- Published on
History matters, folks.
Regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks, what came before deserves a place of distinction in the wide, wide world of art; and that’s something I don’t believe everyone understands or appreciates. In fact, that sentiment is exactly why I started SciFiHistory.Net. Back in the day, I read columns and/or websites and/or articles written by folks who clearly – very clearly – had no appreciable sense of cinema and/or television that had come before. They simply shucked whatever opinions they had on a property, maybe only tangentially mentioning that it was a remake or was inspired by something produced in the past, sometimes even glossing over the simple fact that the original – while flawed in its own way – might still be a vastly greater interpretation of the story and characters. In many cases, these “critics” hadn’t even seen the earlier version; and this unintentionally discredited some of their critical arguments when they – gasp! – judged the newer work as better than the old. How in the name of Sam Hill could they make such an assumption? Well, I suspect many figured no one was watching … or reading.
So …
1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre – written (in part) and directed by Tobe Hooper – is respected as being on the high points of cinematic Horror. While it didn’t introduce audiences to the slasher sub-genre, it still arguably defined what it could, would, and (perhaps) should look like going forward, so much so that Massacre influenced a great many imitators at a time when the box office arguably needed a new bloodline (snicker snicker). Its low-budget presentation essentially required that director Hooper and his cast and crew put in even greater effort to craft an atmosphere of dread on pennies by comparison to what major studios were spending; and the end result was a screen experience predicated on realism while not quite showing but implying the level of torture taking place just outside of the camera frame. Though not for everyone, the flick continues to resonate with watchers half-a-century later, even if the mainstream dismisses the effort as little more than a cult experience.
Naturally, Horror aficionados would oppose a remake of something as revered as the 1974 picture; and that’s pretty much what I can recall of scuttlebutt surrounding early reportage for 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Despite assurances from all involved that their attempt would be respectful to the original, few if any believed such a thing was possible. I’ve read that there were so fairly vociferous campaigns directed at the studio and the cast, but I honestly only recall reading the feverish blowback on messages boards of the day (ask your parents, kids) and I tended to ignore such things. Unlike others, I’ve never been against remakes: I just want them to have their own purpose.
Well, well, well: on a budget of less than $10 million, the Michael Bay produced remake went on to gross an impressive $107 million worldwide, and that’s no disgrace at all. Critically, the reception was poor-to-mixed, but – as Fate would have it – audiences embraced the bloodshed for what it was. In fact, I’ve also read that many in the industry credit 2003’s Massacre with reinvigorating the slumping theatrical Horror business, re-introducing the quintessential slasher experience to a whole new generation of moviegoers. I don’t know if that’s as true as some might have you believe, but it’s still an impressive return on investment both fiscally and culturally for those of us who think about such things.
Regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks, what came before deserves a place of distinction in the wide, wide world of art; and that’s something I don’t believe everyone understands or appreciates. In fact, that sentiment is exactly why I started SciFiHistory.Net. Back in the day, I read columns and/or websites and/or articles written by folks who clearly – very clearly – had no appreciable sense of cinema and/or television that had come before. They simply shucked whatever opinions they had on a property, maybe only tangentially mentioning that it was a remake or was inspired by something produced in the past, sometimes even glossing over the simple fact that the original – while flawed in its own way – might still be a vastly greater interpretation of the story and characters. In many cases, these “critics” hadn’t even seen the earlier version; and this unintentionally discredited some of their critical arguments when they – gasp! – judged the newer work as better than the old. How in the name of Sam Hill could they make such an assumption? Well, I suspect many figured no one was watching … or reading.
So …
1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre – written (in part) and directed by Tobe Hooper – is respected as being on the high points of cinematic Horror. While it didn’t introduce audiences to the slasher sub-genre, it still arguably defined what it could, would, and (perhaps) should look like going forward, so much so that Massacre influenced a great many imitators at a time when the box office arguably needed a new bloodline (snicker snicker). Its low-budget presentation essentially required that director Hooper and his cast and crew put in even greater effort to craft an atmosphere of dread on pennies by comparison to what major studios were spending; and the end result was a screen experience predicated on realism while not quite showing but implying the level of torture taking place just outside of the camera frame. Though not for everyone, the flick continues to resonate with watchers half-a-century later, even if the mainstream dismisses the effort as little more than a cult experience.
Naturally, Horror aficionados would oppose a remake of something as revered as the 1974 picture; and that’s pretty much what I can recall of scuttlebutt surrounding early reportage for 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Despite assurances from all involved that their attempt would be respectful to the original, few if any believed such a thing was possible. I’ve read that there were so fairly vociferous campaigns directed at the studio and the cast, but I honestly only recall reading the feverish blowback on messages boards of the day (ask your parents, kids) and I tended to ignore such things. Unlike others, I’ve never been against remakes: I just want them to have their own purpose.
Well, well, well: on a budget of less than $10 million, the Michael Bay produced remake went on to gross an impressive $107 million worldwide, and that’s no disgrace at all. Critically, the reception was poor-to-mixed, but – as Fate would have it – audiences embraced the bloodshed for what it was. In fact, I’ve also read that many in the industry credit 2003’s Massacre with reinvigorating the slumping theatrical Horror business, re-introducing the quintessential slasher experience to a whole new generation of moviegoers. I don’t know if that’s as true as some might have you believe, but it’s still an impressive return on investment both fiscally and culturally for those of us who think about such things.
(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 picking up a traumatized young hitchhiker, five friends find themselves stalked and hunted by a deformed chainsaw-wielding loon and his family of equally psychopathic killers.”
Let’s clarify something right up front: I’m not opposed to remakes.
Unlike a great number of folks who write and/or pontificate about film, I’m different in that I’ve always said I don’t consider myself necessarily beholden to an original. While, sure, I’d rather not see an endless parade of remakes – especially of those stories generally accepted as classics by the public-at-large – I’m still not opposed to them in any substantial way. Minimally, I do ask that they bring enough to the table to justify their own existence – i.e. bring something fresh, new, or innovative to the landscape – but, otherwise, I really don’t have a ‘dog in this fight,’ as they say. I’ll watch it. I’ll tell you whether or not I thought it was necessary. Lastly, I’ll tell you what I think of it independent of the source original; and I might even let you in on whether or not I believe all of it was worth a damn.
So …
Structurally, 2003’s Massacre is very similar to the 1974 foundation, so much so it’s really not worth point out to any great degree. Essentially, there’s a van filled with young adults travelling into the heart of the American backwoods where nothing is what it seems. They stumbled into a rather dire set of circumstances which – inevitably – brings about their bloody demise one-by-one, with a lone holdout managing to stand her ground against the forces of darkness arrayed before her in the big climax. Both end on a note of being unfinished, leaving their respective doors wide open for a follow-up should that be warranted though they still function efficiently as independent stories.
Aesthetically, they’re very different films.
This is, debatably, the most interesting distinction because both films were photographed by the same man, something I’ve read is a film history first: cinematographer Daniel Pearl worked closely alongside Tobe Hooper at fashioning the stark images that introduced Leatherface and his family to audiences of the 1970’s, and then the cameraman was thrilled to re-enter such haunts with a whole new pop culture MTV look – one complete with shadows and fog – for early 2000’s moviegoers. While the Marcus Nispel remake contains some clever visual callbacks to the original, the film is an impressive re-interpretation of some of the screens darkest delights, still leaving just enough gore as implied as opposed to splashing all of that blood up in the spotlight.
Now, Massacre is still Horror, folks.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After picking up a traumatized young hitchhiker, five friends find themselves stalked and hunted by a deformed chainsaw-wielding loon and his family of equally psychopathic killers.”
Let’s clarify something right up front: I’m not opposed to remakes.
Unlike a great number of folks who write and/or pontificate about film, I’m different in that I’ve always said I don’t consider myself necessarily beholden to an original. While, sure, I’d rather not see an endless parade of remakes – especially of those stories generally accepted as classics by the public-at-large – I’m still not opposed to them in any substantial way. Minimally, I do ask that they bring enough to the table to justify their own existence – i.e. bring something fresh, new, or innovative to the landscape – but, otherwise, I really don’t have a ‘dog in this fight,’ as they say. I’ll watch it. I’ll tell you whether or not I thought it was necessary. Lastly, I’ll tell you what I think of it independent of the source original; and I might even let you in on whether or not I believe all of it was worth a damn.
So …
Structurally, 2003’s Massacre is very similar to the 1974 foundation, so much so it’s really not worth point out to any great degree. Essentially, there’s a van filled with young adults travelling into the heart of the American backwoods where nothing is what it seems. They stumbled into a rather dire set of circumstances which – inevitably – brings about their bloody demise one-by-one, with a lone holdout managing to stand her ground against the forces of darkness arrayed before her in the big climax. Both end on a note of being unfinished, leaving their respective doors wide open for a follow-up should that be warranted though they still function efficiently as independent stories.
Aesthetically, they’re very different films.
This is, debatably, the most interesting distinction because both films were photographed by the same man, something I’ve read is a film history first: cinematographer Daniel Pearl worked closely alongside Tobe Hooper at fashioning the stark images that introduced Leatherface and his family to audiences of the 1970’s, and then the cameraman was thrilled to re-enter such haunts with a whole new pop culture MTV look – one complete with shadows and fog – for early 2000’s moviegoers. While the Marcus Nispel remake contains some clever visual callbacks to the original, the film is an impressive re-interpretation of some of the screens darkest delights, still leaving just enough gore as implied as opposed to splashing all of that blood up in the spotlight.
Now, Massacre is still Horror, folks.
Intrinsically, this assures audiences that they’re still going to have jump scares, plot twists, and the occasional dumb character so inept or misinformed that you’re left screaming “go the other way” from your seats. Nispel and screenwriter Scott Kosar knew well enough to avoid any major alterations from the industry norm, and the resulting parade of events functions rather elegantly on creating the kind of tension everyone expects. The remake fleshes out the cast of characters within the Hewitt family and the relatively small circle of friends a bit more than Hooper even tried with the first version; and this might be where ardent fans feel a bit cheated. Leatherface remains the big baddie, but there’s a bit more ‘community’ to this screen incarnation for better or for worse.
As for the cast?
Without sounding too fanboy, I don’t think Jessica Biel has ever looked better on screen. As the token ‘final girl,’ she embraces the role of Erin unlike few who put on Cinderella’s slipper; and she inhabits the central spot a chemistry all of her own. While she could’ve used a bit more character – or a greater backstory – what there is still works, especially since there’s a lingering plot point involving a certain diamond ring she’ll never know about while we, the audience, do. It’s touching in a quirky way. Also, the late R. Lee Ermey damn near steals the picture right out from under Leatherface’s bulk: as the small-town sheriff – or is he? – the man musters a creepy undercurrent before transforming himself into full bonkers madman as the story develops. David Dorfman plays Jedidiah– the youngest of the Hewitt clan – in a style mildly reminiscent of the ‘Feral Kid’ from 1981’s The Road Warrior; and he, too, surprisingly makes the most of the scenes he’s given.
Ultimately, it’s still a bit difficult to answer the question as to whether or not the 2003 remake was creatively necessary. Some of this is owed to the fact that – as I said above – it both is and isn’t a retread. While 2003’s Massacre clearly invests heavily in the premise of the original, Nispel’s film still manages to chart its own waters, feeling more like a ‘jazz riff’ than it does a re-interpretation. It may bob when it should’ve weaved, and it may weave when it should’ve bobbed, but – thematically – it still hits the same mark as Hooper’s flick, maybe too much so. It’s almost as if both pictures kinda/sorta weirdly echo off one another in a way that allows for them to exist simultaneously, both reflective of the place and time they occupy historically. If style is the only distinction between the two, then it’s really left to the audience to reward the better effort … and since both have been rewarded?
Personally, I had more fun with the remake, and I have a great deal of respect for the original. Having seen Hooper’s effort a few times – mostly just for history’s sake as it isn’t one I’m inclined to throw on casually – I see just how it reflected the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, introducing a major level of theatrical cynicism to the movie house. Yet, it isn’t a flick I watch for its characters … well, other than the oddball assortment of boondocks cannibals. 2003’s Massacre feels like it was manufactured more for mass consumption – a thrill ride brought to life – making it somewhat more appealing as a product, not a cultural or iconic reaction.
Make of that what you will.
As for the cast?
Without sounding too fanboy, I don’t think Jessica Biel has ever looked better on screen. As the token ‘final girl,’ she embraces the role of Erin unlike few who put on Cinderella’s slipper; and she inhabits the central spot a chemistry all of her own. While she could’ve used a bit more character – or a greater backstory – what there is still works, especially since there’s a lingering plot point involving a certain diamond ring she’ll never know about while we, the audience, do. It’s touching in a quirky way. Also, the late R. Lee Ermey damn near steals the picture right out from under Leatherface’s bulk: as the small-town sheriff – or is he? – the man musters a creepy undercurrent before transforming himself into full bonkers madman as the story develops. David Dorfman plays Jedidiah– the youngest of the Hewitt clan – in a style mildly reminiscent of the ‘Feral Kid’ from 1981’s The Road Warrior; and he, too, surprisingly makes the most of the scenes he’s given.
Ultimately, it’s still a bit difficult to answer the question as to whether or not the 2003 remake was creatively necessary. Some of this is owed to the fact that – as I said above – it both is and isn’t a retread. While 2003’s Massacre clearly invests heavily in the premise of the original, Nispel’s film still manages to chart its own waters, feeling more like a ‘jazz riff’ than it does a re-interpretation. It may bob when it should’ve weaved, and it may weave when it should’ve bobbed, but – thematically – it still hits the same mark as Hooper’s flick, maybe too much so. It’s almost as if both pictures kinda/sorta weirdly echo off one another in a way that allows for them to exist simultaneously, both reflective of the place and time they occupy historically. If style is the only distinction between the two, then it’s really left to the audience to reward the better effort … and since both have been rewarded?
Personally, I had more fun with the remake, and I have a great deal of respect for the original. Having seen Hooper’s effort a few times – mostly just for history’s sake as it isn’t one I’m inclined to throw on casually – I see just how it reflected the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, introducing a major level of theatrical cynicism to the movie house. Yet, it isn’t a flick I watch for its characters … well, other than the oddball assortment of boondocks cannibals. 2003’s Massacre feels like it was manufactured more for mass consumption – a thrill ride brought to life – making it somewhat more appealing as a product, not a cultural or iconic reaction.
Make of that what you will.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) was produced by New Line Cinema, Focus Features, Radar Pictures, Platinum Dunes, Next Entertainment, and Chainsaw Productions LLC. 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 you that disc provides an incredible level of sight and sound consistently. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? This is Arrow, and they never disappoint. There’s a great assortment of new and old on here -- archived ones are a bit more like advertising than they are informative -- along with an all-new audio commentary (which, sadly, feels like two guys just sitting around talking about what scared them most instead of really addressing the film and the effort to bring it all to life).
Recommended.
I’ve said before that I’m not much a fan of the Slasher genre, and yet I’ll still insist that there are several efforts worth seeing. While the 1974 original continues to stand the test of time, 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is still just good enough, just curious enough, and just entertaining enough to make it worthy of a recommendation. In fact, I’d go so far as to encourage true fans to purchase/rent and watch both – back-to-back – if you truly want to see how, historically, these entries established their respective bona fides. I won’t be surprised to learn that you see them as I do: two entirely authentic interpretations of (nearly) the exact same story differing mostly by stylistic approach. 2003’s may not exactly speak volumes about the culture, but because it’s drawn heavily from source material that does there are still lessons in there worth learning. That’s a rare accomplishment, indeed.
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 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) 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
Recommended.
I’ve said before that I’m not much a fan of the Slasher genre, and yet I’ll still insist that there are several efforts worth seeing. While the 1974 original continues to stand the test of time, 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is still just good enough, just curious enough, and just entertaining enough to make it worthy of a recommendation. In fact, I’d go so far as to encourage true fans to purchase/rent and watch both – back-to-back – if you truly want to see how, historically, these entries established their respective bona fides. I won’t be surprised to learn that you see them as I do: two entirely authentic interpretations of (nearly) the exact same story differing mostly by stylistic approach. 2003’s may not exactly speak volumes about the culture, but because it’s drawn heavily from source material that does there are still lessons in there worth learning. That’s a rare accomplishment, indeed.
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 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) 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
press release
Student Bodies Bundles
(Collector's Edition and Mega Bundle)
from $65.00
THIS IS A PRE-ORDER and will ship in October.
Bundles include the Student Bodies 3-Disc (UHD/BD/CD) in a rigid box (LTD to 4000)
PLUS
The Collector’s Edition Bundle (LTD to 250):
- Student Bodies tee
- SB bumper sticker
- SB button set
OR you can choose the MEGA bundle (LTD to 100) which includes:
- Student Bodies tee
- SB bumper sticker
- SB button set
- Horsehead Bookend Pair (with and without blood) Dimensions: 10 ¼” to the snout, 8 1/4” to ear, 5 ½” wide. The plywood is 3/4” thick. These are made to be real and usable bookends. If they are used to book anything other than TV releases, Mr. Dumpkin will pay you a visit.
- SB tote bag
- Crossword puzzle enamel pin
- Student Bodies on LP by our friends at Forever Midnight
- Incredibly Small Chicken…ya know…for Mickey. RIP buddy.
CLASS IS DISMISSED…PERMANENTLY!
In this outrageous parody of slasher horror films, Student Bodies takes a stab at every cliché in the genre—and twists the knife with wickedly absurd humor. When a mysterious killer known only as "The Breather" begins terrorizing Lamab High School, students start dropping dead in hilariously ridiculous ways. Meanwhile, Toby (Kristen Riter) tries to uncover the identity of the killer—without becoming the next victim. Brimming with sight gags, one-liners, and deliberately low-budget charm, Student Bodies skewers the conventions of horror films with the same irreverence that Airplane! brought to disaster films. A cult favorite for fans of horror and comedy alike, this Blu-ray edition brings the film to life like never before, with restored visuals and laugh-out-loud clarity.
Terror Vision is breathing heavily with joy to bring their favorite horror parody to 4K UHD for the first time in the world. With a new scan, restoration, and Dolby Vision…Student Bodies has never looked better. Historically, Student Bodies has had some barebone releases through the years and we went all out with this release! It’s loaded to the brim with extras that you might need some horsehead bookends to keep them in place.
Perfectly Bound Booklet w/ writing from Gene Hobson, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, Clint Kelly, Stephanie Crawford and Terror Vision’s Brad Henderson
Special Features:
THIS IS A PRE-ORDER and will ship in October.
Bundles include the Student Bodies 3-Disc (UHD/BD/CD) in a rigid box (LTD to 4000)
PLUS
The Collector’s Edition Bundle (LTD to 250):
- Student Bodies tee
- SB bumper sticker
- SB button set
OR you can choose the MEGA bundle (LTD to 100) which includes:
- Student Bodies tee
- SB bumper sticker
- SB button set
- Horsehead Bookend Pair (with and without blood) Dimensions: 10 ¼” to the snout, 8 1/4” to ear, 5 ½” wide. The plywood is 3/4” thick. These are made to be real and usable bookends. If they are used to book anything other than TV releases, Mr. Dumpkin will pay you a visit.
- SB tote bag
- Crossword puzzle enamel pin
- Student Bodies on LP by our friends at Forever Midnight
- Incredibly Small Chicken…ya know…for Mickey. RIP buddy.
CLASS IS DISMISSED…PERMANENTLY!
In this outrageous parody of slasher horror films, Student Bodies takes a stab at every cliché in the genre—and twists the knife with wickedly absurd humor. When a mysterious killer known only as "The Breather" begins terrorizing Lamab High School, students start dropping dead in hilariously ridiculous ways. Meanwhile, Toby (Kristen Riter) tries to uncover the identity of the killer—without becoming the next victim. Brimming with sight gags, one-liners, and deliberately low-budget charm, Student Bodies skewers the conventions of horror films with the same irreverence that Airplane! brought to disaster films. A cult favorite for fans of horror and comedy alike, this Blu-ray edition brings the film to life like never before, with restored visuals and laugh-out-loud clarity.
Terror Vision is breathing heavily with joy to bring their favorite horror parody to 4K UHD for the first time in the world. With a new scan, restoration, and Dolby Vision…Student Bodies has never looked better. Historically, Student Bodies has had some barebone releases through the years and we went all out with this release! It’s loaded to the brim with extras that you might need some horsehead bookends to keep them in place.
Perfectly Bound Booklet w/ writing from Gene Hobson, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, Clint Kelly, Stephanie Crawford and Terror Vision’s Brad Henderson
Special Features:
- Commentary w/ Kristen Riter and Matthew Goldsby moderated by Terror Vision’s Brad Henderson
- Making Of Student Bodies w/ Kristen Riter, Matthew Goldsby, Cullen Chambers, Sara Eckhardt, Jennifer Rose, Gene Hobson, Kristin Nelson, Fred Berner, and Susan Vogelfang
- Trailer
- CD of the score
- Newly Created Subtitles
- Newly Created Rigid-Box art by “Ghoulish” Gary Pullin
to pre-order from terror vision
click below
- Published on
press release
First you met him in 'Beneath the Old Dark House', now see him in all his GORY!!!
When Parker's nightmare ends, the all too real terror begins... Random people are terrorized by a sinister being on Halloween eve. One by one they fall victim to the malevolent Coffintooth who stalks them at every turn. The bodies begin to pile up from the gruesome beginning to the bloody end! Starring Anna Clary (Mutilator 2, Late Checkout), Angel Nichole Bradford (Wolf Hollow, The Barn Part III), Jim Krut (Dawn of the Dead’s Helicopter Zombie), and Camille Keaton (I Spit on Your Grave) with a special appearance by Lloyd Kaufman (The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘em High). Written, Produced, and Directed by Matt Cloude (Bloody Ballet, Beneath the Old Dark House).
Upgrade to the limited Signed Version by:
Matt Cloude - Director and Writer
Anna Clary - "Parker Blaine" (Lead Actress)
Jim Krut - "Officer Hauser"
Jeff Leinbach - "Ira Blaine" (Parker's Father)
Special Features:
• Director Audio commentary
Number of Discs: 1
Dual Layer Blu-ray Disc (25 GB)
Region Free (Factory Replicated/NOT BD-R)
Not Rated/Color/16:9 Widescreen/72 Mins
When Parker's nightmare ends, the all too real terror begins... Random people are terrorized by a sinister being on Halloween eve. One by one they fall victim to the malevolent Coffintooth who stalks them at every turn. The bodies begin to pile up from the gruesome beginning to the bloody end! Starring Anna Clary (Mutilator 2, Late Checkout), Angel Nichole Bradford (Wolf Hollow, The Barn Part III), Jim Krut (Dawn of the Dead’s Helicopter Zombie), and Camille Keaton (I Spit on Your Grave) with a special appearance by Lloyd Kaufman (The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘em High). Written, Produced, and Directed by Matt Cloude (Bloody Ballet, Beneath the Old Dark House).
Upgrade to the limited Signed Version by:
Matt Cloude - Director and Writer
Anna Clary - "Parker Blaine" (Lead Actress)
Jim Krut - "Officer Hauser"
Jeff Leinbach - "Ira Blaine" (Parker's Father)
Special Features:
• Director Audio commentary
Number of Discs: 1
Dual Layer Blu-ray Disc (25 GB)
Region Free (Factory Replicated/NOT BD-R)
Not Rated/Color/16:9 Widescreen/72 Mins
- Published on
Without a doubt, I believe that Homer’s two epic stories – The Iliad and The Odyssey – remain some of the greatest literature since ink was ever put to paper.
The truth about both stories that some still refuse to accept is that, originally, these were spoken-word narratives, the kind of thing said and passed down from generation to generation long before they could ever appear on a printed page. These epic poems were the original stuff of performance art; and – given their length and scope – I can’t even begin to imagine the process any gifted speaker would have gone through to commit one – much less both – to memory. Granted, our society has changed over the years – meaning that there isn’t nearly the same kind of entertainment delivered today than was way, way, way back then – and yet the truth remains that anyone who could’ve accomplished this probably knew far more about establishing and maintaining an audience than do storytellers today.
Because I’ve always been fond of them – The Odyssey perhaps a bit more than The Iliad – I’ve always sought out the various theatrical incarnations that have been produced over the years. Granted, I haven’t seen all of them, but I’ve still made a concerted effort to acquaint myself with both theatrical and televised interpretations (as well as a few different printed translations); which is, chiefly, my reason for wanting to use this space on SciFiHistory.Net to say something about Troy (2004), director Wolfgang Petersen’s big screen opus. The version was scripted by David Benioff (of HBO Game Of Thrones’ fame or notoriety, depending upon one’s feelings about how that program turned out); and it starred Eric Bana, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, and a cast of … well … hundreds, I suspect.
For those completely unaware, the story of the Trojan War is the stuff that is recounted in Homer’s The Iliad. (Believe it or not, there are some who don’t realize that, not that one has to know.) It’s an expansive tale that explores love, loss, and liberty in a way few yarns do – much less filmed interpretations – and, undoubtedly, it’s probably about as faithful as adaptation that audiences might ever see. That’s saying something in and of itself; and that fact alone is reason enough to give it a watch.
But … you want even more reasons?
Well, let me list a few …
The truth about both stories that some still refuse to accept is that, originally, these were spoken-word narratives, the kind of thing said and passed down from generation to generation long before they could ever appear on a printed page. These epic poems were the original stuff of performance art; and – given their length and scope – I can’t even begin to imagine the process any gifted speaker would have gone through to commit one – much less both – to memory. Granted, our society has changed over the years – meaning that there isn’t nearly the same kind of entertainment delivered today than was way, way, way back then – and yet the truth remains that anyone who could’ve accomplished this probably knew far more about establishing and maintaining an audience than do storytellers today.
Because I’ve always been fond of them – The Odyssey perhaps a bit more than The Iliad – I’ve always sought out the various theatrical incarnations that have been produced over the years. Granted, I haven’t seen all of them, but I’ve still made a concerted effort to acquaint myself with both theatrical and televised interpretations (as well as a few different printed translations); which is, chiefly, my reason for wanting to use this space on SciFiHistory.Net to say something about Troy (2004), director Wolfgang Petersen’s big screen opus. The version was scripted by David Benioff (of HBO Game Of Thrones’ fame or notoriety, depending upon one’s feelings about how that program turned out); and it starred Eric Bana, Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, and a cast of … well … hundreds, I suspect.
For those completely unaware, the story of the Trojan War is the stuff that is recounted in Homer’s The Iliad. (Believe it or not, there are some who don’t realize that, not that one has to know.) It’s an expansive tale that explores love, loss, and liberty in a way few yarns do – much less filmed interpretations – and, undoubtedly, it’s probably about as faithful as adaptation that audiences might ever see. That’s saying something in and of itself; and that fact alone is reason enough to give it a watch.
But … you want even more reasons?
Well, let me list a few …
(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:
“An adaptation of Homer's great epic, the film follows the assault on Troy by the united Greek forces.”
When dealing with trying to summarize a work as intellectually exhaustive as is Homer’s The Iliad, I think it’s only fair to take certain liberties in order to deliver something entirely relatable to whatever generation you’re dealing with.
Now, in no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that one of the seminal works in literature get dumbed down. My point is that The Iliad stylistically meant something a bit more to the people of its native era than it does to today’s cynical viewers. For example, the gods aren’t philandering in our every day affairs (or, at least, most wouldn’t accept such a possibility in modern times). Furthermore, the actual war lasted approximately a whole decade, making it entirely acceptable for screenwriters to compress some of that passage of time for the purpose of shifting the significance of some events and morph them into different cause/effect moments. Also, warfare in the Bronze Age – generally accepted to be when this classical throwdown took place – was largely limited to men with swords, shields, and spears; and rarely – if ever – were horses and/or a cavalry of any type found in these campaigns.
In order to tighten up the narrative, director Petersen and scripter Benioff had to change things up a bit. While historians, academics, and some critics might understandably take issue with some of these changes, I’d argue that they’re substantively insignificant so long as there’s no alternation to the premise around which such occurrences align to the source material. Sticking to such cold and hard facts might impede a modern audience’s ability to relate to it; so, a few minor tinkerings here and there should not distract from what can ultimately be achieved in rendering one of mankind’s greatest meaningful adventures.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An adaptation of Homer's great epic, the film follows the assault on Troy by the united Greek forces.”
When dealing with trying to summarize a work as intellectually exhaustive as is Homer’s The Iliad, I think it’s only fair to take certain liberties in order to deliver something entirely relatable to whatever generation you’re dealing with.
Now, in no way, shape, or form am I suggesting that one of the seminal works in literature get dumbed down. My point is that The Iliad stylistically meant something a bit more to the people of its native era than it does to today’s cynical viewers. For example, the gods aren’t philandering in our every day affairs (or, at least, most wouldn’t accept such a possibility in modern times). Furthermore, the actual war lasted approximately a whole decade, making it entirely acceptable for screenwriters to compress some of that passage of time for the purpose of shifting the significance of some events and morph them into different cause/effect moments. Also, warfare in the Bronze Age – generally accepted to be when this classical throwdown took place – was largely limited to men with swords, shields, and spears; and rarely – if ever – were horses and/or a cavalry of any type found in these campaigns.
In order to tighten up the narrative, director Petersen and scripter Benioff had to change things up a bit. While historians, academics, and some critics might understandably take issue with some of these changes, I’d argue that they’re substantively insignificant so long as there’s no alternation to the premise around which such occurrences align to the source material. Sticking to such cold and hard facts might impede a modern audience’s ability to relate to it; so, a few minor tinkerings here and there should not distract from what can ultimately be achieved in rendering one of mankind’s greatest meaningful adventures.
Thus, with a bit of creative alterations Troy succeeds as an epic accounting of men in a world wherein gods exist mostly as ‘influencers,’ a sentiment which now – in 2025 – might mean a helluva lot more to newcomers than it did just over two decades ago when it first screened. Certainly, there’s mention of these higher beings, but the film never cracks the seal at showing them in any way other than deities worshipped. While purists might’ve appreciated a bit more, I think they can still accept a crafty bit of cosmetic surgery that was required in order to get this one ‘in the can,’ as they say. Positioning it as a conflict between men and their nations works; and I’ll say nothing more on that point.
Still, my biggest complaint regarding any of what’s delivered in Troy is that – foundationally – it’s a difficult story to tell because it lacks a central good versus evil throughline.
Removing the gods from the grand equation, the script essentially turns everything into an us versus them mentality where neither side is inherently noble or villainous except with casting and contextual considerations provided by the filmmakers. In order words, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Achilles could be shown as champions just as easily as they could be conquerors except for the fact that Petersen cast Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, and Brad Pitt (respectively) knowing full well that Achilles – with Pitt’s youthful visage and muscular physique – would be accepted as the ‘golden boy’ here resisting the oppressive machinations of his superiors. That’s how it’s all played for those of us watching; and we accept it mostly because of the aesthetics, not because that’s how it was in The Iliad.
Given the fact that Menelaus’ wife Helen (played by Diane Kruger) is the sole reason the man was prompted to head off to this distant land and recover his bride, am I to see him as a bad guy here? In the way that Petersen and Benioff maintain? Why is he evil for wishing to see that which was his to be returned? It would be different if, contextually, they had inserted some scenes which underscored Helen’s need to escape her life – we’re truly given no major background other than her personal happiness (or lack thereof) – but given that no one saw that necessary I’m a bit at a loss over what to make of the lady’s motivations.
This vagueness plagues a good deal of Troy, not to say that it corrupts the entire feature. When motivations aren’t spelled out cleanly, the audience is left to determine which characters are deserving of their emotional support; and this weakens some of the smaller moments that add up to the whole. Given the fact that it was intended to be a single-film production, I can only guess that such deficiencies were the unintended result of trimming the effort to a marketable length … the Achilles’ heel of every flick based on a story nearing The Iliad’s length. Such will always be the case.
Still, my biggest complaint regarding any of what’s delivered in Troy is that – foundationally – it’s a difficult story to tell because it lacks a central good versus evil throughline.
Removing the gods from the grand equation, the script essentially turns everything into an us versus them mentality where neither side is inherently noble or villainous except with casting and contextual considerations provided by the filmmakers. In order words, Agamemnon, Menelaus, and Achilles could be shown as champions just as easily as they could be conquerors except for the fact that Petersen cast Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, and Brad Pitt (respectively) knowing full well that Achilles – with Pitt’s youthful visage and muscular physique – would be accepted as the ‘golden boy’ here resisting the oppressive machinations of his superiors. That’s how it’s all played for those of us watching; and we accept it mostly because of the aesthetics, not because that’s how it was in The Iliad.
Given the fact that Menelaus’ wife Helen (played by Diane Kruger) is the sole reason the man was prompted to head off to this distant land and recover his bride, am I to see him as a bad guy here? In the way that Petersen and Benioff maintain? Why is he evil for wishing to see that which was his to be returned? It would be different if, contextually, they had inserted some scenes which underscored Helen’s need to escape her life – we’re truly given no major background other than her personal happiness (or lack thereof) – but given that no one saw that necessary I’m a bit at a loss over what to make of the lady’s motivations.
This vagueness plagues a good deal of Troy, not to say that it corrupts the entire feature. When motivations aren’t spelled out cleanly, the audience is left to determine which characters are deserving of their emotional support; and this weakens some of the smaller moments that add up to the whole. Given the fact that it was intended to be a single-film production, I can only guess that such deficiencies were the unintended result of trimming the effort to a marketable length … the Achilles’ heel of every flick based on a story nearing The Iliad’s length. Such will always be the case.
Otherwise, Troy excels. The cast is solid. The production detail is exquisite. And the three-hour cut adequately hits enough high points to make it an easy recommendation. It’s the kind of theatrical opus Hollywood used to make more of back in the day; and I, for one, have no trouble singing its praises even though I’ll likely always favor the source material over any filmed interpretation. It may not say what The Iliad meant to say; and yet it has a voice all of its own worth listening to.
Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) was produced by Warner Bros., Helena Productions, Radiant Productions, Plan B Entertainment, and Nimar Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by Warner Bros. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start to finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Gods be praised! The disc boasts an astonishing assortment of behind-the-scenes extras, the likes of which will be keeping me busy for hours on end. It’s truly a collection something like The Iliad deserves, so hats off to all involved for making this one worthy of the word ‘legend.’
Highest Recommendation Possible.
While a good degree of my praise for Troy (2004) could be owed to the fact alone that I’m such an unabashed fan of the source material, I’d still point to the picture as exactly the kind of theatrical interpretation that deserves greater consideration. Yes, it’s thematically different from The Iliad – books and films are cerebrally different experiences anyway – and changes have been made in order to craft a vision unique unto the people and places that make up this chapter in human history and myth. The scope and scale feel proper; and the cast and crew take audiences back to a time when men were men, women were women, and gods were praised … or else. Come for the story but stay for the spectacle.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) by request for the expressed purpose of creating this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) was produced by Warner Bros., Helena Productions, Radiant Productions, Plan B Entertainment, and Nimar Studios. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by Warner Bros. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start to finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Gods be praised! The disc boasts an astonishing assortment of behind-the-scenes extras, the likes of which will be keeping me busy for hours on end. It’s truly a collection something like The Iliad deserves, so hats off to all involved for making this one worthy of the word ‘legend.’
Highest Recommendation Possible.
While a good degree of my praise for Troy (2004) could be owed to the fact alone that I’m such an unabashed fan of the source material, I’d still point to the picture as exactly the kind of theatrical interpretation that deserves greater consideration. Yes, it’s thematically different from The Iliad – books and films are cerebrally different experiences anyway – and changes have been made in order to craft a vision unique unto the people and places that make up this chapter in human history and myth. The scope and scale feel proper; and the cast and crew take audiences back to a time when men were men, women were women, and gods were praised … or else. Come for the story but stay for the spectacle.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Troy: Director’s Cut (2004) by request for the expressed purpose of creating this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
press release
Opening In Theaters on October 3rd
Directed by Ben Leonberg
Produced by Ben Leonberg
and Kari Fischer
And starring their dog, Indy
"A staggering pet performance... touches bittersweetly on the deep and abiding love a pet can have for his owner."
- Clint Worthington, ROGER EBERT.com
"Primed to be one of the most chilling movies of 2025... thanks to both an incredibly emotive dog and a skilled director who knows how to work with his canine companion."
- Mary Beth McAndrews, DREAD CENTRAL
"It’s easy to ascribe the success of GOOD BOY to the power of its canine star, but the film refuses to let Indy feel like a cheap gimmick... one of the best horror films so far this year."
- Rafael Motamayor, INDIEWIRE
"To say Indy's debut stands out from the pack is an understatement—it's paving the way for horror filmmakers to rethink the genre's limitations."
- Matt Donato, DAILY DEAD
"With an innovative hook and Indy’s mind-blowing lead performance, GOOD BOY is one of the most unique experiences of the year. It is big fun in a cute, furry little package."
- J Hurtado, SCREEN ANARCHY
Synopsis
Our canine hero, Indy, finds himself on a new adventure with his human owner—and best friend—Todd, leaving city life for a long-vacant family home in the country. From the start, two things are abundantly clear: Indy is wary of the creepy old house, and his affection for Todd is unwavering. After moving in, Indy is immediately vexed by empty corners, tracks an invisible presence only he can see, perceives phantasmagoric warnings from a long-dead dog, and is haunted by visions of the previous occupant’s grim death. When Todd begins succumbing to the dark forces swirling around the house, Indy must battle a malevolence intent on dragging his beloved Todd into the afterlife.
About Indy the Dog
“Indy” is a middle-aged, 35-pound retriever who has no idea that he’s a movie star. His favorite things are fetch, food, and his humans, Ben & Kari—in that order. His special talents include finding tennis balls and staring deep into your soul the moment before you fill his dinner bowl. Good Boy is Indy’s feature debut following his break-out role in the short film of the same name.
About the Director
Ben Leonberg applies an Eagle Scout-instilled can-do spirit! to making genre films that feel handmade. With a career spanning narrative, commercial, and VR production, Ben is no stranger to challenging shoots and delivering despite absurd obstacles. His filmmaking pairs fantastical events with deeply relatable stories, and he wields every tool at his disposal to make them a reality: from practical special effects, to innovation techniques adapted from VR, to his experience as a dump truck driver. Good Boy marks his feature directorial debut.
Ben earned his MFA in Directing from Columbia University, where he taught for over five years. He now teaches undergraduate filmmaking at Montana State University. During the making of Good Boy, the screenplay was selected for the Columbia Blue List, the film was a ScreenCraft Film Fund Finalist, and Ben received a 2023 Fellowship from the New Jersey State Council on the Arts.
Director: Ben Leonberg
Written by: Alex Cannon and Ben Leonberg
Cast: Indy the Dog, Shane Jensen, Arielle Friedman, Larry Fessenden
Genre: Horror, Thriller
Language: English
Runtime: 73 min
- Clint Worthington, ROGER EBERT.com
"Primed to be one of the most chilling movies of 2025... thanks to both an incredibly emotive dog and a skilled director who knows how to work with his canine companion."
- Mary Beth McAndrews, DREAD CENTRAL
"It’s easy to ascribe the success of GOOD BOY to the power of its canine star, but the film refuses to let Indy feel like a cheap gimmick... one of the best horror films so far this year."
- Rafael Motamayor, INDIEWIRE
"To say Indy's debut stands out from the pack is an understatement—it's paving the way for horror filmmakers to rethink the genre's limitations."
- Matt Donato, DAILY DEAD
"With an innovative hook and Indy’s mind-blowing lead performance, GOOD BOY is one of the most unique experiences of the year. It is big fun in a cute, furry little package."
- J Hurtado, SCREEN ANARCHY
Synopsis
Our canine hero, Indy, finds himself on a new adventure with his human owner—and best friend—Todd, leaving city life for a long-vacant family home in the country. From the start, two things are abundantly clear: Indy is wary of the creepy old house, and his affection for Todd is unwavering. After moving in, Indy is immediately vexed by empty corners, tracks an invisible presence only he can see, perceives phantasmagoric warnings from a long-dead dog, and is haunted by visions of the previous occupant’s grim death. When Todd begins succumbing to the dark forces swirling around the house, Indy must battle a malevolence intent on dragging his beloved Todd into the afterlife.
About Indy the Dog
“Indy” is a middle-aged, 35-pound retriever who has no idea that he’s a movie star. His favorite things are fetch, food, and his humans, Ben & Kari—in that order. His special talents include finding tennis balls and staring deep into your soul the moment before you fill his dinner bowl. Good Boy is Indy’s feature debut following his break-out role in the short film of the same name.
About the Director
Ben Leonberg applies an Eagle Scout-instilled can-do spirit! to making genre films that feel handmade. With a career spanning narrative, commercial, and VR production, Ben is no stranger to challenging shoots and delivering despite absurd obstacles. His filmmaking pairs fantastical events with deeply relatable stories, and he wields every tool at his disposal to make them a reality: from practical special effects, to innovation techniques adapted from VR, to his experience as a dump truck driver. Good Boy marks his feature directorial debut.
Ben earned his MFA in Directing from Columbia University, where he taught for over five years. He now teaches undergraduate filmmaking at Montana State University. During the making of Good Boy, the screenplay was selected for the Columbia Blue List, the film was a ScreenCraft Film Fund Finalist, and Ben received a 2023 Fellowship from the New Jersey State Council on the Arts.
Director: Ben Leonberg
Written by: Alex Cannon and Ben Leonberg
Cast: Indy the Dog, Shane Jensen, Arielle Friedman, Larry Fessenden
Genre: Horror, Thriller
Language: English
Runtime: 73 min
- Published on
In a galaxy far, far away, Sabacc rules the table—high stakes, unpredictable shifts, and daring bluffs. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the online poker scene is booming. According to Technavio, the global casino gaming market—including online poker—is projected to grow by $43.3 billion between 2024 and 2028, driven by rising customer spending and the transformative impact of artificial intelligence.
Zooming in on the United States, the online casino sector is expected to expand by $9.5 billion during the same period—an indicator of a thriving virtual card-table culture and a digital gambling economy that’s evolving fast. It’s within this explosive backdrop that comparing Sabacc to online poker goes beyond fan service—it taps into the very real crossover between game theory, risk-taking, and immersive play.
What Is Sabacc?
For the uninitiated, Sabacc is a fictional gambling card game made famous when Han Solo won the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian. While different versions exist across the Star Wars canon, the core concept remains consistent:
Beyond the rules, Sabacc is also a standout example of Star Wars' unmatched world-building. As noted in our article entitled Because You Asked - Star Wars As We Know It Is Dead, even though recent expansions like Ahsoka and The Acolyte have drawn mixed reactions from fans, the franchise’s creative efforts to deepen and diversify its universe have largely succeeded. The introduction of Sabacc—a game with its own evolving rule sets, cultural context, and narrative weight—is a prime example of how even small details can add depth and authenticity to a fictional galaxy.
While some recent storytelling decisions may divide audiences, Sabacc continues to serve as a beloved and immersive element of the Star Wars mythos, offering a unique lens into the galaxy’s underworld, social rituals, and high-stakes culture.
The Current Online Poker Landscape
A Look at Americas Cardroom
To understand how real-world poker mirrors the tension and unpredictability of Sabacc, it's worth examining how today’s online platforms function. In order to better understand this industry, it pays to look at one of the longest-running sites catering to U.S. players, Americas Cardroom, which is considered the US' leading online poker site. Established in 2001, it offers a snapshot of how online poker has evolved to meet modern expectations for speed, security, and player engagement.
Rather than focusing solely on glitz or volume, the most trusted online poker providers today illustrate how online poker has become an evolving space—one where technology, financial tools, and game mechanics blend to create immersive, unpredictable gameplay. Much like Sabacc, success often hinges less on raw luck and more on how well you navigate shifting odds in real time.
Shared DNA: Sabacc and Online Poker Mechanics
1. Bluffing Is Core to Success
In both Sabacc and online poker, bluffing isn’t just a trick—it’s the core mechanic.
Takeaway: Whether in space or on the screen, it’s not just what you have—it’s what you convince others you have.
2. Managing Risk Under Chaos
Takeaway: Both games reward players who can stay calm in the storm and turn chaos into opportunity.
3. Game Variants Fuel Creativity
Takeaway: The most successful players don’t just memorize rules—they bend them to their advantage.
4. Reading Opponents Is the Real Superpower
Takeaway: Reading the room beats reading the cards—every time.
5. Victory Means More Than Chips
Takeaway: Both games offer more than cash. They offer legacy.
Could Sabacc Actually Work in Real Life?
It’s closer than you think. Fan-made Sabacc decks already exist, but the next leap is digital immersion, and the metaverse may be the perfect venue.
One example is Decentraland, a browser-based virtual world where users buy land, socialize, and even play poker using cryptocurrency. As PC Gamer reports, Decentraland functions as a surreal but thriving “second life” for crypto-native communities, blending digital ownership with immersive social spaces.
With its open architecture, avatar customization, and support for real gambling mechanics, Decentraland presents an ideal platform for Sabacc to evolve from sci-fi lore into a playable metaverse experience.
Players could wager tokens, sit at galactic-themed tables, and embrace the chaotic thrill of card shifts in a persistent virtual world. The aesthetic, economy, and gameplay dynamics all align with Sabacc’s roots in high-stakes, unpredictable storytelling. Platforms with crypto-first infrastructure and immersive ecosystems could easily intersect, bringing immersive, dynamic card games from fantasy into fully playable digital realities.
Online Poker’s Galactic Cousin
Sabacc may be a fictional game, but its structure is anything but fantasy. The tension, the psychology, the risk—they all live and breathe in the modern online poker world. So next time you push all-in with a bluff and a prayer, remember: you’re not just playing poker.
You’re playing a little Sabacc, too.
If you'd like to read more articles, please check out SciFiHistory.
Zooming in on the United States, the online casino sector is expected to expand by $9.5 billion during the same period—an indicator of a thriving virtual card-table culture and a digital gambling economy that’s evolving fast. It’s within this explosive backdrop that comparing Sabacc to online poker goes beyond fan service—it taps into the very real crossover between game theory, risk-taking, and immersive play.
What Is Sabacc?
For the uninitiated, Sabacc is a fictional gambling card game made famous when Han Solo won the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian. While different versions exist across the Star Wars canon, the core concept remains consistent:
- Construct a hand totaling +23 or –23
- The deck includes both positive and negative values
- Cards can randomly “shift,” turning a winning hand into a disaster—or vice versa
- Bluffing, betting, and high‑risk maneuvers are central to the gameplay
- Some versions include pot‑splitting or wild cards like Sylops
Beyond the rules, Sabacc is also a standout example of Star Wars' unmatched world-building. As noted in our article entitled Because You Asked - Star Wars As We Know It Is Dead, even though recent expansions like Ahsoka and The Acolyte have drawn mixed reactions from fans, the franchise’s creative efforts to deepen and diversify its universe have largely succeeded. The introduction of Sabacc—a game with its own evolving rule sets, cultural context, and narrative weight—is a prime example of how even small details can add depth and authenticity to a fictional galaxy.
While some recent storytelling decisions may divide audiences, Sabacc continues to serve as a beloved and immersive element of the Star Wars mythos, offering a unique lens into the galaxy’s underworld, social rituals, and high-stakes culture.
The Current Online Poker Landscape
A Look at Americas Cardroom
To understand how real-world poker mirrors the tension and unpredictability of Sabacc, it's worth examining how today’s online platforms function. In order to better understand this industry, it pays to look at one of the longest-running sites catering to U.S. players, Americas Cardroom, which is considered the US' leading online poker site. Established in 2001, it offers a snapshot of how online poker has evolved to meet modern expectations for speed, security, and player engagement.
- Game Variety & Access: Players can choose from staples like Texas Hold’em and Omaha, with cash games and multi-table tournaments running around the clock. High-guarantee events like The Venom regularly draw large fields, reflecting the appetite for competitive digital play.
- Emphasis on Cryptocurrency: Americas Cardroom was one of the first poker sites to accept cryptocurrency and currently supports dozens of options. For many players, crypto enables quicker, more private transactions—an appealing feature as online gaming continues to intersect with fintech.
- Unconventional Features: Tools like Blitz Poker (a fast-fold variant) and ACR Reshuffle (a mechanic that reshuffles the deck every hand) are designed to streamline gameplay and reduce collusion—concepts that echo the randomness and rapid decision-making found in Sabacc.
- Player Incentives & Systems: While rewards programs and rakeback systems exist to keep players engaged, what stands out most is how platforms like Americas Cardroom frame poker as more than just a game—it’s a multi-layered experience involving risk, adaptation, and strategic depth.
Rather than focusing solely on glitz or volume, the most trusted online poker providers today illustrate how online poker has become an evolving space—one where technology, financial tools, and game mechanics blend to create immersive, unpredictable gameplay. Much like Sabacc, success often hinges less on raw luck and more on how well you navigate shifting odds in real time.
Shared DNA: Sabacc and Online Poker Mechanics
1. Bluffing Is Core to Success
In both Sabacc and online poker, bluffing isn’t just a trick—it’s the core mechanic.
- Sabacc: Characters like Han Solo don’t always win because they have the best hand. They win because they make others believe they do.
- Online Poker: Especially in formats like No-Limit Hold’em, bluffing is a weapon. Players like Daniel Negreanu have built careers on misdirection and perfect timing.
Takeaway: Whether in space or on the screen, it’s not just what you have—it’s what you convince others you have.
2. Managing Risk Under Chaos
- Sabacc: The infamous shift mechanic can change your cards’ values without warning. What’s strong now might be garbage next round.
- Online Poker: A flopped straight can die with a rivered flush. Poker demands adaptation to volatile conditions, just like Sabacc.
Takeaway: Both games reward players who can stay calm in the storm and turn chaos into opportunity.
3. Game Variants Fuel Creativity
- Sabacc: Variants like Corellian Spike and Cloud City Sabacc all have unique rules, encouraging flexible strategy.
- Online Poker: From Short Deck Hold’em to progressive knockouts (PKOs), poker platforms constantly introduce new game types to challenge conventional play.
Takeaway: The most successful players don’t just memorize rules—they bend them to their advantage.
4. Reading Opponents Is the Real Superpower
- Sabacc: Han Solo wasn’t just lucky. He read Lando’s tells, bluffed when needed, and knew how to manipulate risk.
- Online Poker: Even through screens, players pick up on patterns—timing tells, bet sizing, chatbox antics. Advanced users rely on HUDs, but intuition still wins pots.
Takeaway: Reading the room beats reading the cards—every time.
5. Victory Means More Than Chips
- Sabacc: Han didn’t just win a hand—he won the Millennium Falcon.
- Online Poker: Today’s wins translate to life-changing money, sponsorships, or qualifying for live events around the world.
Takeaway: Both games offer more than cash. They offer legacy.
Could Sabacc Actually Work in Real Life?
It’s closer than you think. Fan-made Sabacc decks already exist, but the next leap is digital immersion, and the metaverse may be the perfect venue.
One example is Decentraland, a browser-based virtual world where users buy land, socialize, and even play poker using cryptocurrency. As PC Gamer reports, Decentraland functions as a surreal but thriving “second life” for crypto-native communities, blending digital ownership with immersive social spaces.
With its open architecture, avatar customization, and support for real gambling mechanics, Decentraland presents an ideal platform for Sabacc to evolve from sci-fi lore into a playable metaverse experience.
Players could wager tokens, sit at galactic-themed tables, and embrace the chaotic thrill of card shifts in a persistent virtual world. The aesthetic, economy, and gameplay dynamics all align with Sabacc’s roots in high-stakes, unpredictable storytelling. Platforms with crypto-first infrastructure and immersive ecosystems could easily intersect, bringing immersive, dynamic card games from fantasy into fully playable digital realities.
Online Poker’s Galactic Cousin
Sabacc may be a fictional game, but its structure is anything but fantasy. The tension, the psychology, the risk—they all live and breathe in the modern online poker world. So next time you push all-in with a bluff and a prayer, remember: you’re not just playing poker.
You’re playing a little Sabacc, too.
If you'd like to read more articles, please check out SciFiHistory.
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Thursday, gentle readers! It looks like your perseverance has finally paid off (again), and the beloved Friday is just around the corner!
Doesn't that feel good?
Well, in any event ...
I've been doing a bit of digging for new trailers to post to the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage, hoping to keep your alerted to the latest and greatest possibilities to expand the realm of the Fantastic on the horizon. Today's little ditty is a Romantic Fantasy, the likes of which I don't get to promote all that often around here. It would seem like -- to a degree -- Hollywood and beyond has left that genre beyond, what with sequels and superhero movies filled up every available slot for the forseeable future. So I thought I'd park this one in this space to give you a little something different for consumption.
2025's Eternity appears to be scheduled to appear in theaters this November. (I'm not seeing any specific release date, only the month of November being currently cited.) It's coming at you from the kind people at A24. Written (in part) and directed by David Freyne, the film stars Miles Teller, Elizabeth Olsen, Callum Turner, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, John Early, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In an afterlife where souls have one week to decide where to spend eternity, Joan is faced with the impossible choice between the man she spent her life with and her first love, who died young and has waited decades for her to arrive."
As per usual, the trailer is below ... and you know you love to watch. Please. Check it out. Feel free to like and share the post widely.
-- EZ
Doesn't that feel good?
Well, in any event ...
I've been doing a bit of digging for new trailers to post to the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage, hoping to keep your alerted to the latest and greatest possibilities to expand the realm of the Fantastic on the horizon. Today's little ditty is a Romantic Fantasy, the likes of which I don't get to promote all that often around here. It would seem like -- to a degree -- Hollywood and beyond has left that genre beyond, what with sequels and superhero movies filled up every available slot for the forseeable future. So I thought I'd park this one in this space to give you a little something different for consumption.
2025's Eternity appears to be scheduled to appear in theaters this November. (I'm not seeing any specific release date, only the month of November being currently cited.) It's coming at you from the kind people at A24. Written (in part) and directed by David Freyne, the film stars Miles Teller, Elizabeth Olsen, Callum Turner, Da'Vine Joy Randolph, John Early, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In an afterlife where souls have one week to decide where to spend eternity, Joan is faced with the impossible choice between the man she spent her life with and her first love, who died young and has waited decades for her to arrive."
As per usual, the trailer is below ... and you know you love to watch. Please. Check it out. Feel free to like and share the post widely.
-- EZ
About A24 (from Google.com):
A24 is an American independent entertainment company known for its film distribution, production, and television work. Founded in 2012, it's gained a reputation for backing unique, often edgy, and critically acclaimed projects. A24's approach emphasizes creative freedom for filmmakers, a bold cinematic style, and a strong brand identity.
A24 is an American independent entertainment company known for its film distribution, production, and television work. Founded in 2012, it's gained a reputation for backing unique, often edgy, and critically acclaimed projects. A24's approach emphasizes creative freedom for filmmakers, a bold cinematic style, and a strong brand identity.
- Published on
Many, many moons ago – not in a galaxy far away but this one itself – I attended a film class at a small liberal arts college in the middle of absolutely nowhere, USA.
One of the things that the professor did fairly early on in the coursework was to openly quiz the class over what films we’d seen, what genres we preferred, and what our general aptitude toward film as an artform was. It was the kind of thing that really had no right or wrong answers and was solely intended to establish some kind of relational baseline between the academic and the students. To my credit, I had seen a great deal more of true classics – or, at least, those titles commonly accepted as cinematic highs – than my classmates (not an insult, just a memory); so, it was clear that the professor wanted to challenge my perception of filmdom’s good, bad, and ugly over our shared interest in features.
When I told him that 1977’s Star Wars was one of my personal favorites, he immediately wanted to know if I had seen George Lucas’ earlier effort, namely 1971’s THX 1138. At this point, I hadn’t – I’d seen some snippets of it on television and read some about it in the trade publications of the day – but growing up in a small, small, small town with only one or two video stores to our zip code meant that I wasn’t afforded as much opportunity to research and watch older flicks as were my big city counterparts. “You should definitely see it,” he insisted, “because it has much more to think about.”
Of course, I did eventually see it on VHS; and I watched most of it again not long after Lucas re-released it – with some digital refinements – in the early 2000’s. Though I stop short of christening it a work of sheer genius (as have some), I’ve always agreed that visually and thematically it’s superior to A New Hope (formerly known as Star Wars) in several significant ways but lacks that vivid spark necessary to light the same kind of fires in the consciousnesses of so many that Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Ben Kenobi, and Princess Leia did a few years later. Surprisingly, both films cover similar grounds thematically, but they’re literally worlds apart in style, substance, and execution.
Having recently had the chance to re-experience THX 1138 on home video, I wanted to finally use this space aboard SciFiHistory.Net to say something about the project and maybe even to demonstrate how a budding storyteller like Lucas had to, first, get the meatier ideas out of his system with that film in order to cleanse his intellectual palate for something suitable for mass consumption as he did a long time ago in that galaxy far, far away.
One of the things that the professor did fairly early on in the coursework was to openly quiz the class over what films we’d seen, what genres we preferred, and what our general aptitude toward film as an artform was. It was the kind of thing that really had no right or wrong answers and was solely intended to establish some kind of relational baseline between the academic and the students. To my credit, I had seen a great deal more of true classics – or, at least, those titles commonly accepted as cinematic highs – than my classmates (not an insult, just a memory); so, it was clear that the professor wanted to challenge my perception of filmdom’s good, bad, and ugly over our shared interest in features.
When I told him that 1977’s Star Wars was one of my personal favorites, he immediately wanted to know if I had seen George Lucas’ earlier effort, namely 1971’s THX 1138. At this point, I hadn’t – I’d seen some snippets of it on television and read some about it in the trade publications of the day – but growing up in a small, small, small town with only one or two video stores to our zip code meant that I wasn’t afforded as much opportunity to research and watch older flicks as were my big city counterparts. “You should definitely see it,” he insisted, “because it has much more to think about.”
Of course, I did eventually see it on VHS; and I watched most of it again not long after Lucas re-released it – with some digital refinements – in the early 2000’s. Though I stop short of christening it a work of sheer genius (as have some), I’ve always agreed that visually and thematically it’s superior to A New Hope (formerly known as Star Wars) in several significant ways but lacks that vivid spark necessary to light the same kind of fires in the consciousnesses of so many that Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Ben Kenobi, and Princess Leia did a few years later. Surprisingly, both films cover similar grounds thematically, but they’re literally worlds apart in style, substance, and execution.
Having recently had the chance to re-experience THX 1138 on home video, I wanted to finally use this space aboard SciFiHistory.Net to say something about the project and maybe even to demonstrate how a budding storyteller like Lucas had to, first, get the meatier ideas out of his system with that film in order to cleanse his intellectual palate for something suitable for mass consumption as he did a long time ago in that galaxy far, far away.
(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:
“In the 25th century, a time when people have designations instead of names, a man, THX 1138, and a woman, LUH 3417, rebel against their rigidly controlled society.”
Let’s clear up any confusion right away: regardless of what you’ve heard, THX 1138 is not an easy meal.
As a story, it pretty much sticks to one track, but that doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to follow even though one might think it would. The story from George Lucas – and crafted for the screen by Lucas and Walter Murch – presents viewers with both characters and a world that needs a bit of time to digest; and, even then, it may not entirely make a great deal of sense. Some of this is deliberate, I suspect, and a good deal is owed to the fact that Lucas tried to control every conceivable angle with which to ruminate over this particular time and place. Be it sights and sounds … be it characters who kinda/sorta push the bounds of what’s expected … be it a narrative crescendo to a finale that just … well … ends … THX remains a curious vision of one man’s struggle to escape everything around him in more ways than one.
THX 1138 (played by Robert Duvall) is a laborer in a high-tech facility tasked with assembling the very robots which appear to have somewhat enslaved what remains of a subterranean civilization. While we’re never told precisely why these people have been conscripted to survive this way, it’s safe to assume that at some point in the distant past our cultural betters realized that perhaps the only means to avoid mass extinction would be to take complete control of a society and the people comprising it. In exchange, the government would provide all jobs, housing, food, etc., and they’d even go so far as to furnish entertainment best suited to no longer tax civilization with ideals of freedom, morality, and choice. Even the practice of faith would be monitored and approved by these somewhat silent overlords; and violations to any and all established public standards would be met with extreme incarceration.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In the 25th century, a time when people have designations instead of names, a man, THX 1138, and a woman, LUH 3417, rebel against their rigidly controlled society.”
Let’s clear up any confusion right away: regardless of what you’ve heard, THX 1138 is not an easy meal.
As a story, it pretty much sticks to one track, but that doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to follow even though one might think it would. The story from George Lucas – and crafted for the screen by Lucas and Walter Murch – presents viewers with both characters and a world that needs a bit of time to digest; and, even then, it may not entirely make a great deal of sense. Some of this is deliberate, I suspect, and a good deal is owed to the fact that Lucas tried to control every conceivable angle with which to ruminate over this particular time and place. Be it sights and sounds … be it characters who kinda/sorta push the bounds of what’s expected … be it a narrative crescendo to a finale that just … well … ends … THX remains a curious vision of one man’s struggle to escape everything around him in more ways than one.
THX 1138 (played by Robert Duvall) is a laborer in a high-tech facility tasked with assembling the very robots which appear to have somewhat enslaved what remains of a subterranean civilization. While we’re never told precisely why these people have been conscripted to survive this way, it’s safe to assume that at some point in the distant past our cultural betters realized that perhaps the only means to avoid mass extinction would be to take complete control of a society and the people comprising it. In exchange, the government would provide all jobs, housing, food, etc., and they’d even go so far as to furnish entertainment best suited to no longer tax civilization with ideals of freedom, morality, and choice. Even the practice of faith would be monitored and approved by these somewhat silent overlords; and violations to any and all established public standards would be met with extreme incarceration.
In this dystopian tomorrow of faceless tyranny, love is no longer necessary, so civilians are paired up by decree of the State. As such, THX shares a non-descript residence with LUH 3417 (Maggie McOmie), a female surveillance worker who has secretly been ignoring her government-mandated prescription regimen and has begun experiencing feelings of sexual attraction to her roommate. Gradually, LUH begins siphoning the pills of THX’s profile; and he, too, awakens to the prospect of a life without imposed inhibitions. Eventually, the two experience love and sexual gratification unlike anything they’ve known before; and this serves as the catalyst for the those monitoring the pair to unleash the powers of an oppressive régime on the lovers. They’re separated – for what they’re assured is their own good – and thrown into prison.
In stories like this, audiences would then be taken on a journey to see the ‘star-crossed soulmates’ reunited, but Lucas has plotted a very extreme and unflinching cultural hellscape for viewers.
THX and LUH are, briefly, rejoined; and yet it would appear to have been a decision made by unseen authorities more for study than anything further. The script never gives any context for this surprise conjugal reunion, meaning that watchers are free to make up their own mind about it. Initially, I wondered if LUH had simply explored this ‘prison without walls’ and found the man of her dreams trapped within; but given the fact that the two are allowed to rekindle their passions whilst being observed by state monitors suggests that perhaps it’s been a very long time since sexual activity has taken place, so long that these hidden government agents are inexorably curious just what criminal violations looked like in the days of old. Eventually, the mechanized police robots arrive – clearly spoiling the afterglow – and separate the lovers with LUH never to be seen again (though her fate is clarified before the ending).
At this point, the film takes yet another left turn as THX finds himself trapped in what appears to be an endless prison situated in some kind of existential void, surrounded by fellow inmates who appear to be dramatically off their respective ‘rockers’ in ways too curious to categorize. I suspect a great many academics have studied these scenes and the dialogue, assigning any number of theories as to what Lucas and Murch may’ve been trying to say about this world and its inhabitants. Rather than even venture a guess, I’ll clarify that, chiefly, the sequence exists only to reunite THX with SEN 5241 (Donald Pleasence), the architect responsible for THX and LUH’s lawbreaking having been discovered in the first place. Instead of harboring a grudge against the man (who mutters enough gibberish to suggest he’s a bit touched in the head), THX welcomes him along the journey to locate his missing lover and escape from the city once and for all.
In stories like this, audiences would then be taken on a journey to see the ‘star-crossed soulmates’ reunited, but Lucas has plotted a very extreme and unflinching cultural hellscape for viewers.
THX and LUH are, briefly, rejoined; and yet it would appear to have been a decision made by unseen authorities more for study than anything further. The script never gives any context for this surprise conjugal reunion, meaning that watchers are free to make up their own mind about it. Initially, I wondered if LUH had simply explored this ‘prison without walls’ and found the man of her dreams trapped within; but given the fact that the two are allowed to rekindle their passions whilst being observed by state monitors suggests that perhaps it’s been a very long time since sexual activity has taken place, so long that these hidden government agents are inexorably curious just what criminal violations looked like in the days of old. Eventually, the mechanized police robots arrive – clearly spoiling the afterglow – and separate the lovers with LUH never to be seen again (though her fate is clarified before the ending).
At this point, the film takes yet another left turn as THX finds himself trapped in what appears to be an endless prison situated in some kind of existential void, surrounded by fellow inmates who appear to be dramatically off their respective ‘rockers’ in ways too curious to categorize. I suspect a great many academics have studied these scenes and the dialogue, assigning any number of theories as to what Lucas and Murch may’ve been trying to say about this world and its inhabitants. Rather than even venture a guess, I’ll clarify that, chiefly, the sequence exists only to reunite THX with SEN 5241 (Donald Pleasence), the architect responsible for THX and LUH’s lawbreaking having been discovered in the first place. Instead of harboring a grudge against the man (who mutters enough gibberish to suggest he’s a bit touched in the head), THX welcomes him along the journey to locate his missing lover and escape from the city once and for all.
Roughly the final third of the movie serves as a somewhat traditional Science Fiction action serial. THX and SEN are joined by SRT (Don Pedro Colley), a hologram who has somehow found sentience in this world beneath the Earth; and – as a magical tour guide – he can provide them with the directions they need to break out of prison and navigate the unknown labyrinth of layers between them and safety. They’re soon separated from SEN – whose character has his own journey to worry about – leaving THX and SRT to discover a few bitter truths about life under Big Government that, frankly, all of us likely saw coming. This isn’t to say it’s disappointing in any way; rather, it’s a somewhat natural extrapolation of a world that’s sacrificed personal identity in favor of collective magisterial infinity.
In some ways, it’s difficult to summarize just what THX 1138 could mean.
Generally, the film is respectfully open-ended, implying that it’s up to the viewer to make what he will of all this. Sometimes it’s clearly anti-collectivism – what with its obvious stance on capitalism largely being manipulated by the powers that be simply to give a society something to do – and, at other times, it dishes up some cautionary imagery on the dangers of participating for participation’s sake. The only characters in here who make declarations about what to do, when to do it, what could be best, etc. are those featured in the looney bin of a prison block; and given that they’re not exactly portrayed in the best light I’m inclined to dismiss any interpretation signifying that Lucas was spinning an authentic morality tale with some closing message here. Instead, I think he only intended to show a universe with some increasingly dangerous and intrusive authoritarianism. Otherwise, why would so much of this journey be so … abstract? So open to interpretation? It’s almost as if I can hear a tiny voice in my head saying, “Draw your own conclusion … because that’s all that really matters.”
Still, I’d be remiss in my duties of critiquing THX if I failed to mention how stunning it is aesthetically. Granted, some of this is accomplished purely with special effects, but rarely have I watched a feature wherein every single scene felt as if it was intentionally designed to be crafted only one way, with one perspective, and still with nothing overtly judgmental. When it would be easy to draw some suppositions about what a storyteller intended with a specific sequence, I’d still harken back to how the individual scenes play out entirely free of any narrative weight, allowing and encouraging me to fill that void with what I believe is most relevant in the pictures. There is plenty to think about once the film ends; and yet – like one of those ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ constructs – you get to pilot your own journey into this unknown. That’s a rare achievement, and one deserving of some praise.
In some ways, it’s difficult to summarize just what THX 1138 could mean.
Generally, the film is respectfully open-ended, implying that it’s up to the viewer to make what he will of all this. Sometimes it’s clearly anti-collectivism – what with its obvious stance on capitalism largely being manipulated by the powers that be simply to give a society something to do – and, at other times, it dishes up some cautionary imagery on the dangers of participating for participation’s sake. The only characters in here who make declarations about what to do, when to do it, what could be best, etc. are those featured in the looney bin of a prison block; and given that they’re not exactly portrayed in the best light I’m inclined to dismiss any interpretation signifying that Lucas was spinning an authentic morality tale with some closing message here. Instead, I think he only intended to show a universe with some increasingly dangerous and intrusive authoritarianism. Otherwise, why would so much of this journey be so … abstract? So open to interpretation? It’s almost as if I can hear a tiny voice in my head saying, “Draw your own conclusion … because that’s all that really matters.”
Still, I’d be remiss in my duties of critiquing THX if I failed to mention how stunning it is aesthetically. Granted, some of this is accomplished purely with special effects, but rarely have I watched a feature wherein every single scene felt as if it was intentionally designed to be crafted only one way, with one perspective, and still with nothing overtly judgmental. When it would be easy to draw some suppositions about what a storyteller intended with a specific sequence, I’d still harken back to how the individual scenes play out entirely free of any narrative weight, allowing and encouraging me to fill that void with what I believe is most relevant in the pictures. There is plenty to think about once the film ends; and yet – like one of those ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ constructs – you get to pilot your own journey into this unknown. That’s a rare achievement, and one deserving of some praise.
Now, that film professor I mentioned above did go on to suggest that THX 1138 was – in his opinion – the ‘Citizen Kane’ of dystopia films. For what it’s worth, I’ve no reason to discount that assessment in any way. Arguably, THX fits on the bookshelf alongside a great many other entries from that era – 1972’s Silent Running, 1972’s Z.P.G. (aka Dead Planet), 1973’s Soylent Green, even 1975’s Rollerball to a lesser degree. It shares the same DNA as those cerebral yarns; and yet it similarly rejects the gravitation weight of a traditional narrative needing to be perfectly tied up with some closing message. It both presents its audience with something to think about and leaves them in the exact same position; and that doesn’t happen all that often. That is probably the single greatest reason to see this even if it ends up meaning little after all.
Those of you who’ve followed Lucas’s career know of his penchant for – ahem – tweaking things in his projects well after they’ve been screened by audiences; and – for better or worse – THX is no different.
In 2004, the creator released a new ‘Director’s Cut,’ one which was heavily augmented (my opinion, not others) with CGI inserts here and there – nothing desperately intrusive but still a bit obvious given effects’ standards of the early 1970’s – along with a few scene extensions meant to better create a seamless cinematic experience. While, yes, I can concede that the new material truly made no thematic alterations to any elements of the well-established story, there’s still that creepy sense of incongruity when ‘images of today’ intersect with ‘images of yesterday.’ However, as I didn’t see THX in theaters and have only experienced it via television broadcasts and home video, I really don’t feel all that qualified to address the changes from any critical springboard. I’m no fan of creative do-overs – the kind that Lucas has embraced – but at this juncture all I can say is “it is what it is.”
Those of you who’ve followed Lucas’s career know of his penchant for – ahem – tweaking things in his projects well after they’ve been screened by audiences; and – for better or worse – THX is no different.
In 2004, the creator released a new ‘Director’s Cut,’ one which was heavily augmented (my opinion, not others) with CGI inserts here and there – nothing desperately intrusive but still a bit obvious given effects’ standards of the early 1970’s – along with a few scene extensions meant to better create a seamless cinematic experience. While, yes, I can concede that the new material truly made no thematic alterations to any elements of the well-established story, there’s still that creepy sense of incongruity when ‘images of today’ intersect with ‘images of yesterday.’ However, as I didn’t see THX in theaters and have only experienced it via television broadcasts and home video, I really don’t feel all that qualified to address the changes from any critical springboard. I’m no fan of creative do-overs – the kind that Lucas has embraced – but at this juncture all I can say is “it is what it is.”
THX 1138 (1971) (2004) was produced by American Zoetrope and Warner Bros. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks as Allied Vaughn and Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights and sounds to be pretty damn exceptional from start-to-finish: other than the digital blemishes afforded from some newly-inserted special effects (rather obvious), the story remains a feast for the eyes, ears, and mind for those of us who embrace such experiences. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts the theatrical trailer along with an audio commentary hosted by Lucas and co-screenwriter Walter Murch (a bit meandering but still worth a listen): though I could be wrong, it doesn’t sound as if the two were present for the same recording, so I’m thinking this was something assembled after-the-fact specifically for the 2004 re-release.
Strongly Recommended.
Whether you like it or not, director George Lucas excelled at presenting universes that were worthy of studying while appearing to have been inhabited: and 1971’s THX 1138 serves as yet one more example of how one of the industry’s most successful auteurs had something he wanted to get off his chest before undertaking the task of redefining the way motion pictures were made and received by audiences. Unlike his much-celebrated Star Wars, however, THX offers so easy adventures or high-spirited match-ups. This is meant to be watched and ruminated over – perhaps for years, even – making it an entirely different film altogether that still looks like it could take place on some galaxy’s outer rim. About as unique a flick as you’re about to see … if you’re ready, willing, and able to give it the chance.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary DVD of THX 1138: The George Lucas Director’s Cut (1971) (2004) 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
Strongly Recommended.
Whether you like it or not, director George Lucas excelled at presenting universes that were worthy of studying while appearing to have been inhabited: and 1971’s THX 1138 serves as yet one more example of how one of the industry’s most successful auteurs had something he wanted to get off his chest before undertaking the task of redefining the way motion pictures were made and received by audiences. Unlike his much-celebrated Star Wars, however, THX offers so easy adventures or high-spirited match-ups. This is meant to be watched and ruminated over – perhaps for years, even – making it an entirely different film altogether that still looks like it could take place on some galaxy’s outer rim. About as unique a flick as you’re about to see … if you’re ready, willing, and able to give it the chance.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary DVD of THX 1138: The George Lucas Director’s Cut (1971) (2004) 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
press release
creepshow 2 [limited edition]
releasing september 30, 2025
Titans of terror George A. Romero and Stephen King deliver yet another selection of blood-curdling tales in Creepshow 2, the follow-up to the 1982 horror classic.
In "Old Chief Wood'nhead", a group of young hoodlums face retribution from an unlikely source after looting a local hardware store. Meanwhile, "The Raft" sees a group of horny teens wishing they'd read the warning signs first before taking a dip in a remote lake. Finally, an uptight businesswoman finds herself with some unwanted company following a hit-and-run incident in "The Hitch-hiker". Retaining the same EC Comics flavor that made the original such a hit, Creepshow 2 - this time directed by long-time Romero collaborator Michael Gornick - is a standout horror anthology from the minds of two of the genre's master craftsmen.
Bonus Materials:
In "Old Chief Wood'nhead", a group of young hoodlums face retribution from an unlikely source after looting a local hardware store. Meanwhile, "The Raft" sees a group of horny teens wishing they'd read the warning signs first before taking a dip in a remote lake. Finally, an uptight businesswoman finds herself with some unwanted company following a hit-and-run incident in "The Hitch-hiker". Retaining the same EC Comics flavor that made the original such a hit, Creepshow 2 - this time directed by long-time Romero collaborator Michael Gornick - is a standout horror anthology from the minds of two of the genre's master craftsmen.
Bonus Materials:
- 4K ULTRA HD LIMITED EDITION CONTENTS
- Brand new 4K restoration by Arrow Films from the original negative
- 4K (2160p) UHD Blu-ray presentation in Dolby Vision (HDR10 compatible)
- Original lossless mono, stereo and 5.1 DTS-HD MA surround audio options
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Audio commentary with director Michael Gornick
- Screenplay for a Sequel, an interview with screenwriter George A. Romero
- Tales from the Creep, an interview with actor and make-up artist Tom Savini
- Poncho’s Last Ride, an interview with actor Daniel Beer
- The Road to Dover, an interview with actor Tom Wright
- Nightmares in Foam Rubber, an archive featurette on the special effects of Creepshow 2, including interviews with FX artists Howard Berger and Greg Nicotero
- My Friend Rick, Howard Berger on his special effects mentor Rick Baker
- Behind-the-scenes footage
- Image gallery
- Trailers & TV spots
- Original screenplay galleries
- Creepshow 2: Pinfall, a Limited Edition booklet featuring the comic adaptation of the unfilmed Creepshow 2 segment “Pinfall” by artist Jason Mayoh
- Illustrated collector’s booklet featuring writing on the film by festival programmer Michael Blyth
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Mike Saputo
About Arrow Films:
Since launching in the UK in 2009, Arrow Video has grown to become one of the world’s most notable labels for physical and digital releases of genre, cult and horror films from around the globe. The label has passionately trailblazed a multi-award-winning slate of releases in deluxe, definitive editions with state-of-the-art restorations, in-depth curation of new and archival extra features, newly commissioned artwork, accompanying booklets and special packaging.
Expanding into North America in 2015, Arrow Video's best-in-class Blu-ray, UHD releases and extensive catalogue is complemented by premium digital and on-demand services with ARROW Player. Which shares the same ethos, curating the finest cult films from celebrated filmmakers including John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Takashi Miike, Dario Argento, and many more.
Since launching in the UK in 2009, Arrow Video has grown to become one of the world’s most notable labels for physical and digital releases of genre, cult and horror films from around the globe. The label has passionately trailblazed a multi-award-winning slate of releases in deluxe, definitive editions with state-of-the-art restorations, in-depth curation of new and archival extra features, newly commissioned artwork, accompanying booklets and special packaging.
Expanding into North America in 2015, Arrow Video's best-in-class Blu-ray, UHD releases and extensive catalogue is complemented by premium digital and on-demand services with ARROW Player. Which shares the same ethos, curating the finest cult films from celebrated filmmakers including John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Takashi Miike, Dario Argento, and many more.
- Published on
press release
hellbender [limited edition]
Hellbender is a spell-binding folk horror and coming-of-age story, boiling over with adolescent rage and wicked witchcraft.You must login to place orders.
GROWING UP IS HELL!
The sixth feature film from acclaimed filmmakers The Adams Family (The Deeper You Dig), Hellbender is a spell-binding folk horror and coming-of-age story, boiling over with adolescent rage and wicked witchcraft. Teenager Izzy lives in isolation with Mother because she has a rare immune disorder. Or so she is told. After befriending local girl Amber, Lizzy begins to question the reality of her disease. And when she eats a live worm as part of a teenage game, she soon develops a ravenous hunger for living things, learning that she is the latest in a line of "hellbenders", supernatural beings who possess immensely powerful abilities. Featuring a fantastic punk rock soundtrack with songs from the family's band, H6LLB6ND6R, this truly unique film expertly blends beautiful and naturalistic cinematography, impressive and stylistic VFX and stunning performances from real-life mother and daughter team, Zelda Adams and Toby Poser.
GROWING UP IS HELL!
The sixth feature film from acclaimed filmmakers The Adams Family (The Deeper You Dig), Hellbender is a spell-binding folk horror and coming-of-age story, boiling over with adolescent rage and wicked witchcraft. Teenager Izzy lives in isolation with Mother because she has a rare immune disorder. Or so she is told. After befriending local girl Amber, Lizzy begins to question the reality of her disease. And when she eats a live worm as part of a teenage game, she soon develops a ravenous hunger for living things, learning that she is the latest in a line of "hellbenders", supernatural beings who possess immensely powerful abilities. Featuring a fantastic punk rock soundtrack with songs from the family's band, H6LLB6ND6R, this truly unique film expertly blends beautiful and naturalistic cinematography, impressive and stylistic VFX and stunning performances from real-life mother and daughter team, Zelda Adams and Toby Poser.
- LIMITED EDITION BLU-RAY CONTENTS
- High Definition (1080p) Blu-ray presentation
- Original lossless stereo 2.0 audio
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Brand new audio commentary with filmmakers Toby Poser, John Adams, Zelda Adams and Lulu Adams
- From the Forest She Rises, a brand new video essay by filmmaker Jen Handorf
- Black Magic Tricks, a featurette on the visual effects by VFX artist Trey Lindsay
- Behind-the-scenes compilation footage
- Fort Worden (2021), a short film by Zelda Adams
- Four music videos: Hit and Run (2024), Drive (2021), Lovely (2021) and Black Sky (2020)
- Original trailer
- Reversible sleeve featuring newly commissioned artwork by Beth Morris and original artwork by Sister Hyde
- Illustrated collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Natasha Ball and Kat Hughes
About Arrow Films
Since launching in the UK in 2009, Arrow Video has grown to become one of the world’s most notable labels for physical and digital releases of genre, cult and horror films from around the globe. The label has passionately trailblazed a multi-award-winning slate of releases in deluxe, definitive editions with state-of-the-art restorations, in-depth curation of new and archival extra features, newly commissioned artwork, accompanying booklets and special packaging.
Expanding into North America in 2015, Arrow Video's best-in-class Blu-ray, UHD releases and extensive catalogue is complemented by premium digital and on-demand services with ARROW Player. Which shares the same ethos, curating the finest cult films from celebrated filmmakers including John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Takashi Miike, Dario Argento, and many more.
Since launching in the UK in 2009, Arrow Video has grown to become one of the world’s most notable labels for physical and digital releases of genre, cult and horror films from around the globe. The label has passionately trailblazed a multi-award-winning slate of releases in deluxe, definitive editions with state-of-the-art restorations, in-depth curation of new and archival extra features, newly commissioned artwork, accompanying booklets and special packaging.
Expanding into North America in 2015, Arrow Video's best-in-class Blu-ray, UHD releases and extensive catalogue is complemented by premium digital and on-demand services with ARROW Player. Which shares the same ethos, curating the finest cult films from celebrated filmmakers including John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Takashi Miike, Dario Argento, and many more.