- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for 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:
“A woman living in a ruined Earth tries to comprehend how the world was destroyed.”
Here’s the thing about propaganda, folks: most of those people who engage in it don’t think what they have to say is propaganda. To the contrary, it’s only you who disagree with them who are the propagandists.
This is why – to a large degree – I limit my time on social media. Anyone who follows me can likely guess at what my political positions are – I certainly don’t hide them – but I do tend to disengage from followers and casual fans when they try to debate me. I’m really not interested in being called names or whipping anyone into a frenzied verbal throwdown when I don’t know them, don’t know their circumstances, don’t know what kind of life they’ve lived, and – hell – don’t even know if they’re not a bot. Far too many online presences appear to be fictitious, and life is far too short to spend arguing with some low rent version of Artificial Intelligence.
But since I don’t hide or prepackage what I think about, I do generally abhor those who do; and today my ire is kinda/sorta loosely turned on writer/director Asif Kapadia. His 2073 (2024) promised to be a look into an alleged Dystopian tomorrow by glancing back into our past; but instead, what the man delivers is little more than a SciFi/Short-Film bookended around a documentary indicting just about everything he sees wrong with the world today. Had I known he was only delivering publicity for his politics, then I would’ve passed on this … and, yet, here we are.
What there is of a fictional narrative in here is surprisingly quite good though still a bit flawed. A woman – she has no name and chooses not to speak but everyone refers to her as ‘Ghost’ (Samantha Morton) – eeks out her living in – ahem – apparently the only surviving city in the world (which somehow magically happens to be in California), digging through refuse for scraps and anything which might aid in survival. There is a functioning city out there – it’s kinda/sorta portrayed as existing in a skyscraper high above the clouds – and its populated by denizens who embrace and coordinate a continuing police state, one where regular folks are not allowed to have any thoughts of their own. In such stories, it’s inevitable that these two sides meet; and, again, her choice in that big showdown will likely surprise no one, nor seem all that interesting.
Kapadia creates this blighted tomorrow – as best as I can understand his political gibberish – by postulating that everything wrong globally – from climate change to nationalist policies to the demise of the Amazon rainforest – somehow magically and mystically combines and produces something called ‘the Event.’ The Event is a worldwide collapse. Cities fall. Governments crumble. Mother Nature throws a hissy. Everything and anything not battened down is laid to waste, but – also magically and mystically – one city survives … and, of course, it would have to be California. This laughably impossible catalyst is meant to be taken seriously, and therein lies the rub: how could both manmade activity completely unrelated to so many disparate systems metastasize into any single ‘event’ on any given day in history? That just isn’t how things work. Yes, it’s fiction, but it still has to be believable to make sense, and – sorry – this doesn’t.
What also is never explained is how 37 years after ‘The Event’ those of the ‘Haves’ still seemingly have anything whilst the ‘Have Nots’ are picking through their garbage. Where is the food coming from? Where is the water coming from? Where are the clothes, the cars, the uniforms, the police drones, or ANYTHING ELSE coming from? Again, I’ve no problem with this depiction, but it needed to be firmly established with some mechanics in order for me to accept such dire constraints. Far too much of this futurescape looks a bit too conveniently like today – except for the subterranean tunnels where the remnants of mankind subsist – so color me unimpressed.
Frankly, there’s far more that’s unexplained in here than should be accepted by any viewer. While I can set aside some of the expansive political discourse with Kapadia’s documentary focus – he’s rapidly anti-anything America or technological in nature, it would seem – I’d could still rather easily pick apart his little SciFi flick because it’s so incomplete. Somehow, this Big Brother establishment has its eyes on Ghost – a woman who does nothing more than pick through garbage – and there’s zero explanation as to why that would be the case. Eventually captured, she’s interrogated by a faceless voice – presumably an A.I., which Kapadia is also opposed to, mind you – and she chooses to not participate.
Well … not participating is likely what led to this world’s collapse in the first place, Einstein, so what good is that?
2073 (2024) was produced by Double Agent, Film4, HBO Theatrical Documentary, Lafcadia Productions, Neon, and Sheep Thief Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good folks at Allied Vaugh. 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. As for the special features? Alas, there are none … not that I would likely have spent much time with them had there been any.
Hard To Recommend.
While I’ll admit that in many ways 2073 just wasn’t my cup of tea, I’ll concede that writer/director Kapadia probably achieves what he set out to accomplish here. He swings wildly at just about anything and everything he sees wrong in the world today, so much so that a reasonable person might conclude he hates the world at large. Nothing could be further from the truth as I suspect he only hates those who disagree with his politics: he’s currently fine with using all of these various platforms and technologies to spin his propaganda. It’s just everyone else’s propaganda that he apparently has a problem with. Alas, there’s very little story in here – that which I show up to evaluate – so this one is an enthusiastic thumbs down.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of 2073 (2024) 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
From the film’s IMDB.com page:
“A woman living in a ruined Earth tries to comprehend how the world was destroyed.”
Here’s the thing about propaganda, folks: most of those people who engage in it don’t think what they have to say is propaganda. To the contrary, it’s only you who disagree with them who are the propagandists.
This is why – to a large degree – I limit my time on social media. Anyone who follows me can likely guess at what my political positions are – I certainly don’t hide them – but I do tend to disengage from followers and casual fans when they try to debate me. I’m really not interested in being called names or whipping anyone into a frenzied verbal throwdown when I don’t know them, don’t know their circumstances, don’t know what kind of life they’ve lived, and – hell – don’t even know if they’re not a bot. Far too many online presences appear to be fictitious, and life is far too short to spend arguing with some low rent version of Artificial Intelligence.
But since I don’t hide or prepackage what I think about, I do generally abhor those who do; and today my ire is kinda/sorta loosely turned on writer/director Asif Kapadia. His 2073 (2024) promised to be a look into an alleged Dystopian tomorrow by glancing back into our past; but instead, what the man delivers is little more than a SciFi/Short-Film bookended around a documentary indicting just about everything he sees wrong with the world today. Had I known he was only delivering publicity for his politics, then I would’ve passed on this … and, yet, here we are.
What there is of a fictional narrative in here is surprisingly quite good though still a bit flawed. A woman – she has no name and chooses not to speak but everyone refers to her as ‘Ghost’ (Samantha Morton) – eeks out her living in – ahem – apparently the only surviving city in the world (which somehow magically happens to be in California), digging through refuse for scraps and anything which might aid in survival. There is a functioning city out there – it’s kinda/sorta portrayed as existing in a skyscraper high above the clouds – and its populated by denizens who embrace and coordinate a continuing police state, one where regular folks are not allowed to have any thoughts of their own. In such stories, it’s inevitable that these two sides meet; and, again, her choice in that big showdown will likely surprise no one, nor seem all that interesting.
Kapadia creates this blighted tomorrow – as best as I can understand his political gibberish – by postulating that everything wrong globally – from climate change to nationalist policies to the demise of the Amazon rainforest – somehow magically and mystically combines and produces something called ‘the Event.’ The Event is a worldwide collapse. Cities fall. Governments crumble. Mother Nature throws a hissy. Everything and anything not battened down is laid to waste, but – also magically and mystically – one city survives … and, of course, it would have to be California. This laughably impossible catalyst is meant to be taken seriously, and therein lies the rub: how could both manmade activity completely unrelated to so many disparate systems metastasize into any single ‘event’ on any given day in history? That just isn’t how things work. Yes, it’s fiction, but it still has to be believable to make sense, and – sorry – this doesn’t.
What also is never explained is how 37 years after ‘The Event’ those of the ‘Haves’ still seemingly have anything whilst the ‘Have Nots’ are picking through their garbage. Where is the food coming from? Where is the water coming from? Where are the clothes, the cars, the uniforms, the police drones, or ANYTHING ELSE coming from? Again, I’ve no problem with this depiction, but it needed to be firmly established with some mechanics in order for me to accept such dire constraints. Far too much of this futurescape looks a bit too conveniently like today – except for the subterranean tunnels where the remnants of mankind subsist – so color me unimpressed.
Frankly, there’s far more that’s unexplained in here than should be accepted by any viewer. While I can set aside some of the expansive political discourse with Kapadia’s documentary focus – he’s rapidly anti-anything America or technological in nature, it would seem – I’d could still rather easily pick apart his little SciFi flick because it’s so incomplete. Somehow, this Big Brother establishment has its eyes on Ghost – a woman who does nothing more than pick through garbage – and there’s zero explanation as to why that would be the case. Eventually captured, she’s interrogated by a faceless voice – presumably an A.I., which Kapadia is also opposed to, mind you – and she chooses to not participate.
Well … not participating is likely what led to this world’s collapse in the first place, Einstein, so what good is that?
2073 (2024) was produced by Double Agent, Film4, HBO Theatrical Documentary, Lafcadia Productions, Neon, and Sheep Thief Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good folks at Allied Vaugh. 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. As for the special features? Alas, there are none … not that I would likely have spent much time with them had there been any.
Hard To Recommend.
While I’ll admit that in many ways 2073 just wasn’t my cup of tea, I’ll concede that writer/director Kapadia probably achieves what he set out to accomplish here. He swings wildly at just about anything and everything he sees wrong in the world today, so much so that a reasonable person might conclude he hates the world at large. Nothing could be further from the truth as I suspect he only hates those who disagree with his politics: he’s currently fine with using all of these various platforms and technologies to spin his propaganda. It’s just everyone else’s propaganda that he apparently has a problem with. Alas, there’s very little story in here – that which I show up to evaluate – so this one is an enthusiastic thumbs down.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of 2073 (2024) 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
Whether he’s known as “The Poet Of The Macabre” or “The Godfather Of Gore,” Lucio Fulci (1927-1996) remained a bit of an acquired taste throughout much of his professional life.
From what I’ve read, the critical community pretty much dismissed the writer/director, some even suggesting that the auteur truly only dabbled in fare best described as perhaps ‘intellectual exploitation.’ Though his output appeared modestly popular with the general viewing public, his catalogue remained largely obscure amongst those whose business it is to give such pictures a ‘thumbs up’ or a ‘thumbs down.’ Despite the fact that he dabbled in just about every genre there is, he still remained largely unembraced, garnering only a couple awards mentions and even those being from the film festival circuit. Sometimes, all one gets is a hard-knock life.
If output is any indication, then I’d argue that the man is owed (minimally) much more than a footnote in the history of Italian cinema. His IMDB.com profile alone shows he contributed an impressive sixty-eight scripts alongside a respectable sixty-one pictures directed, leaving those of us who ponder what films mean a none-too-small library of content worthy of study. Of course, this isn’t to say that all of it even nears the theatrical pinnacle; but it should confirm that the man was a major player in his day and deserves a second look.
Google.com reports that many consider Fulci’s Don’t Torture A Duckling (1972) the storyteller’s best work; so I’m pleased to offer up my thoughts on Arrow Films’ release scheduled to hit the shelves on March 25, 2025. While I haven’t seen enough of the director’s flicks to be considering any kind of expert on them or his skills, I have seen a good deal of Giallo thrillers – of which Duckling certainly qualifies – in order to have something to say about it. I’ll assure you up front that it’s very good – a bit rough here and there – but what I enjoyed most about it is probably when it was more conventional than bloody.
(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 what I’ve read, the critical community pretty much dismissed the writer/director, some even suggesting that the auteur truly only dabbled in fare best described as perhaps ‘intellectual exploitation.’ Though his output appeared modestly popular with the general viewing public, his catalogue remained largely obscure amongst those whose business it is to give such pictures a ‘thumbs up’ or a ‘thumbs down.’ Despite the fact that he dabbled in just about every genre there is, he still remained largely unembraced, garnering only a couple awards mentions and even those being from the film festival circuit. Sometimes, all one gets is a hard-knock life.
If output is any indication, then I’d argue that the man is owed (minimally) much more than a footnote in the history of Italian cinema. His IMDB.com profile alone shows he contributed an impressive sixty-eight scripts alongside a respectable sixty-one pictures directed, leaving those of us who ponder what films mean a none-too-small library of content worthy of study. Of course, this isn’t to say that all of it even nears the theatrical pinnacle; but it should confirm that the man was a major player in his day and deserves a second look.
Google.com reports that many consider Fulci’s Don’t Torture A Duckling (1972) the storyteller’s best work; so I’m pleased to offer up my thoughts on Arrow Films’ release scheduled to hit the shelves on March 25, 2025. While I haven’t seen enough of the director’s flicks to be considering any kind of expert on them or his skills, I have seen a good deal of Giallo thrillers – of which Duckling certainly qualifies – in order to have something to say about it. I’ll assure you up front that it’s very good – a bit rough here and there – but what I enjoyed most about it is probably when it was more conventional than bloody.
(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:
“When a southern Italian town is rocked by a string of child murders, the police and two urban outcasts search for the culprit amid scapegoating within the superstitious community.”
A great many pictures and television shows have attempted to pull back the veneer of the small town to show that things might not be as picturesque and perfect as one would otherwise believe. Arguably, one of the very best projects ever – so far as this critic is concerned – remains David Lynch and Mark Frost’s incredible Twin Peaks series (and its supporting film). What watchers learned was that there was great potential for evil to be hiding amongst the lives of these seemingly ordinary folks – some who participated knowing while others were oblivious to it all. If nothing else, Peaks reminded us to remain vigilant with our eyes open as not everything worth knowing could be seen at first blush.
In several ways, the terrain is somewhat similar in Don’t Torture A Duckling. As conceived by scripters Fulci, Roberto Gianviti, and Gianfranco Clerici, the picture introduces audiences to the mountain town of Accendura, one of those off the beaten track locations populated by colorful locals. In fact, the picture’s opening delicately intercuts some raucous men greeting a pair of prostitutes for an afternoon of carnal pleasure while the resident simpleton (a Peeping Tom) looks on. It isn’t long before a trio of town boys show up for their own fleeting glimpses of adult flesh, injecting a bit of comic chaos on to the scene.
Just as it was a murder that set Twin Peaks into narrative motion, the same happens here. Bruno – one of the young boys from the opening – turns up dead, and it isn’t long before the police and the populace begin suspecting anyone and everyone who doesn’t quite abide in their tightly-knit community. Suspicion extends from the simple Guiseppe to the newly arrived Patrizia (the stunning Barbara Bouchet) to even Maciara (Florinda Bolkan), a practitioner of black magic. Eventually, none of these are proven to be the guilty culprit; and it’ll take the unlikely pairing of a big city journalist – Andrea Martelli (Tomas Milian) – and Patrizia to serve as detectives willing to expose the mastermind behind it all.
Without a doubt, Duckling fits the Giallo mold quite well. It’s a story wrapped around a solid murder mystery, and Fulci packs it to the gills with moments of suspense as the young boys fall victim one-by-one to some dastardly unknown perpetrator. Though the gore is a bit lowkey for the most part, the director wildly makes up for it in the last reel when the killer is ceremonially dispatched in a fall from a mountain, repeatedly grazing his face on sharp rocks on his descent to the ground below. (Frankly, I laughed at it, but that’s just me.) The Horror is a bit light – vastly lighter than I’ve seen in many other Giallos – but it serves the narrative well enough when given the proper airing, especially when it comes to staging the bodies of dead children. Definitely, Fulci hits the mark, and the picture works.
“When a southern Italian town is rocked by a string of child murders, the police and two urban outcasts search for the culprit amid scapegoating within the superstitious community.”
A great many pictures and television shows have attempted to pull back the veneer of the small town to show that things might not be as picturesque and perfect as one would otherwise believe. Arguably, one of the very best projects ever – so far as this critic is concerned – remains David Lynch and Mark Frost’s incredible Twin Peaks series (and its supporting film). What watchers learned was that there was great potential for evil to be hiding amongst the lives of these seemingly ordinary folks – some who participated knowing while others were oblivious to it all. If nothing else, Peaks reminded us to remain vigilant with our eyes open as not everything worth knowing could be seen at first blush.
In several ways, the terrain is somewhat similar in Don’t Torture A Duckling. As conceived by scripters Fulci, Roberto Gianviti, and Gianfranco Clerici, the picture introduces audiences to the mountain town of Accendura, one of those off the beaten track locations populated by colorful locals. In fact, the picture’s opening delicately intercuts some raucous men greeting a pair of prostitutes for an afternoon of carnal pleasure while the resident simpleton (a Peeping Tom) looks on. It isn’t long before a trio of town boys show up for their own fleeting glimpses of adult flesh, injecting a bit of comic chaos on to the scene.
Just as it was a murder that set Twin Peaks into narrative motion, the same happens here. Bruno – one of the young boys from the opening – turns up dead, and it isn’t long before the police and the populace begin suspecting anyone and everyone who doesn’t quite abide in their tightly-knit community. Suspicion extends from the simple Guiseppe to the newly arrived Patrizia (the stunning Barbara Bouchet) to even Maciara (Florinda Bolkan), a practitioner of black magic. Eventually, none of these are proven to be the guilty culprit; and it’ll take the unlikely pairing of a big city journalist – Andrea Martelli (Tomas Milian) – and Patrizia to serve as detectives willing to expose the mastermind behind it all.
Without a doubt, Duckling fits the Giallo mold quite well. It’s a story wrapped around a solid murder mystery, and Fulci packs it to the gills with moments of suspense as the young boys fall victim one-by-one to some dastardly unknown perpetrator. Though the gore is a bit lowkey for the most part, the director wildly makes up for it in the last reel when the killer is ceremonially dispatched in a fall from a mountain, repeatedly grazing his face on sharp rocks on his descent to the ground below. (Frankly, I laughed at it, but that’s just me.) The Horror is a bit light – vastly lighter than I’ve seen in many other Giallos – but it serves the narrative well enough when given the proper airing, especially when it comes to staging the bodies of dead children. Definitely, Fulci hits the mark, and the picture works.
Still, what worked more for me was the eventual team-up of Andrea and Patrizia as the central sleuths who’ll stop at nothing to uncover who amongst the townsfolk is behind such evil acts. Milian gets just enough scenes to show that he’s a bit jaundiced of his work truly serving to benefit society, and he grows increasingly frustrated that the local authorities seem more attached to maintaining the status quo than they are exposing a murderer. Naturally, his character is drawn to Patrizia, but thankfully Duckling never descends into the scope of a romantic thriller, leaving Milian and Bouchet instead as the goodlooking pair of cockeyed characters who might – might – explore a relationship after the bring a stop to the violence.
The casting of Bouchet – a former beauty pageant winner from the 1950’s – is decidedly inspired. Early in Duckling, she’s portrayed as a bit of tease, one willing to use her naked body to entice young Michele with the prospect of – ahem – sexual relations when ultimately she’s only wanting the bask in the amorous glow of the wide-eyed youth. Such exposure seemingly makes her feel alive, something that makes sense when we learn that she’s on retreat from the big city after enduring a scandal involving drugs. Cast into this nothingness of a town, she missing life as the center of attention, and attentions of the young man is just what she needed. In these scenes, her sensuousness is larger-than-life, a visual counterpart to the overweight, unkempt, disorderly prostitutes the boy ogled moments earlier.
Because she kinda/sorta comes to her senses later (once she’s briefly suspected as Michele’s killer), her evolution as desiring to get to the bottom of the mystery makes sense. Pairing her up with a reporter where the two of them use their requisite skills to good ends gives Duckling the welcome feel of a caper, one that could’ve gone awry with the focus on dead boys. The darkness gets softened just a bit, and the stage is set for our crime fighting duo to accomplish what seemingly no one else can, putting them as being at the right place in the right time. That lightened the load here in ways that could’ve transformed other Giallos, too, but I suspect many of its strongest purveyors preferred showcasing buckets and buckets and buckets of blood instead.
Don’t Torture A Duckling (1972) was produced by Medusa Distribuzione. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment and Arrow Films. 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? Because it’s a pretty vast collection, I’m doing the respectful copy-and-paste from Arrow’s press release previously published on Blu-ray.com:
The casting of Bouchet – a former beauty pageant winner from the 1950’s – is decidedly inspired. Early in Duckling, she’s portrayed as a bit of tease, one willing to use her naked body to entice young Michele with the prospect of – ahem – sexual relations when ultimately she’s only wanting the bask in the amorous glow of the wide-eyed youth. Such exposure seemingly makes her feel alive, something that makes sense when we learn that she’s on retreat from the big city after enduring a scandal involving drugs. Cast into this nothingness of a town, she missing life as the center of attention, and attentions of the young man is just what she needed. In these scenes, her sensuousness is larger-than-life, a visual counterpart to the overweight, unkempt, disorderly prostitutes the boy ogled moments earlier.
Because she kinda/sorta comes to her senses later (once she’s briefly suspected as Michele’s killer), her evolution as desiring to get to the bottom of the mystery makes sense. Pairing her up with a reporter where the two of them use their requisite skills to good ends gives Duckling the welcome feel of a caper, one that could’ve gone awry with the focus on dead boys. The darkness gets softened just a bit, and the stage is set for our crime fighting duo to accomplish what seemingly no one else can, putting them as being at the right place in the right time. That lightened the load here in ways that could’ve transformed other Giallos, too, but I suspect many of its strongest purveyors preferred showcasing buckets and buckets and buckets of blood instead.
Don’t Torture A Duckling (1972) was produced by Medusa Distribuzione. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment and Arrow Films. 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? Because it’s a pretty vast collection, I’m doing the respectful copy-and-paste from Arrow’s press release previously published on Blu-ray.com:
- NEW 4K RESTORATION from the original 2-perf Techniscope camera negative by Arrow Films
- DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM
- Newly restored original lossless mono Italian and English soundtracks
- Optional English subtitles for the Italian soundtrack
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing for the English soundtrack
- Audio commentary by Troy Howarth, author of So Deadly, So Perverse: 50 Years of Italian Giallo Films
- Giallo a la Campagna, a video discussion with Mikel J. Koven, author of La Dolce Morte: Vernacular Cinema and the Italian Giallo Film
- Hell is Already in Us, a video essay by critic Kat Ellinger
- Lucio Fulci Remembers, a rare 1988 audio interview with the filmmaker
- Who Killed Donald Duck, an interview with actress Barbara Bouchet
- Those Days with Lucio, an interview with actress Florinda Bolkan
- The DP's Eye, an interview with cinematographer Sergio D'Offizi
- From the Cutting Table, an interview with editor Bruno Micheli
- Endless Torture, an interview with makeup artist Maurizio Trani
- Theatrical trailer
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Ilan Sheady
- Illustrated collector's booklet featuring writing on the film by Barry Forshaw and Howard Hughes
As a point of clarification: as a reviewer, I’m only provided a physical copy of the disc itself. Consequently, I cannot speak to the efficacy of any of the listed supplemental materials – artwork, inserts, booklet, etc. – so in those cases I always remind readers of the cardinal rule … “Buyer beware.”
Recommended.
So, here’s the thing: yes, Lucio Fulci’s Don’t Torture A Duckling is, indeed, a highly respected Giallo, one that deserves a bit of celebration. My greatest issue with it personally is that since I’ve now seen a good number of Italian thrillers and chillers I find it honestly a bit tame by comparison, almost a bit comical (when it shouldn’t be) in a few spots. Tonally, I think the story works better in its second half – it gradually becomes a bit of a homegrown caper, and that’s far more inviting than is its protracted set-up – but, as I said, all of that may ultimately boil down to the fact that it was released smack dab in the genre’s alleged peak (Google.com states the very best were done between 1971 and 1975) wherein the competition was quite steep. I’ve seen many, many, many more vivid ones, and Duckling is a bit subdued.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films and MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Don’t Torture A Duckling (1972) 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
So many movies ... so little time ...
If the last two decades have taught audiences anything, then it might be that Superhero films can take many shapes and sizes. From the ordinary to the extraordinary, viewers have been tempted and teased with an incredible number of variations of what good and evil might look like -- both in spandex and beyond -- and this subgenre definitely has the fuel to continue burning for years to come ... though I suspect the folks at Marvel might currently suggest otherwise.
In any event ...
On this day in 2014 (in the United Kingdom), audiences of the Glasgow Fright Fest -- a festival showcasing the latest genre entries held annually in Glasgow, Scotland -- were treated to the theatrical debut of The Scribbler.
Directed by John Suits from a story by Dan Schaffer, the Superhero/Fantasy starred Katie Cassidy, Garret Dillahunt, Michelle Trachtenberg, Eliza Dushku, Michael Imperioli, Billy Campbell, Gina Gershon, Sasha Grey, Kunal Nayyar, Ashlynn Yennie, and others. Here's the film's premise as provided by our good friends at IMDB.com:
"THE SCRIBBLER follows Suki (Katie Cassidy), a young woman confronting her destructive mental illness using "The Siamese Burn," an experimental machine designed to eliminate multiple personalities. The closer Suki comes to being "cured," she's haunted by a thought - what if the last unwanted identity turns out to be her?"
I have seen this one -- I'm certain I received a complimentary DVD of it back during the film's original promotional push on home video -- but I don't recall anything specifically. I'll have to hit the archives this weekend, see if I can locate it, and recover my thoughts for SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage.
In the meantime, I'm posting the theatrical trailer from YouTube.com for readers. You know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
If the last two decades have taught audiences anything, then it might be that Superhero films can take many shapes and sizes. From the ordinary to the extraordinary, viewers have been tempted and teased with an incredible number of variations of what good and evil might look like -- both in spandex and beyond -- and this subgenre definitely has the fuel to continue burning for years to come ... though I suspect the folks at Marvel might currently suggest otherwise.
In any event ...
On this day in 2014 (in the United Kingdom), audiences of the Glasgow Fright Fest -- a festival showcasing the latest genre entries held annually in Glasgow, Scotland -- were treated to the theatrical debut of The Scribbler.
Directed by John Suits from a story by Dan Schaffer, the Superhero/Fantasy starred Katie Cassidy, Garret Dillahunt, Michelle Trachtenberg, Eliza Dushku, Michael Imperioli, Billy Campbell, Gina Gershon, Sasha Grey, Kunal Nayyar, Ashlynn Yennie, and others. Here's the film's premise as provided by our good friends at IMDB.com:
"THE SCRIBBLER follows Suki (Katie Cassidy), a young woman confronting her destructive mental illness using "The Siamese Burn," an experimental machine designed to eliminate multiple personalities. The closer Suki comes to being "cured," she's haunted by a thought - what if the last unwanted identity turns out to be her?"
I have seen this one -- I'm certain I received a complimentary DVD of it back during the film's original promotional push on home video -- but I don't recall anything specifically. I'll have to hit the archives this weekend, see if I can locate it, and recover my thoughts for SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage.
In the meantime, I'm posting the theatrical trailer from YouTube.com for readers. You know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Editor's Note:
Folks, I've mentioned before that -- at one time -- I was one of those highly regarded Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewers. Well, the short story is Amazon.com changed their rules and dumped a great deal of its original sinners, removing all of our content from the website. As time permits, I've been combing my archives and reposting some of what I feel is entirely relevant here at SciFiHistory.Net; so here's another one I wanted to share with the readership today. Enjoy!
Folks, I've mentioned before that -- at one time -- I was one of those highly regarded Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewers. Well, the short story is Amazon.com changed their rules and dumped a great deal of its original sinners, removing all of our content from the website. As time permits, I've been combing my archives and reposting some of what I feel is entirely relevant here at SciFiHistory.Net; so here's another one I wanted to share with the readership today. Enjoy!
Here’s your warning, folks.
I tend to enjoy those ‘found footage films’ more than most.
I offer this disclaimer so that you understand unconditionally exactly where I’m coming from, especially given the fact that so much of the audience rejected this specific sub-genre of Horror quite a long time ago. I get it: it sometimes gets old. Real fast. Despite that fact, I still happily give many of them a spin. I’m more than happy to endorse whatever good there still could be in them, and I’m equally pleased to warn you when and if to avoid them like the plague.
That said, it is hard to find much cause for celebration in the relatively tepid Devil’s Pass. It’s a story I desperately wanted to like (but alas didn’t all that much), though if you hang around after this brief break I’m thrilled to explain why.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
I’m borrowing what I need from the back of the product packaging as it gets to the heart of the story:
“In February of 1959, nine Russian hikers ventured into a remote area of the Ural Mountains. Two weeks later, all of them were found dead. What happened is a mystery that has baffled investigators and researchers for decades. It has become known as the Dyatlov Pass incident.”
Now – from what I know – that context above references a true event. Pretty much everything the copy writers wrote is accurate and adequate for the fictional resolution that follows. There have been various explanations offered throughout the years – yes, I’m a bit of a conspiracy nut – but none of them have ever been quite convincing to say the least. This is where Devil’s Pass (aka The Devil’s Pass, aka The Dyatlov Pass Incident) stakes out fertile ground. Its ‘found footage’ narrative here is that five college students receive grant money to recreate a modern investigation into this storied event. In the film’s outset, we’re told these young scholars have all but vanished, and then the audience is “treated” to the footage that’s been discovered from their cameras (which were eventually found) edited as a feature film.
So, the problem with all of this is that … well … I really can’t say without spoiling the ending. I abhor doing that – I try to avoid it at all costs when I can – but let me offer this simply: given what the film reveals of their fate, this particular footage couldn’t possibly exist, nor would it even conceivably be available for some hacker to find … because, if it was, then the film wouldn’t even be necessary. What we learn is, ultimately, a paradox. It’s a failure of narrative logic, one that probably killed this thing from getting any respectable theatrical release, and that’s probably why it’s been unceremoniously dumped into its home video release. At best, the rest of the story here (the script is by Vikram Weet) isn’t all that interesting, much less revelatory given the exposé quality of it, and too many story elements have to be supplied as exposition from one of the main characters in order for these bits and pieces to have any meaning.
I realize this is all a bit vague, so perhaps think of it this way: imagine there was a found footage film involving Adam and Eve. Imagine that the only way Eve knew what she was supposed to do to bring about the fall of man was that she was repeatedly told by Adam’s third-wheel-friend Dave who shows up just in the knick of time to tell her. “Eve, it’s time for you to go and see the snake!” “Eve, it’s time for you to take a bite out of the Apple!” “Eve, it’s time for you to understand what you weren’t supposed to understand!” After a while, the trick would get old, not to mention almost laughable. Thus, when one character has to explain the events of Dyatlov Pass (a conspiracy) by involving what may or may not have gone down with The Philadelphia Experiment (another completely unrelated conspiracy), I did catch myself laughing.
Remember: I freely admitted loving conspiracies. And found footage films. I just hate to see both of them handled so ineptly.
Also, our lead actress? Holly Goss? She plays Holly King. FYI: she can’t act. I’d hate to think this was the result of a casting couch decision, but, given her limited range? My mind can’t help but wonder.
Still, Devil’s Pass is not without a handful of successful storytelling moments.
It has a few nice twists, and there’s some pleasant enough cinematography in here, so much so that one can easily tell this wasn’t some found camcorder adventure pieced together by amateurs with a camera. The bottom line is that the good stuff is far too spread out and watered down – with so much gibberish sprinkled in between – that the sequences wind up with too little tension. Once the real scary stuff starts, it’s easy to remember that “it’s just a movie” and, inevitably, forget about it.
Devil’s Pass (2013) is produced by IFC Midnight, Aldamisa Entertainment, Non-Stop Productions, and a few others (feel free to consult IMDB if you’re all that interested). DVD distribution is being handled by MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll still say that the film is smartly put together, with some terrific sight, sound, and effects work to bring it all to life. As for the special features? Kudos to IFC for getting a release’s special features right (as I’ve seen them miss far too often): the disc comes with a commentary by Harlin and producer Kia Jam as well as some deleted scenes, a nice making of short, and the theatrical trailer.
Alas, this one is still Hard To Recommend … but if – like me – you’re a fan of ‘found footage films’ then this one might still be worth a view. Probably only once.
At 100 minutes, Devil’s Pass (2013) is decidedly too long, especially given the narrative flaw of the conclusion and the fact that much of the camera trickery has been done before. A few of the moments have a nice X-Files-type inspiration, and I’ll always welcome that. It’s just too bad all of this couldn’t have been more fulfilling; bad acting will never save a twist-ending, no matter how stirring the direction. The once reliable Renny Harlin has really fallen off the cinematic map if this is the best he can muster.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folkst at IFC MIDNIGHT and MPI Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Devil’s Pass (2013) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I never presume to tell my readers what to like ... but I'll always tell you something about what makes being a true genre fan unique.
What better occasion than the 47th anniversary of a pure cinematic stinker like Laserblast could there be to point out that ours is the only fandom that consistently celebrates the good, the bad, and the irreplacably ugly?
Released on this day back in 1978 (in the United States of America), Laserblast was directed by Michael Rae from a story by Franne Schacht and Frank Ray Perilli. This immortal schlockfest starred Kim Milford, Cheryl Smith, Gianni Russo, Ron Masak, Dennis Burkley, Barry Cutler, Mike Bobenko, Eddie Deezen, Keenan Wynn, Roddy McDowall, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's what all the fuss was about:
"Alien creatures kill a mutated alien creature in the California desert. Its remains, and the high-tech laser gun and power source accidentally left behind, are found by an ostracized teenager. However, the power source causes the teenager to mutate too, and he goes on a murderous rampage."
By all accounts, Laserblast is one of filmdom's -- ahem -- worst productions or -- at the very least -- it's certainly highly respected as a bad film despite whatever goodness may somehow seep in between the frames. How bad? Well, it presently retains a 2.9 (out of 10.0) on IMDB.com's scale, a rating system many dismiss as being 'too kind.'
While I've nothing to say myself about the motion picture (saw it long ago on home video), I'm going to happily paste what Google.com's A.I. interface says about it for posterity's sake. You'll find it below, and I think it's very telling.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
What better occasion than the 47th anniversary of a pure cinematic stinker like Laserblast could there be to point out that ours is the only fandom that consistently celebrates the good, the bad, and the irreplacably ugly?
Released on this day back in 1978 (in the United States of America), Laserblast was directed by Michael Rae from a story by Franne Schacht and Frank Ray Perilli. This immortal schlockfest starred Kim Milford, Cheryl Smith, Gianni Russo, Ron Masak, Dennis Burkley, Barry Cutler, Mike Bobenko, Eddie Deezen, Keenan Wynn, Roddy McDowall, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's what all the fuss was about:
"Alien creatures kill a mutated alien creature in the California desert. Its remains, and the high-tech laser gun and power source accidentally left behind, are found by an ostracized teenager. However, the power source causes the teenager to mutate too, and he goes on a murderous rampage."
By all accounts, Laserblast is one of filmdom's -- ahem -- worst productions or -- at the very least -- it's certainly highly respected as a bad film despite whatever goodness may somehow seep in between the frames. How bad? Well, it presently retains a 2.9 (out of 10.0) on IMDB.com's scale, a rating system many dismiss as being 'too kind.'
While I've nothing to say myself about the motion picture (saw it long ago on home video), I'm going to happily paste what Google.com's A.I. interface says about it for posterity's sake. You'll find it below, and I think it's very telling.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Question:
"What Makes 1978's laserblast a notable film?"
From Google.com:
"Laserblast" is often considered a "good film" primarily because of its status as a cult classic "so bad it's good" movie, with its incredibly low budget special effects, nonsensical plot, and cheesy acting providing unintentional comedic value, making it highly entertaining for audiences looking for a campy, ridiculous viewing experience; particularly when watched with a group and critiqued for its flaws.
Key points about "Laserblast":
However, it's important to note that:
"Laserblast" is often considered a "good film" primarily because of its status as a cult classic "so bad it's good" movie, with its incredibly low budget special effects, nonsensical plot, and cheesy acting providing unintentional comedic value, making it highly entertaining for audiences looking for a campy, ridiculous viewing experience; particularly when watched with a group and critiqued for its flaws.
Key points about "Laserblast":
- Intentional badness:
The movie's poor production quality, including the obvious fake aliens and special effects, are so over-the-top that they become unintentionally hilarious. - Nostalgic appeal:
For many viewers, "Laserblast" evokes a sense of nostalgia for cheesy, low-budget sci-fi movies from the 70s, making it a fun throwback. - Mystery Science Theater 3000:
The film gained further notoriety after being featured on the cult classic show "Mystery Science Theater 3000," where its absurdity was further highlighted through comedic commentary.
However, it's important to note that:
- Critically panned:
Most professional critics consider "Laserblast" to be a very poorly made film with no redeeming qualities beyond its campy entertainment value. - Not for everyone:
If you are looking for a well-acted, coherent sci-fi movie with a strong plot, "Laserblast" is not the film for you.
- Published on
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1974 (in the former nation state of West Germany), Blood For Dracula bit down on the collective neck of audiences, hoping to draw sustenance.
Based on the original novel from Bram Stoker, Blood For Dracula was scripted by Paul Hackett and Paul Morrissey, with Morrissey directing the project for the silver screen. The Horror/Fantasy starred Joe Dallesandro, Udo Kier, Vittorio De Sica, Maxime McKendry, Arno Jürging, Milena Vukotic, Dominique Darel, Stefania Casini, Silvia Dionisio, Gil Cagne, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Udo Kier is without a doubt the sickliest of vampires in any director's interpretation of the Bram Stoker tale. Count Dracula knows that if he fails to drink a required amount of pure virgin's [pronounced "wirgin's"] blood, it's time to move into a permanent coffin. His assistant (Renfield?) suggests that the Count and he pick up his coffin and take a road trip to Italy, where families are known to be particularly religious, and therefore should be an excellent place to search for a virgin bride. They do, only to encounter a family with not one, but FOUR virgins, ready for marriage. The Count discovers one-by-one that the girls are not as pure as they say they are, meanwhile a handsome servant/Communist begins to observe strange behaviour from the girls who do spend the night with the Count. It's a race for Dracula to discover who's the real virgin, before he either dies from malnourishment or from the wooden stake of the Communist!"
For those interested, the theatrical trailer is below.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
On this day in 1974 (in the former nation state of West Germany), Blood For Dracula bit down on the collective neck of audiences, hoping to draw sustenance.
Based on the original novel from Bram Stoker, Blood For Dracula was scripted by Paul Hackett and Paul Morrissey, with Morrissey directing the project for the silver screen. The Horror/Fantasy starred Joe Dallesandro, Udo Kier, Vittorio De Sica, Maxime McKendry, Arno Jürging, Milena Vukotic, Dominique Darel, Stefania Casini, Silvia Dionisio, Gil Cagne, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Udo Kier is without a doubt the sickliest of vampires in any director's interpretation of the Bram Stoker tale. Count Dracula knows that if he fails to drink a required amount of pure virgin's [pronounced "wirgin's"] blood, it's time to move into a permanent coffin. His assistant (Renfield?) suggests that the Count and he pick up his coffin and take a road trip to Italy, where families are known to be particularly religious, and therefore should be an excellent place to search for a virgin bride. They do, only to encounter a family with not one, but FOUR virgins, ready for marriage. The Count discovers one-by-one that the girls are not as pure as they say they are, meanwhile a handsome servant/Communist begins to observe strange behaviour from the girls who do spend the night with the Count. It's a race for Dracula to discover who's the real virgin, before he either dies from malnourishment or from the wooden stake of the Communist!"
For those interested, the theatrical trailer is below.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I just checked some entertainment headlines, and I learned of the passing of singer and actor David Johansen.
Mind you, I don't cover a lot on the music scene 'round these parts. Frankly, I'm a huge, huge, huge lover of music, but my tastes and yours are likely radically different, so I can't speak even with modest intelligence about the man's library of tunes. What I can tell you is that in 1988's holiday classic Scrooged the guy is damn funny, and that's all that truly matters to me.
A quick glance at his IMDB.com page does have a few other noteworthy genre citations. It looks like he had a part aboard the Tales From The Darkside movie in 1990. I vaguely recall him turning up in 1992's disappointing Freejack. Then, in 2021, it looks like the man lent his pipes to an animated critter aboard TV's Centaurworld. All of those are the stuff fans might be familiar with, so I wanted to highlight those mentions with respect to his work.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of David Johansen.
May he forever rest in peace ...
-- EZ
Mind you, I don't cover a lot on the music scene 'round these parts. Frankly, I'm a huge, huge, huge lover of music, but my tastes and yours are likely radically different, so I can't speak even with modest intelligence about the man's library of tunes. What I can tell you is that in 1988's holiday classic Scrooged the guy is damn funny, and that's all that truly matters to me.
A quick glance at his IMDB.com page does have a few other noteworthy genre citations. It looks like he had a part aboard the Tales From The Darkside movie in 1990. I vaguely recall him turning up in 1992's disappointing Freejack. Then, in 2021, it looks like the man lent his pipes to an animated critter aboard TV's Centaurworld. All of those are the stuff fans might be familiar with, so I wanted to highlight those mentions with respect to his work.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of David Johansen.
May he forever rest in peace ...
-- EZ
- Published on
So many movies ... so little time ...
Folks, it was on this day in the United Kingdom all the way back in the year 1963 that the good people of London, England were first treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of The Mind Benders. (For purists, I'll add that the full UK release apparently followed on March 25th.)
The film shows as directed by Basil Dearden (1911-1971), a somewhat celebrated talent according to his professional profile. Previous to Benders, the man had directed such other genre entries as Dead Of Night (1945) and Man In The Moon (1960). The script shows solely attributed to James Kennaway (1928-1968), and it's only one of seven projects his name shows attached to on IMDB.com. The cast includes such names as Dirk Bogarde, Mary Ure, John Clements, Michael Bryant, Wendy Craig, Harold Goldblatt, Goeffrey Keen, Terry Palmer, Norman Bird, Terence Alexander, and others. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"Dedicated British scientist Dr. Henry Laidlaw Longman (Sir Dirk Bogarde) tests the possibility of brainwashing. If the experiment succeeds, he will stop loving his wife Oonagh (Mary Ure)."
I have found the original theatrical trailer on YouTube.com; so -- as is customery -- I'm posting the link below. Those of you interested further know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Folks, it was on this day in the United Kingdom all the way back in the year 1963 that the good people of London, England were first treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of The Mind Benders. (For purists, I'll add that the full UK release apparently followed on March 25th.)
The film shows as directed by Basil Dearden (1911-1971), a somewhat celebrated talent according to his professional profile. Previous to Benders, the man had directed such other genre entries as Dead Of Night (1945) and Man In The Moon (1960). The script shows solely attributed to James Kennaway (1928-1968), and it's only one of seven projects his name shows attached to on IMDB.com. The cast includes such names as Dirk Bogarde, Mary Ure, John Clements, Michael Bryant, Wendy Craig, Harold Goldblatt, Goeffrey Keen, Terry Palmer, Norman Bird, Terence Alexander, and others. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"Dedicated British scientist Dr. Henry Laidlaw Longman (Sir Dirk Bogarde) tests the possibility of brainwashing. If the experiment succeeds, he will stop loving his wife Oonagh (Mary Ure)."
I have found the original theatrical trailer on YouTube.com; so -- as is customery -- I'm posting the link below. Those of you interested further know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Editor's Note:
Folks, I've mentioned before that -- at one time -- I was one of those highly regarded Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewers. Well, the short story is Amazon.com changed their rules and dumped a great deal of its original sinners, removing all of our content from the website. As time permits, I've been combing my archives and reposting some of what I feel is entirely relevant here at SciFiHistory.Net; so here's another one I wanted to share with the readership today. Enjoy!
Folks, I've mentioned before that -- at one time -- I was one of those highly regarded Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewers. Well, the short story is Amazon.com changed their rules and dumped a great deal of its original sinners, removing all of our content from the website. As time permits, I've been combing my archives and reposting some of what I feel is entirely relevant here at SciFiHistory.Net; so here's another one I wanted to share with the readership today. Enjoy!
Parenting can be tough. That’s for sure. As a parent, you have no only the weight of the world on your shoulders but also you share in the burdens putting stress onto those of your significant other (assuming he or she’s in the picture) and the young child. In those formative years, that little ‘bundle of joy’ will be looking to you for care, aid, nourishment, training, teaching, etc. You name it. Why, if I didn’t know better, one would think it could drive a sane person mad!
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“In the last month of her pregnancy, Esther Woodhouse is savagely beaten in an alleyway by an unknown assailant and loses her baby. To aid in her recovery, she attends a support group for grieving parents where she meets Melanie, who claims her son and husband were killed by a drunk driver. Esther and Melanie develop a friendship, but soon it becomes clear that both are harboring much darker secrets than they initially let on …”
There’s more, but methinks you get the gist of it. Proxy – or, more curiously, Zack Parker’s Proxy – is the baby genius which sprang from the fertile imagination of writer/director Zack Parker (the same one mentioned in the film’s title). Oh, sure, Mr. Parker had some assistance in crafting this story (Kevin Donner), but when your name appears in the credits it’s pretty clear who’s expecting credit, eh? Zack also chipped in with producing and, by the looks of it, probably edited the thing, too. Therein lies the problem with any Progressive look at disturbed “parenting”: isn’t it the Progressives who told us “it takes a village” to raise a child? If that’s the case, then where’s the village?
Parker’s film populates a story that’s right out of tabloid headlines; that alone gives it ample opportunity to peel back the layers of wholesome American veneer we societally have protected ourselves with and expose the crisp, calm, yet demented reality of suburban America. Each character he introduces is just a bit more psychologically adrift than the last, inadvertently creating a false reality with which to make whatever statement he believes he made in telling this macabre story. In fact, there are so many bizarre folks in here, I’m honestly not convinced there’s any sane point to it all.
That’s the real shame. Proxy tries to tap into the works of other auteurs by creating something so dense it’d take the average viewer one semester of Film Criticism and a volume of Cliff Notes to figure it all out. But as a viewer with a brain I tried to decipher it as best as I could, and I’m left unfulfilled. The people reminded me of folks I’d met in other superior films – the first hour is vastly more cohesive than the second, and at times it smacks of the subversive genius of, say, the Wachowski Brothers’ Bound (1996) (even with lesbians thrown in for good measure). Unlike that film, Proxy never quite metastasizes into anything meaningful, choosing instead to take over two hours to take us exactly where it had already delivered us in its first fifteen minutes.
Excesses aren’t a bad thing in cinema. When they’re managed well, they end up supporting the tale, deepening the characters, and giving those who are looking something to watch for. But when they’re left to their own devices, they end up more like that old phrase – how’s it go? – just throw enough up on the wall until something sticks. I say that not by proxy but in my own true voice.
Proxy (aka Zack Parker’s Proxy) (2013) is produced by Along The Tracks and FSC Productions. DVD distribution is being handled by MPI Media Group under the IFC Midnight label. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still see that this is a smartly shot production, and there’s some great sights and sounds to behold. If you’re looking for special features, then you do have some behind-the-scenes materials along with a director’s featurette and the theatrical trailer, but after this two-plus-hour slog I really wasn’t that interested.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
Entirely too long to be either relevant or moderately entertaining, Proxy’s greatest flaw is that appears to have been written, directed, and edited by proxy, meaning everyone was apparently asleep at the wheel. There’s only a hint at a dark drama or an even darker comedy that could’ve been wrapped up in these cinematic blankets, and it’s too bad someone didn’t recommend that Zack Parker show greater narrative restraint. And Zack? We get it already – parenting makes you crazy – so maybe there could’ve been greater depth to the scathing indictment of mankind.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group and IFC Midnight provided me with a DVD copy of Zack Parker’s Proxy (2013) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“In the last month of her pregnancy, Esther Woodhouse is savagely beaten in an alleyway by an unknown assailant and loses her baby. To aid in her recovery, she attends a support group for grieving parents where she meets Melanie, who claims her son and husband were killed by a drunk driver. Esther and Melanie develop a friendship, but soon it becomes clear that both are harboring much darker secrets than they initially let on …”
There’s more, but methinks you get the gist of it. Proxy – or, more curiously, Zack Parker’s Proxy – is the baby genius which sprang from the fertile imagination of writer/director Zack Parker (the same one mentioned in the film’s title). Oh, sure, Mr. Parker had some assistance in crafting this story (Kevin Donner), but when your name appears in the credits it’s pretty clear who’s expecting credit, eh? Zack also chipped in with producing and, by the looks of it, probably edited the thing, too. Therein lies the problem with any Progressive look at disturbed “parenting”: isn’t it the Progressives who told us “it takes a village” to raise a child? If that’s the case, then where’s the village?
Parker’s film populates a story that’s right out of tabloid headlines; that alone gives it ample opportunity to peel back the layers of wholesome American veneer we societally have protected ourselves with and expose the crisp, calm, yet demented reality of suburban America. Each character he introduces is just a bit more psychologically adrift than the last, inadvertently creating a false reality with which to make whatever statement he believes he made in telling this macabre story. In fact, there are so many bizarre folks in here, I’m honestly not convinced there’s any sane point to it all.
That’s the real shame. Proxy tries to tap into the works of other auteurs by creating something so dense it’d take the average viewer one semester of Film Criticism and a volume of Cliff Notes to figure it all out. But as a viewer with a brain I tried to decipher it as best as I could, and I’m left unfulfilled. The people reminded me of folks I’d met in other superior films – the first hour is vastly more cohesive than the second, and at times it smacks of the subversive genius of, say, the Wachowski Brothers’ Bound (1996) (even with lesbians thrown in for good measure). Unlike that film, Proxy never quite metastasizes into anything meaningful, choosing instead to take over two hours to take us exactly where it had already delivered us in its first fifteen minutes.
Excesses aren’t a bad thing in cinema. When they’re managed well, they end up supporting the tale, deepening the characters, and giving those who are looking something to watch for. But when they’re left to their own devices, they end up more like that old phrase – how’s it go? – just throw enough up on the wall until something sticks. I say that not by proxy but in my own true voice.
Proxy (aka Zack Parker’s Proxy) (2013) is produced by Along The Tracks and FSC Productions. DVD distribution is being handled by MPI Media Group under the IFC Midnight label. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still see that this is a smartly shot production, and there’s some great sights and sounds to behold. If you’re looking for special features, then you do have some behind-the-scenes materials along with a director’s featurette and the theatrical trailer, but after this two-plus-hour slog I really wasn’t that interested.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
Entirely too long to be either relevant or moderately entertaining, Proxy’s greatest flaw is that appears to have been written, directed, and edited by proxy, meaning everyone was apparently asleep at the wheel. There’s only a hint at a dark drama or an even darker comedy that could’ve been wrapped up in these cinematic blankets, and it’s too bad someone didn’t recommend that Zack Parker show greater narrative restraint. And Zack? We get it already – parenting makes you crazy – so maybe there could’ve been greater depth to the scathing indictment of mankind.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group and IFC Midnight provided me with a DVD copy of Zack Parker’s Proxy (2013) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Ach. This one hurts, folks.
I had just mentioned on my Twitter/X account yesterday that I had attended an afternoon screening of Unforgiven (1992) -- one of my personal favorite films ever -- and then, overnight, I saw the reporting of Gene Hackman's passing. I didn't want to mention anything until there were more details, and now -- sadly -- it's all looking a bit suspicious. Initially, the word online suggested that it might've been a carbon monoxide leak, but I just read some statement that implies there could've been foul play as Hackman and his wife's body have been there for several days ... not to mention the fact that apparently their dog was also found among the deceased.
Ugh.
In any event, I wanted to get out a word regarding Hackman's passing. The guy has always been one of my favorite actors. While he isn't exactly well known in genre circles so much other than his work in the Superman series of films, it's nonetheless tragic when we lose someone of his magnitude. Hollywood hasn't quite been the same since he hung up his acting shoes, anyway, but I hadn't quite expected to see him onscreen just yesterday only to have to mention his passing not even a day later.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Gene Hackman.
May he rest in peace ...
-- EZ
I had just mentioned on my Twitter/X account yesterday that I had attended an afternoon screening of Unforgiven (1992) -- one of my personal favorite films ever -- and then, overnight, I saw the reporting of Gene Hackman's passing. I didn't want to mention anything until there were more details, and now -- sadly -- it's all looking a bit suspicious. Initially, the word online suggested that it might've been a carbon monoxide leak, but I just read some statement that implies there could've been foul play as Hackman and his wife's body have been there for several days ... not to mention the fact that apparently their dog was also found among the deceased.
Ugh.
In any event, I wanted to get out a word regarding Hackman's passing. The guy has always been one of my favorite actors. While he isn't exactly well known in genre circles so much other than his work in the Superman series of films, it's nonetheless tragic when we lose someone of his magnitude. Hollywood hasn't quite been the same since he hung up his acting shoes, anyway, but I hadn't quite expected to see him onscreen just yesterday only to have to mention his passing not even a day later.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Gene Hackman.
May he rest in peace ...
-- EZ