accompanied by her young stud of a beau Blake (Evan Eiglarsh) and Goth gal-pal Dani (Cristina Méndez), she’s clearly set to have a weekend to remember.  As it turns out, Kayla’s motivations might be somewhat more sinister than your typical high school sweetheart before all is said and done as the body count begins to rise once day turns to night and an apparently homegrown serial slasher is on the loose.
 
Now, House Sitter is the kind of feature that can’t be honestly reviewed because it would spoil the twist ending, and I’m always avoiding such a practice on SciFiHistory.Net.  What I can say is that there are a few behind-the-scenes allegiances that figure into this loose whodunnit, so much so that when you know precisely who and working with whom much of what got detailed falls apart like a bad, bad, bad house of cards.  Again, I won’t spoil it, but I will encourage readers to watch closely even though these 80 minutes are a bit of a slog.  You’ll likely find yourself fast-forwarding through some of the longer sequences (trust me: you won’t be losing anything); but once you know who truly did it you’ll probably be scratching your head over why some scenes were included in the first place except to throw the audiences way off track.  That’s cheating, folks, and it disappoints me whenever I see it.
 
Plot mechanics aside, there’s really not much else to applaud with House Sitter. 
 
Though the setting could be idyllic to some degree, Leto’s cinematography is quite bland (except in a few shots), so the principal shooting location of a rich man’s mansion feels a great deal like any oversized house in the great American suburbs (except that it’s a waterfront property).  The talent isn’t given much to do here except act like typical teenagers in the run-of-the-mill slasher picture, and it’s difficult to shout their praises because far too much time is invested in scenes that fundamentally stall the action as opposed to ramping it up.  At the end of the flick, you might (like I did) realize that there was a nugget of a great idea wrapped up in here – that being the use of a kinda/sorta dark and depraved ritual making the American Dream possible – and yet none of this has much flavor to make it go down easily.
 
There’s definitely no need for seconds, either.
 
House Sitter (2025) was produced by Reaper Films.  A quick search of Google.com indicates that House Sitter is available for streaming on a variety of internet platforms.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the film both looks and sounds reasonably good throughout: sadly, there’s an awful lot of fairly plain cinematography – even to the moments supposed to be infused with high tension – so this one could’ve used a makeover or greater inspiration behind the lens.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
 
Alas, this one is Hard To Recommend.
 
The optimist in me – when I’ve not beaten him senseless – can see where a film like House Sitter (2025) could’ve had greater appeal.  Slasher pictures are always entertaining, but there’s just not enough blood spilled for this After School special.  Entirely too long in its present iteration, there’s a modest amount of social commentary wrapped up in its big reveal even though the story lacks any narrative logic whatsoever.  Why would A do this if B already knew what was up? Why would B do this is C was really the culprit?  Why was this scene shot at all because it entirely misrepresents what the true story is?  Why are you actively deceiving the audience?  Still, leaving viewers with a message of “always know your friends best” is never a bad thing, is it?  Too plain and too predictable to give this one a recommendation.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cleopatra Entertainment provided me with complimentary streaming access to House Sitter (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
​

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary 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 small film crew sets out to shoot a paranormal documentary at a farmhouse haunted by legend. What starts as a lighthearted project descends into terror when their footage reveals horrifying evidence that the Boogeyman might be real.”
 
Ahhh … the ‘found footage format film’!
 
Again – for clarity’s sake – I realize that a great majority of the vast, vast viewing public has either moved on from this unique sub-genre of Horror filmmaking or simply ignores them for a legitimate number of reasons.  Understanding that just not every consumer can tolerate the usual herky-jerkiness of what usually devolves into some high-speed antics, I appreciate that such storytelling just isn’t for everyone anymore.  Still, I persevere with them; and I’ve said so because I think that – unlike other styles – the ‘found footage format’ can always have something to say about its characters and subject matter if – and that’s the key word – it’s all attempted with a focus on freshness and originality.  In other words: storytellers have to do something different with it almost each and every time it’s employed.  Otherwise … seriously … why bother?
 
Now, Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) tries in small ways to stake out territory all of its own.  Planting a documentary film crew at a secluded location where it’s been rumored that a fabled ‘boogeyman’ both exists and continues to practice his (or her) backwood spookery may not seem all that fresh at first blush; but the house explored isn’t some decrepit and dilapidated antediluvian home that’s in need of a building inspector’s condemnation notice.  Most of the time, the setting looks far more like a disturbed airBNB than it does an authentic haunted house; so kudos to director Calvin Morie McCarthy (who stars as Calvin) and co-screenwriter Tim Coyle (who also stars as Tim, talk about your typecasting, boys!) for keeping the expenses under control for the purposes of their modest, low-budget chiller.
 
Sadly, that’s really the only narrative stretch that puts this Boogeyman on fresh ground.  Yes, it unfurls pretty much like your standard ‘found footage’ project when allowed; but it also breaks just a bit from the structure by turning the crew’s remaining and last appearances in the form of a documentary assembled after-the-fact by some other peoples or persons.  In small ways, that, too, does give Boogeyman a bit of a facelift by comparison to so much of what’s come before; but is that enough to lure an audience beyond the shrinking cadre of fans who still like the ‘found footage format’?  Honestly, that question is probably above my humble pay grade, but I’m inclined to think probably not.
 
Struggling documentarian Calvin has received word from Jim (played by Jim Spence) that there’s something amiss on his property somewhere I believe in the woods outside of Seattle, Washington.  Hoping that this could be his chance for filmmaking stardom, he gathers together a somewhat motley band Tim, Eric (Erik Skybak), and Naomi (Naomi Mechem-Miller) to head out into the wilds in hopes of capturing something in camera.  What first seems like an incident of slim pickings slowly evolves as the four begin seeing things – shadows and distant figures, mostly – which suggest they’re being watched.  But before these fright-filled three days end, each will have been coopted by the spirit of some elusive Boogeyman whose ultimate motivations remains sorely unexplored.
 
Is it too much to ask for all of the silver screen specters to, at least, have a purpose?
 
Jump scares aside – and the feature does offer a few good ones – there isn’t enough substance to the Boogeyman ‘legend’ here to get all that excited about.  Hell, even the fact that he, she, or it aren’t even afforded a more definitive moniker – i.e. the Seattle Spook, the Backwoods Soul Bandit, Jim the Ghost, etc. – hints at a triteness that the flick rarely rises above; and, as I’ve tried to be clear, audiences do show up minimally expecting the taunted and teased by things they have seen before.  As good as the cast is in confronting their growing unease, far too much of this Boogeyman has been done to death (snicker snicker), so perhaps a rewrite or two could’ve added a little more spice to the meal before it was served.
 
Now, there was a moment wherein I honestly thought Coyle and McCarthy were going to show us something different; and I want to draw some attention to it briefly.
 
The night after the crew interviewed the ubiquitous Jim – initially presented as little more than a witness/landowner, a character who served to ‘set the stage’ – the four encounter him sitting in the same chair on the same road essentially at the stroke of midnight.  The mystery man is speaking to someone; and – to my unlearned ear – it sounded like Jim was saying the same lines he answered his interview questions with.  He even predictably rose at one point and marched off in the same practiced cadence with which he left them curiously the first time; and I found myself wondering, “Have these folks found themselves in some kind of time loop?”
 
 Furthermore, the flick does establish that something regarding the passage of time is entirely amiss: at one point, they’re forensically reviewing the audio of barks and howls they recorded the evening before when they happen across a mildly garbled voice saying, “Guys, I can’t see you.”  Calvin states that it sounds like Naomi – which it both does and doesn’t to a degree – and then as events unfold we do eventually see when the fetching female host does say that line on the eve of her succumbing to whatever spirit has possessed her.  We even see her standing in the night talking to the still seated Jim on the side of the road; and – once again – I found myself thinking that these characters were, one by one, by trapped in some temporary shenanigans.  Isn’t she standing there interviewing the man again?  Or am I mistaken?
 
And even furthermore: late in the picture after a few of their faces have gone missing, the forest peculiarly becomes decorated with posters bearing their faces, asking anyone who encounters these possible victims to come forward with clues to their disappearance.  Some might quickly dismiss this as a kinda/sorta visual bit merely ‘pulling the legs’ of those still onscreen and watching the story of their friend’s demise take place; but is that all that’s going on?  Why would a ghost – the central Boogeyman – have access to, say, a home PC and printer – along with a good Photoshop software – and use such resources in the wild to mindfuck the survivors?  Isn’t it increasingly plausible that said phantom possess the ability to move forward and backward in time?  To step into tomorrow, gather some posters, and bring them into the recent past to terrorize his casualties?
 
2022’s Brightwood from writer/director Dane Elcar is one of those unappreciated independent gems that explores the idea of time loops in a slightly similar fashion. 
 
In that film, our two leads – Jen and Dan – are enduring a rift in their relationship: hoping to maybe find some solace by hiking together in the woods, they are eventually confronted by future versions of themselves, each growing more despondent, reckless, and violent all the time.  Their characters grew over the course of this curious story to the point wherein we – the audience – watched as they became these volatile scavengers of tomorrow … and it’s this kind of trickery that I think Boogeyman could’ve tapped into that might afforded everyone something to do here beyond simple spirit possession.  Soul ownership works, but because it’s been overused – especially in found footage – there’s just nothing all that interesting about it here.
 
Rather than criticize Boogeyman for things it didn’t do (but maybe hinted at slightly), I’m left with marking this one down as an exercise in roads too often already traveled.  Again: it’s fine if that’s all you’re looking for … but the promise for something much greater was still there … and I do so much more appreciated walking down the roads others have ignored.
 
Lastly, there is a great line that sparks of some promise for the budding filmmakers, and I’d be remiss if I failed to give it the props it deserves.  The police officer interviewed onscreen about the kids passing delivers a great but world-weary cynical line about the events.  He states that, categorically, he doesn’t believe in boogeymen, and yet he strongly asserts that there is evidence of their existence.  That, my friends, is good writing and great sentiments, the kind of focus that does make this Boogeyman worth seeing … if you’re a fan of found footage.
 
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) was produced by 7th Street Productions.  A quick search of Google.com suggests that the film is available for streaming on such platforms as Tubi, the Roku Channel, Fawesome, and Cranked Up TV.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that – like any other ‘found footage format’ film Boogeyman does employ the usual shaky-cam approach, so consider yourself warned.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Alas, as I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
 
Recommended … but this one is mostly for those of us who still find something worthy about ‘found footage.’
 
Evidence Of The Boogeyman (2025) uses its workable premise – that of the ill-fated movie crew hoping to find the spectral scoop of their short lives – about as well as any other independent picture has.  Much of the impact is accomplished via jump scares and the like, and its players move rather effortlessly through their respective paces, going from regular to irregular emotionally as the situations warrant.  McCarthy and Mechem-Miller make the best of their screen time – he’s overly pensive to the point of explosiveness and she’s fetching and understandably anxious without trying too hard – so points earned for work well delivered.  Ultimately, I prefer Horror that makes me think, and this one did, even if only in small ways.
 
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Breaking Glass Pictures provided me with complimentary streaming access to Evidence Of The Boogeyman (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
​

(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:
“After fleeing England in disgrace, Michael ‘Beau’ Geste joins the French Foreign Legion, meeting his brothers in North Africa where their cruel commander proves more dangerous than Arab rebels.”
 
Speaking entirely from my perception of the reasonably contemporary film industry, it seems that roughly in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s that audiences were exposed to Tinseltown’s latest and greatest fad:
 

1. Some cunning producer – with dollar signs in his/her eyes – would fall head over heels for the latest and greatest popular novel.
2. This capitalist would buy up the rights to the tome, and a feature film adaptation would be fast-tracked into the studio system.
3. Audiences around the world would be swept up in the frenzy of loving the project equally, so much so that the film would become the ‘definitive edition’ of the story … even though everyone knows full well how much creative license screen adaptations usually take in translating the work into visuals.
4. Eventually, the picture would go on to dominate the awards season, proving that ‘there’s gold in them there hills’ only if someone goes looking for it.

 
Well, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps it’s time to give a bit of appreciation to one of the first times this was successfully accomplished: 1926’s Beau Geste – based on the 1924 novel by P.C. Wren – was a bit of a cultural phenomenon upon its original theatrical release.  Costing roughly $1M to make (a practically unheard-of amount at the time), the project from producers Jesse L. Lasky, Adolph Zukor, William LeBaron, and director Herbert Brenon would earn back its costs and then some (reports suggest it grossed $1.5M total).  Then, at the 1926 Photoplay Awards (the industry recognition system that predated the Oscars), Geste would take home four big wins – three for its performances and, of course, the coveted notice for ‘Best Picture Of The Month (November).’
 
To date, the original story has been remade four times, but there are many who suggest that the original has never quite been given the attention its due.  This likely fueled the interest behind this new release from Artcraft Pictures, which even on its cover insert cites theirs as the 100th anniversary collector’s edition.  Having heard a fair deal about silent film but having never seen it, I couldn’t pass up the chance to finally give it a spin.  Even though I’m not the biggest fan of the Silent Era, I’ve often chalked that up to having never seen enough of the very best.  I’m thrilled to say that Geste will have me seeking out others with which to fill in my leisure hours.
 
The script – attributed to John Russell and Paul Schofield – begins under curious circumstances: in the heart of the Sahara Desert, Major de Beaujolais (played by Norman Trevor) marches his men hurriedly toward the distant Fort Zinderneuf where its rumored that the French Foreign Legion has been overcome by Arab marauders.  Upon arrival, Beaujolais finds a horrific scene: the men are all found dead, and there are some signs indicating that something was greatly amiss inside beyond the usual risks of attack.  The ranking sergeant is dead from a stab wound, and – clutched in his hand – is the written confession of a jewel thief belonging to Lady Patricia Brandon (Alice Joyce) years earlier.  Before Beaujolais can mount an investigation into what may well have been an act of mutiny, he evacuates his men as a mysterious fire suddenly consumes the fort, threatening everyone in its path.
 
After this expansive set-up, viewers are catapulted back in time to the days of youth for the Geste children.  Young Michael, Digby, and John (eventually to be played in adulthood by actor Ronald Colman, Neil Hamilton, and Ralph Forbes) spend their morning with their cousin Isabel re-enacting a naval battle with toy ships in a lake on Lady Patricia’s estate.  In the melee, John is ‘shot’ in the leg (with a BB), and his brother Michael – acting as his physician – performs “surgery” to remove the bullet.  Because of their shared and witnessed bravery in the line of duty, the promise of a Viking funeral should any of the brothers perish in combat is set in motion … so a good time was had by all.
 
Years later, Lady Patricia’s ‘Blue Water’ diamond disappears under curious circumstances; and, frankly, the whole kerfuffle with the coveted gem is a bit of misdirection (in my opinion) to the central story.  Diamonds being what they are – nature’s beautiful and unbreakable stone – the Blue Water is rather obviously meant to symbolize the bond the Geste brothers share.  Theirs is an equally lovely and shatterproof bond to look after one another and their family name, so the jewel is little more than a kinda/sorta MacGuffin around which this classic story of brotherly devotion revolves and evolves.  There’s never any doubt that these three will be thrown into situations that test the central devotion; and – to their credit – each actor gives a performance expressive of what adherence to a shared honor requires.
 
Structurally, Geste opens on the tragedy that took place at Fort Zinderneuf, so the audience definitely knows precisely where things are headed after being flashbacked to the Geste boys’ beginnings.  We know – beyond any doubt – that there’s a massacre somewhere down that road, and there are major questions regarding who does and who doesn’t survive.  So we’re kept in cleverly nuanced suspense at every step along the way by director Brenon, making the film as much a puzzle as it is a drama.  The genius of the set-up is that viewers have no idea of how and/or when things will begin to unravel, so we’re modestly swept up in affairs big and small, hoping for even the smallest suggestion of where Fate would take its awful turn.  Alas, even in the darkest developments the brothers remain faithful to one another, and it’s this allegiance that gives Geste’s second half all the narrative weight necessary to find silver linings in the blackest of storm clouds.
 
There’s a lot to digest with a picture like Beau Geste.  It has a bit of everything in it – Drama, Action, some minor social commentary here and there, and even a hint of romance – but nothing rises to the level of importance surrounding its point on family.  Do what you must to protect the family.  Look out for your brothers (and sisters, of course).  In the end, it’s this family that will remain as important as the day one discovered what it meant and what its benefits could be.  That arguably is not the case in reality – life being what it is – but Beau Geste works as effectively as it does because this is how things work ‘in the movies.’  As much fantasy as it can be reality, there’s no denying the film’s power, so much so that it’s even easy to see how the trend to adapt only the best didactic novels continues to this day.
 
Beau Geste (1926) was produced by Famous Players-Lasky Corporation.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Artcraft Pictures.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that – based on the information I’ve both read and seen – this is by far the most impressive restoration (in 4K) possible, what with the flick being in public domain and the rarity of elements available.  (If I’m understanding correctly, then there’s still a few minutes of the original release lost to history; so this might very well be the best version audiences ever get.)  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The Artcraft release is loaded with supplementary materials – commentary track, some technical explanations of the production and the restoration, as well as a spiffy collector’s booklet that details the production and release to small degrees.  It’s a respectful assortment for a film much deserving of rediscovery.  Well done!
 
Strongly Recommended.
 
While never being truly indulgent at its 129-minutes running time, Beau Geste (1926) still could’ve used a snip here or there, some minor excisions that likely would’ve helped the pacing in its more frenetic, action-packed moments.  Unlike a great many other silent pictures I’ve enjoyed (or tried to enjoy), it’s thankfully slim on intertitles (or title cards); and the lion’s share of the story is rendered with some surprisingly effective cinematography (shout-out to J. Roy Hunt’s work as its pretty fabulous).  Today, some cynics might dismiss the poignant Action/Drama for being a bit too ‘formulaic’ as just another token Hollywood big-budget novel adaptation meant to woo the masses-at-large to the goodness of the cinema; but the problem therein is that this was released back in 1926, making it perhaps one of the first of its kind.  Enjoy it on that measure, and its relevance remains unquestionably.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Artcraft Pictures (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Beau Geste (1926) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​