- Published on
Folks, you know me …
While I don’t exactly court a great deal of controversy over at my small corner of the Information Superhighway, I’m still perfectly ready, willing, and able to step in it when the time is right. My position in managing SciFiHistory.Net has always been to kinda/sorta stick to the middle of the road: don’t engage in efforts to garner any measure of clickbait, and treat all of fandom – the good, the bad, and the ugly – with the respect its owed. There’s room enough in the cosmos for everyone to like what they like, and you certainly don’t need me to tell you what’s worthy or not. I review genre stuff because it tickles my fancy; but at the end of the day I always try to leave enough room for each of you to make what you will of a movie, book, or television show. Don’t like it or hate it because I do. Like it or hate it because you do! Chiefly, I do this because when I was younger, I tended to disagree with my friends on quality, and they never thought less of me. Consequently, I want you to have that freedom as well.
Still, I am an awful lot like each of you.
When I see something that doesn’t ring true to form or appears questionable, then I like to call it out. I like to discuss it. I like to extrapolate. I like to theorize. I like to jump in headfirst and point out what feels off or out-of-sorts. I might even posit a concept as to why or how a property or program got to this point wherein it just doesn’t feel on track; and I’m willing to pony up the logic I see in the circumstances. None of this makes me right, and none of it makes me wrong. It’s merely observations I want to share, and I’m thankful that I’ve fostered a readership as forgiving and prescient as that which I have who’ll stick with me even if they see things differently. Variety is the spice of life, after all, and – so much as it matters – life still seems to be the preferred alternative.
So …
Is it just me or is there a huge, huge, huge lack of Superman in the advertising for James Gunn’s forthcoming Superman movie?
OK … hear me out.
I realize that postproduction can involve a great deal of effects work. It wasn’t all that long ago that the writer/director had stated that he was doing some pick-up shots and whatnot, something that a few pointed out was odd to a small degree since Gunn had previously gone on record as stating that throughout his career he’d minimized such requirements as – unlike others – he refuses to go into production without a completed script. Succinctly, if one knows all of what one needs to craft a particular story before a single camera rolls, then it stands to reason that such postproduction efforts become unnecessary. Still, rather than debating whether or not this little change in policy means anything, I’d suggest that because effects work is still fine-tuned at this point, perhaps all of the better shots involving Superman are, simply, not yet available.
Let’s accept that as the reality.
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m well aware – as are many of you – that we’ve already seem a few snippets of Big Blue action in the previously released trailer. (I’m also well aware that folks haven’t been all that impressed with what’s been in those previous adverts, so it would also stand to reason that maybe Gunn felt it proper to ‘up his game’ and retool some of it as a result.) Accepting that there may not have been enough footage to account for another coming attraction isn’t excusing the fact that having the Superbowl with which to really make a concerted push was a calculated or miscalculated error: it’s only establishing a foundation around which to make an argument, and I think that’s a big part of what’s happening here.
But … Guy Gardner?
I mean … really?
Guy f#cking Gardner?
While I don’t exactly court a great deal of controversy over at my small corner of the Information Superhighway, I’m still perfectly ready, willing, and able to step in it when the time is right. My position in managing SciFiHistory.Net has always been to kinda/sorta stick to the middle of the road: don’t engage in efforts to garner any measure of clickbait, and treat all of fandom – the good, the bad, and the ugly – with the respect its owed. There’s room enough in the cosmos for everyone to like what they like, and you certainly don’t need me to tell you what’s worthy or not. I review genre stuff because it tickles my fancy; but at the end of the day I always try to leave enough room for each of you to make what you will of a movie, book, or television show. Don’t like it or hate it because I do. Like it or hate it because you do! Chiefly, I do this because when I was younger, I tended to disagree with my friends on quality, and they never thought less of me. Consequently, I want you to have that freedom as well.
Still, I am an awful lot like each of you.
When I see something that doesn’t ring true to form or appears questionable, then I like to call it out. I like to discuss it. I like to extrapolate. I like to theorize. I like to jump in headfirst and point out what feels off or out-of-sorts. I might even posit a concept as to why or how a property or program got to this point wherein it just doesn’t feel on track; and I’m willing to pony up the logic I see in the circumstances. None of this makes me right, and none of it makes me wrong. It’s merely observations I want to share, and I’m thankful that I’ve fostered a readership as forgiving and prescient as that which I have who’ll stick with me even if they see things differently. Variety is the spice of life, after all, and – so much as it matters – life still seems to be the preferred alternative.
So …
Is it just me or is there a huge, huge, huge lack of Superman in the advertising for James Gunn’s forthcoming Superman movie?
OK … hear me out.
I realize that postproduction can involve a great deal of effects work. It wasn’t all that long ago that the writer/director had stated that he was doing some pick-up shots and whatnot, something that a few pointed out was odd to a small degree since Gunn had previously gone on record as stating that throughout his career he’d minimized such requirements as – unlike others – he refuses to go into production without a completed script. Succinctly, if one knows all of what one needs to craft a particular story before a single camera rolls, then it stands to reason that such postproduction efforts become unnecessary. Still, rather than debating whether or not this little change in policy means anything, I’d suggest that because effects work is still fine-tuned at this point, perhaps all of the better shots involving Superman are, simply, not yet available.
Let’s accept that as the reality.
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m well aware – as are many of you – that we’ve already seem a few snippets of Big Blue action in the previously released trailer. (I’m also well aware that folks haven’t been all that impressed with what’s been in those previous adverts, so it would also stand to reason that maybe Gunn felt it proper to ‘up his game’ and retool some of it as a result.) Accepting that there may not have been enough footage to account for another coming attraction isn’t excusing the fact that having the Superbowl with which to really make a concerted push was a calculated or miscalculated error: it’s only establishing a foundation around which to make an argument, and I think that’s a big part of what’s happening here.
But … Guy Gardner?
I mean … really?
Guy f#cking Gardner?
I’ve said before – and I think a good number of readers would agree – that Marvel and DC are thematically different properties. While I usually stop short of highlighting what makes them different, I’ve always conceded that to me the big takeaway has always been that DC kinda/sorta wraps its big three heroes in mythic tropes. Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman are larger than life. They don’t get wrapped up in some of the usual banter or histrionics that some of their colorful counterparts over on the pages of Marvel do; and this generally translates to the silver screen. Marvel's stable is filled with do-gooders who are as quick with a retort as they are with their abilities whilst DC’s might stand around and brood a bit more. That’s always been my bottom line.
Guy Gardner, however, is the exact opposite of what the majority of DC’s capes both look and sound like. Yes, he represents something a bit out-of-sorts – a bit rough around the edges – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But ignoring putting out a single shot of Big Blue and – in his place – trying to shuck Guy Gardner onto the masses-at-large in some attempt to bolster interest in a Superman movie? That isn’t so much tone deaf to me as it is clinically insane. None of this even accounts for the fact that Gardner is – most likely – a yuckster known only to DC’s readership. He isn’t a household name. He isn’t a commodity deeply established in the American pop culture, and I suspect few alive and kicking in these fifty states who saw him even knew who he was. The memes alone suggest the viewers weren’t impressed, and I’m thinking this was a huge miscalculation on Gunn’s part ... since he insists it’s he nad he only who’s calling these shots as the head of DC Studios.
Now, this is true unless your Superman isn’t going to behave the way Superman has traditionally behaved on the screen. Is Gunn’s take going to be so radically different that the Man Of Steel will morph into the Man Of Star-Lord? Of course, stranger things have probably happened in the pursuit to craft a vision of the last son of Krypton, but how can the Warner Bros. have any faith in Big Blue if even the writer/director has grown gun shy or is unwilling to put out marketing works that bear the guy’s image? Again, this was the SUPERBOWL, and instead of having nothing you let Guy Gardner slip? Really? How is the name of Jor-El did anyone – especially James Gunn – think this was a good idea unless that means that Guy Gardner is going to be the star of the forthcoming Superman movie?
Look, I’ve said repeatedly online that nothing less than a summer blockbuster is required to elevate DC Studios to the heights necessary to win over fans, both the die-hard and casual ones. This doesn’t even account for mainstream audiences – the folks who really know little of these various mythologies and only show up because they saw a good trailer or heard the film was worth seeing on the silver screen. Every decision on the path to that potential for success should be scrutinized going in because you know damn well it’s going to be scrutinized if the picture doesn’t perform gangbusters. Nothing less will and should be tolerated. Superman is a tentpole figure … Guy Gardner? Not so much.
Gunn was a controversial choice, and – quite frankly – I don’t doubt everyone involved knew that going in. I’ve also said that Warner Bros. has capably demonstrated that they’ve absolutely no idea how to manage these comic book entities, leaving the big characters for the most part free to run and play separately as opposed to doing what Disney and Marvel have done in sponsoring so much crossover. Personally, I’ve always been fine with that. Of course, Justice League – the Snyder version, not the Whedon version so much – shows that when done right it can be exceptional … and, yet, I don’t want that in every theatrical adventure. I don’t want the universe saved in every comic book film because it grows predictable very, very quickly. I prefer some variety, and hopefully Gunn and company will be able to deliver something both innovative and respectful to what these characters mean to fandom and not just – ahem – James Gunn.
But at some point Superman has to appear in the advertisement for a Superman movie.
Not Guy Gardner.
Not Krypto.
Not Lois Lane.
Not one of Gunn’s immediate or extended family members.
Superman.
The lack of Big Blue has grown concerning, and I can only hope that Warner Bros. notices as much.
-- EZ
Guy Gardner, however, is the exact opposite of what the majority of DC’s capes both look and sound like. Yes, he represents something a bit out-of-sorts – a bit rough around the edges – and there’s nothing wrong with that. But ignoring putting out a single shot of Big Blue and – in his place – trying to shuck Guy Gardner onto the masses-at-large in some attempt to bolster interest in a Superman movie? That isn’t so much tone deaf to me as it is clinically insane. None of this even accounts for the fact that Gardner is – most likely – a yuckster known only to DC’s readership. He isn’t a household name. He isn’t a commodity deeply established in the American pop culture, and I suspect few alive and kicking in these fifty states who saw him even knew who he was. The memes alone suggest the viewers weren’t impressed, and I’m thinking this was a huge miscalculation on Gunn’s part ... since he insists it’s he nad he only who’s calling these shots as the head of DC Studios.
Now, this is true unless your Superman isn’t going to behave the way Superman has traditionally behaved on the screen. Is Gunn’s take going to be so radically different that the Man Of Steel will morph into the Man Of Star-Lord? Of course, stranger things have probably happened in the pursuit to craft a vision of the last son of Krypton, but how can the Warner Bros. have any faith in Big Blue if even the writer/director has grown gun shy or is unwilling to put out marketing works that bear the guy’s image? Again, this was the SUPERBOWL, and instead of having nothing you let Guy Gardner slip? Really? How is the name of Jor-El did anyone – especially James Gunn – think this was a good idea unless that means that Guy Gardner is going to be the star of the forthcoming Superman movie?
Look, I’ve said repeatedly online that nothing less than a summer blockbuster is required to elevate DC Studios to the heights necessary to win over fans, both the die-hard and casual ones. This doesn’t even account for mainstream audiences – the folks who really know little of these various mythologies and only show up because they saw a good trailer or heard the film was worth seeing on the silver screen. Every decision on the path to that potential for success should be scrutinized going in because you know damn well it’s going to be scrutinized if the picture doesn’t perform gangbusters. Nothing less will and should be tolerated. Superman is a tentpole figure … Guy Gardner? Not so much.
Gunn was a controversial choice, and – quite frankly – I don’t doubt everyone involved knew that going in. I’ve also said that Warner Bros. has capably demonstrated that they’ve absolutely no idea how to manage these comic book entities, leaving the big characters for the most part free to run and play separately as opposed to doing what Disney and Marvel have done in sponsoring so much crossover. Personally, I’ve always been fine with that. Of course, Justice League – the Snyder version, not the Whedon version so much – shows that when done right it can be exceptional … and, yet, I don’t want that in every theatrical adventure. I don’t want the universe saved in every comic book film because it grows predictable very, very quickly. I prefer some variety, and hopefully Gunn and company will be able to deliver something both innovative and respectful to what these characters mean to fandom and not just – ahem – James Gunn.
But at some point Superman has to appear in the advertisement for a Superman movie.
Not Guy Gardner.
Not Krypto.
Not Lois Lane.
Not one of Gunn’s immediate or extended family members.
Superman.
The lack of Big Blue has grown concerning, and I can only hope that Warner Bros. notices as much.
-- EZ
- Published on
In the past, I’ve often found it difficult to relay to younger readers the absolute boundless joy that was the Video Revolution that began in the late 70’s lasted through the early-to-mid 90’s.
For those of you who missed it, here’s a bit of lesson. Thousands upon thousands of hours of film was shot in places all around the world when – due to the lowered cost of production – practically any Tom, Dick, Harry, Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan, Cindy, or even Sven could get a flick made and available for release to the growing marketplace of corner home video stores across the great U S of A. Like most revolutions, this one didn’t last forever; but – while it did – audiences who were willing to pony up a few bucks to rent some unheard-of Drama, Comedy, Horror, or Fantasy were treated to some of the highest and lowest quality schlock the likes of which you just can’t find any more. (Well, maybe rarely find any more is more accurate a statement, unless you really go looking.) Granted, there are hints that some glory days could still be ahead for the next generation as youngsters are learning how to craft, shoot, and edit their very own mini-motion-pictures on the perpetually evolving smart phones; but so much of what came before them still hasn’t seen the light of day.
Thankfully, I can now just point them in the direction of 2013’s Adjust Your Tracking for some inspiration. The documentary does a respectable job trying to uncover what made that revolution tick, offering up a spotlight on some of the oddities and curiosities that came to life when consumers needed it most. While such a summation may not supply a perfect accounting of that wonderful, wacky, cinematic revolution, it’s still pretty darn close.
(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:
“Some see VHS as worthless plastic, but Adjust Your Tracking shows a vibrant world of collectors and movie fans who are keeping the format, and the movies, alive. Over 100 collectors, filmmakers, producers, and video store owners express how VHS changed their lives. Travel back to the days of video rental stores with those who still buy, sell, rent and trade the format that will not die – VHS.”
It really was an era all unto itself: the home video craze.
Today’s generation just doesn’t quite understand how the newfound ability to record and maintain a library of programming truly took our planet by storm (most of this is because they’re so used to having practically any entertainment hunger known to man available at the click of a mouse). For so many of us, growing up meant watching only what was available on five, six, or maybe ten channels. After a movie or a show aired, it was gone into the ether, never to be heard of again unless we discovered it in reruns or more likely on some syndicated outlet. But once our families had the ability to tape any of our favorite programs, you practically couldn’t tear us away from the TV set.
And that’s what Adjust Your Tracking kinda/sorta explores to a large degree. It examines the growing phenomenon really only from a circumstantial position, instead using the true lion’s share of the 90-minutes running time to these collectors, their adventures, their misadventures, and their lives. While I may not share their sentiments regarding the enjoyment of watching old video tapes (the graininess, the occasionally inaudible soundtrack, etc.), I can certainly grasp the delight they take with keeping that medium alive. As so many of those titles have yet to see the light of day in the current DVD and digital revolution, their commitment to maintaining the glorious, depraved catalogue of so many obscure or arcane titles deserves the up-front-and-center portrayal it gets here.
Adjust Your Tracking: The Untold Story Of The VHS Collector (2013) is produced by VHS Hitfest (name slightly modified to make it Amazon accessible); although there appears to be some participation from Horror Boobs and Lunchmeat cited on the product packaging. DVD distribution appears to be handled by the same. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … I wouldn’t want to spoil it entirely, so let’s just agree that you’re likely to see the exact level of quality associated to a celebration of the VHS that you’d expect! (It’s all handled with wonderfully creative charm.) Lastly – if it’s special features you want – then prepare to be wowed: the 2-disc sets boasts over 7 hours of bonus content including audio commentaries, behind-the-scenes shorts, three short films, extended interviews, and more. Seriously, you couldn’t ask for a finer assortment. Well done and hats off to all involved.
Highly Recommended.
Although I’m quick to point out that many of the smilers featured in Adjust Your Tracking didn’t quite appear old enough to have truly experienced the VHS revolution first-hand (many of them stumbled into it via their own reckless youths), what comes easily to the surface is the unabashed love all of these collectors have for the kinda/sorta dying form of art that is the VHS presentation. While I may not quite agree with the sentiments of discovering so much video schlock, I can certainly understand and appreciate the fascination that goes hand-in-hand with being a voracious collector of oddities; on that front, Tracking excels.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at VHS Hitfest provided me with a DVD copy of Adjust Your Tracking: The Untold Story Of The VHS Collector (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
For those of you who missed it, here’s a bit of lesson. Thousands upon thousands of hours of film was shot in places all around the world when – due to the lowered cost of production – practically any Tom, Dick, Harry, Greg, Peter, Bobby, Marcia, Jan, Cindy, or even Sven could get a flick made and available for release to the growing marketplace of corner home video stores across the great U S of A. Like most revolutions, this one didn’t last forever; but – while it did – audiences who were willing to pony up a few bucks to rent some unheard-of Drama, Comedy, Horror, or Fantasy were treated to some of the highest and lowest quality schlock the likes of which you just can’t find any more. (Well, maybe rarely find any more is more accurate a statement, unless you really go looking.) Granted, there are hints that some glory days could still be ahead for the next generation as youngsters are learning how to craft, shoot, and edit their very own mini-motion-pictures on the perpetually evolving smart phones; but so much of what came before them still hasn’t seen the light of day.
Thankfully, I can now just point them in the direction of 2013’s Adjust Your Tracking for some inspiration. The documentary does a respectable job trying to uncover what made that revolution tick, offering up a spotlight on some of the oddities and curiosities that came to life when consumers needed it most. While such a summation may not supply a perfect accounting of that wonderful, wacky, cinematic revolution, it’s still pretty darn close.
(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:
“Some see VHS as worthless plastic, but Adjust Your Tracking shows a vibrant world of collectors and movie fans who are keeping the format, and the movies, alive. Over 100 collectors, filmmakers, producers, and video store owners express how VHS changed their lives. Travel back to the days of video rental stores with those who still buy, sell, rent and trade the format that will not die – VHS.”
It really was an era all unto itself: the home video craze.
Today’s generation just doesn’t quite understand how the newfound ability to record and maintain a library of programming truly took our planet by storm (most of this is because they’re so used to having practically any entertainment hunger known to man available at the click of a mouse). For so many of us, growing up meant watching only what was available on five, six, or maybe ten channels. After a movie or a show aired, it was gone into the ether, never to be heard of again unless we discovered it in reruns or more likely on some syndicated outlet. But once our families had the ability to tape any of our favorite programs, you practically couldn’t tear us away from the TV set.
And that’s what Adjust Your Tracking kinda/sorta explores to a large degree. It examines the growing phenomenon really only from a circumstantial position, instead using the true lion’s share of the 90-minutes running time to these collectors, their adventures, their misadventures, and their lives. While I may not share their sentiments regarding the enjoyment of watching old video tapes (the graininess, the occasionally inaudible soundtrack, etc.), I can certainly grasp the delight they take with keeping that medium alive. As so many of those titles have yet to see the light of day in the current DVD and digital revolution, their commitment to maintaining the glorious, depraved catalogue of so many obscure or arcane titles deserves the up-front-and-center portrayal it gets here.
Adjust Your Tracking: The Untold Story Of The VHS Collector (2013) is produced by VHS Hitfest (name slightly modified to make it Amazon accessible); although there appears to be some participation from Horror Boobs and Lunchmeat cited on the product packaging. DVD distribution appears to be handled by the same. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … I wouldn’t want to spoil it entirely, so let’s just agree that you’re likely to see the exact level of quality associated to a celebration of the VHS that you’d expect! (It’s all handled with wonderfully creative charm.) Lastly – if it’s special features you want – then prepare to be wowed: the 2-disc sets boasts over 7 hours of bonus content including audio commentaries, behind-the-scenes shorts, three short films, extended interviews, and more. Seriously, you couldn’t ask for a finer assortment. Well done and hats off to all involved.
Highly Recommended.
Although I’m quick to point out that many of the smilers featured in Adjust Your Tracking didn’t quite appear old enough to have truly experienced the VHS revolution first-hand (many of them stumbled into it via their own reckless youths), what comes easily to the surface is the unabashed love all of these collectors have for the kinda/sorta dying form of art that is the VHS presentation. While I may not quite agree with the sentiments of discovering so much video schlock, I can certainly understand and appreciate the fascination that goes hand-in-hand with being a voracious collector of oddities; on that front, Tracking excels.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at VHS Hitfest provided me with a DVD copy of Adjust Your Tracking: The Untold Story Of The VHS Collector (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
I’ve always been somewhat of a conspiracy nut when it comes to history.
Oh, it isn’t that I believe every kooky idea that comes down the pike; rather, it’s that the more one reads about ‘what we know’ the more one learns about how little we can actually prove. As a civilization, there are items that we’ve found – there are places that we’ve discovered – that just don’t quite fit any conventional explanation. Does that mean that we were engineered by aliens who’ve reached some agreement with the U.S. State Department to eventually harvest our brains? No, no, no. It doesn’t. But – as I said – if you knew that an ancient civilization used a form of electricity perhaps 2,000 years before we currently believe it was discovered, that would change the way you think about our world, wouldn’t it? If you knew that maybe there was a previous ‘industrial revolution’ that’s gone unexplored or unexplained because we might not like what we learned, then wouldn’t that affect how you think about what your teachers either did or didn’t tell you?
Of course it would.
What better mind than that of noted science and science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke to explain these things to you, eh? That’s what he did in the course of three separate series – Mysterious World (1980), World Of Strange Powers (1985), and Mysterious Universe (1995) – that are just now finally seeing the light of day in a home video format, compliments of Visual Entertainment, Inc.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 …)
When I was a young guy, I read a little bit of the works of Arthur C. Clarke. I was into the whole ‘science fiction’ craze when it really found teeth in the mid-1970’s, and I’ve hung with it practically all of my life (despite some dabbling in the world of vintage crime stories). While outer space has always been an interest of mine, I’ve always been more intrigued by things down here on Earth. For example, we have Stonehenge, but we don’t quite know what it was for. Nor do we know exactly how those early people managed to get those stones to where they are, much less what they did with ‘em once they got ‘em there.
Or have you ever heard about the Antikythera Device? It’s this little machine gizmo – complete with gears and a crank – that was discovered in a sunken wreck somewhere off the coast of an island in the Mediterranean. Being submerged under water, it’s all crusted over with decay, but, in dating the object, scientists have found that it goes back approximately the first century B.C.E. What’s mysterious about that? Well, the device shows the kind of mechanical complexity that, previously, we thought mankind finally achieved in the 14th century … so how can it exist from way back then?
Of course, I could go on. There are the Nazca lines. The atomic blast in Tunguska. Or how about Ogopogo or the Loch Ness Monster? Did you realize that there’s actually filmed footage of something in the waters that we can’t explain? I know most folks tend to dismiss these things as ‘modern day fables,’ but a clear review of the evidence – and, yes, there is evidence – clearly shows that there’s something more there than what meets the eye.
This is the kind of stuff that Arthur C. Clarke committed himself to better understanding later in his life. He was consumed with these mysteries known to man, and, in the scope of these three programs, he went about trying to ascertain the best probable scientific explanation for them. He didn’t dismiss them or raise his nose to them as most in the academic community are quick to do; instead, he fathomed how these things could possibly exist in our present understanding of Earth, science, and the greater cosmos at large; and, though I’m just getting started with these programs, I was so excited by what I saw in his first show (Mysterious World) that I wanted to get a review up now.
VEI’s offered up a fabulous collection for those of you inclined to explore the ‘fringes’ of our existence further. This set includes eight discs with an impressive run-time of over 1,300 minutes. And I can’t think of a better mind to take us into the Unexplained than Mr. Clarke.
Can you?
Arthur C. Clarke: The Complete Collection is produced as follows:
Highest Recommendation Possible.
These televised works by Arthur C. Clarke probably won’t be for everyone, but they’re exactly the kind of stuff I’ve always liked. His exploration of the greatest mysteries known to man may in some cases be a bit dated, but, for the most part, there’s still very little proven definitively about these various subjects. So, I suggest this is required viewing for those of us who want to know more!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at VEI (Visual Entertainment Incorporated) provided me with a DVD copy of Arthur C. Clarke: The Complete Collection 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
Oh, it isn’t that I believe every kooky idea that comes down the pike; rather, it’s that the more one reads about ‘what we know’ the more one learns about how little we can actually prove. As a civilization, there are items that we’ve found – there are places that we’ve discovered – that just don’t quite fit any conventional explanation. Does that mean that we were engineered by aliens who’ve reached some agreement with the U.S. State Department to eventually harvest our brains? No, no, no. It doesn’t. But – as I said – if you knew that an ancient civilization used a form of electricity perhaps 2,000 years before we currently believe it was discovered, that would change the way you think about our world, wouldn’t it? If you knew that maybe there was a previous ‘industrial revolution’ that’s gone unexplored or unexplained because we might not like what we learned, then wouldn’t that affect how you think about what your teachers either did or didn’t tell you?
Of course it would.
What better mind than that of noted science and science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke to explain these things to you, eh? That’s what he did in the course of three separate series – Mysterious World (1980), World Of Strange Powers (1985), and Mysterious Universe (1995) – that are just now finally seeing the light of day in a home video format, compliments of Visual Entertainment, Inc.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 …)
When I was a young guy, I read a little bit of the works of Arthur C. Clarke. I was into the whole ‘science fiction’ craze when it really found teeth in the mid-1970’s, and I’ve hung with it practically all of my life (despite some dabbling in the world of vintage crime stories). While outer space has always been an interest of mine, I’ve always been more intrigued by things down here on Earth. For example, we have Stonehenge, but we don’t quite know what it was for. Nor do we know exactly how those early people managed to get those stones to where they are, much less what they did with ‘em once they got ‘em there.
Or have you ever heard about the Antikythera Device? It’s this little machine gizmo – complete with gears and a crank – that was discovered in a sunken wreck somewhere off the coast of an island in the Mediterranean. Being submerged under water, it’s all crusted over with decay, but, in dating the object, scientists have found that it goes back approximately the first century B.C.E. What’s mysterious about that? Well, the device shows the kind of mechanical complexity that, previously, we thought mankind finally achieved in the 14th century … so how can it exist from way back then?
Of course, I could go on. There are the Nazca lines. The atomic blast in Tunguska. Or how about Ogopogo or the Loch Ness Monster? Did you realize that there’s actually filmed footage of something in the waters that we can’t explain? I know most folks tend to dismiss these things as ‘modern day fables,’ but a clear review of the evidence – and, yes, there is evidence – clearly shows that there’s something more there than what meets the eye.
This is the kind of stuff that Arthur C. Clarke committed himself to better understanding later in his life. He was consumed with these mysteries known to man, and, in the scope of these three programs, he went about trying to ascertain the best probable scientific explanation for them. He didn’t dismiss them or raise his nose to them as most in the academic community are quick to do; instead, he fathomed how these things could possibly exist in our present understanding of Earth, science, and the greater cosmos at large; and, though I’m just getting started with these programs, I was so excited by what I saw in his first show (Mysterious World) that I wanted to get a review up now.
VEI’s offered up a fabulous collection for those of you inclined to explore the ‘fringes’ of our existence further. This set includes eight discs with an impressive run-time of over 1,300 minutes. And I can’t think of a better mind to take us into the Unexplained than Mr. Clarke.
Can you?
Arthur C. Clarke: The Complete Collection is produced as follows:
- Mysterious World (1980) was brought to you by Trident Television and Yorkshire Television (YTV);
- World Of Strange Powers (1985) was brought to you by Yorkshire Television (YTV); and
- Mysterious Universe (1995) appears also to have come from Yorkshire Television (YTV), though I’ve been unable to confirm its specifics via research on the web.
Highest Recommendation Possible.
These televised works by Arthur C. Clarke probably won’t be for everyone, but they’re exactly the kind of stuff I’ve always liked. His exploration of the greatest mysteries known to man may in some cases be a bit dated, but, for the most part, there’s still very little proven definitively about these various subjects. So, I suggest this is required viewing for those of us who want to know more!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at VEI (Visual Entertainment Incorporated) provided me with a DVD copy of Arthur C. Clarke: The Complete Collection 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
(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:
“Two scientists try to stop a mutation that turns people into werewolves after being touched by a super-moon the year before.”
A quick search of Google.com indicates that 2024’s Werewolves had a pretty unspectacular theatrical release run. Opening in the U.S. and beyond in December of that year, box office records indicate it grossed just under $2M in the U.S. and Canada while adding another just over $2M from international markets. I’ve been unable to locate any statistics on its productions costs; but it’s easy to figure that they likely couldn’t have been that steep. As Horror-themed Thrillers go, it’s fairly light on exotic locations and fairly lean on marketing dollars since I can’t find all that much promotion for it across the Information Superhighway. You know what they say: “it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.”
Because I tend to enjoy creature features more than most I wanted to give it a look. While I’m not all exactly giddy with delight to have done so, I also don’t feel my time was wasted. Storytellers who dabble in such material generally have an idea of what audiences expect, and that’s the case here. Though the product never rises above a workable effort I seriously doubt that any among us might find it achieving even cult respectability of any kind. Its creature effects – perhaps the signature draw to any monster movie – are about average: having been unable to locate any specifics on the production, I’m really only guessing that what director Steven C. Miller achieves was a combination of practical in-camera work and modest CGI.
The film begins with a few title cards necessary to establish the parameters of this world. As fate (and a talented screenwriter) would have it, every man, woman, and child are now at risk of becoming a lycanthrope entirely from exposure to our moon. No longer is that virus (apparently) transmitted by saliva; and audiences are provided no legitimate explanation for this scientific evolution. Yes, such minimalist world-building is insufferably lazy, but these cultural and social developments rarely get a great deal of exposure in second-tier films. Such narrative progress takes too much investment; and, thus, narrators wing it. Thankfully, it’s only an annual occurrence – think The Purge but with teeth, fur, and fangs – but I’d imagine civilizations still ruins a vast number of wardrobes.
Molecular biologist Wesley Marshall (played by Frank Grillo) has his hands full on the cusp of the impending SuperMoon Event: not only is he tasked by the federal government to test the latest science designed to inhibit man’s transformation into this new strain of bloodthirsty werewolf but also he’s taken over stewardship of his late brother’s family – Lucy (Ilfenesh Hadera) and daughter Emma (Kamdynn Gary). Granted, he’s sealed them up in their house with every form of home protection he can think of; but he can’t shake that nagging feeling that something isn’t right. Duty calls, and he heads out to perform his service to mankind.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Two scientists try to stop a mutation that turns people into werewolves after being touched by a super-moon the year before.”
A quick search of Google.com indicates that 2024’s Werewolves had a pretty unspectacular theatrical release run. Opening in the U.S. and beyond in December of that year, box office records indicate it grossed just under $2M in the U.S. and Canada while adding another just over $2M from international markets. I’ve been unable to locate any statistics on its productions costs; but it’s easy to figure that they likely couldn’t have been that steep. As Horror-themed Thrillers go, it’s fairly light on exotic locations and fairly lean on marketing dollars since I can’t find all that much promotion for it across the Information Superhighway. You know what they say: “it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there.”
Because I tend to enjoy creature features more than most I wanted to give it a look. While I’m not all exactly giddy with delight to have done so, I also don’t feel my time was wasted. Storytellers who dabble in such material generally have an idea of what audiences expect, and that’s the case here. Though the product never rises above a workable effort I seriously doubt that any among us might find it achieving even cult respectability of any kind. Its creature effects – perhaps the signature draw to any monster movie – are about average: having been unable to locate any specifics on the production, I’m really only guessing that what director Steven C. Miller achieves was a combination of practical in-camera work and modest CGI.
The film begins with a few title cards necessary to establish the parameters of this world. As fate (and a talented screenwriter) would have it, every man, woman, and child are now at risk of becoming a lycanthrope entirely from exposure to our moon. No longer is that virus (apparently) transmitted by saliva; and audiences are provided no legitimate explanation for this scientific evolution. Yes, such minimalist world-building is insufferably lazy, but these cultural and social developments rarely get a great deal of exposure in second-tier films. Such narrative progress takes too much investment; and, thus, narrators wing it. Thankfully, it’s only an annual occurrence – think The Purge but with teeth, fur, and fangs – but I’d imagine civilizations still ruins a vast number of wardrobes.
Molecular biologist Wesley Marshall (played by Frank Grillo) has his hands full on the cusp of the impending SuperMoon Event: not only is he tasked by the federal government to test the latest science designed to inhibit man’s transformation into this new strain of bloodthirsty werewolf but also he’s taken over stewardship of his late brother’s family – Lucy (Ilfenesh Hadera) and daughter Emma (Kamdynn Gary). Granted, he’s sealed them up in their house with every form of home protection he can think of; but he can’t shake that nagging feeling that something isn’t right. Duty calls, and he heads out to perform his service to mankind.
As tends to happen in B-Movies of this sort, the science goes awry – Moonscreen (in place of sunscreen) was likely only going to be minimally effective, am I right? Before you know it, the positive effects have worn off; and these test subjects transform right before Marshall’s eyes. On his way out the door and into the current devastation, he grabs fellow brainiac Dr. Amy Chen (Katrina Law), and he heads for the hills, hoping he can reach his family before these critters show up for dinner.
I suspect many showing up to Werewolves know fully what they’re in store for: it’s the usual race-against-the-clock where beasts provide both the impetus for showing up and paying attention. Humans always have and likely always will play second fiddle in these circumstances, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. The transformation sequences – while not groundbreaking in any respect – are serviceable, and the resulting mayhem once all turns to crap works just fine though likely won’t have viewers chatting this one up around the water cooler on Monday.
Sadly, screenwriter Matthew Kennedy’s story feels a bit incomplete presented entirely as is in the complete cut of the film.
The release strongly suggests that there’s more to the story involving a few of these characters – Miles Chen (James Kyson) and Amy’s personal relationship gets heavily truncated and seemingly disappears once he’s stricken by the SuperMoon, and Amy’s ‘vanishing sequence’ from the battle-raging streets plays like it was merely a set-up for a bigger payoff and yet we get nothing – and I can’t help but wonder what may’ve been lost at some point in the production process. There are also loose indications that some in this universe have entirely altered their living conditions – a group of folks seem to have taken up residence in underground tunnels – but it’s an idea that only serves a singular purpose and then vanishes, much like indigestion or the average rug burn. The fact that Marshall’s character arc turns out to be little more than a cinematic spat with his militiaman neighbor also cheapens what could’ve, would’ve, and/or should’ve been, but I suppose it works solely on the popcorn level for which this was all designed.
Werewolves (2024) was produced by Burke Management, Monty The Dog Productions, and Solution Entertainment Group. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Allied Vaugh. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to be respectably solid from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? All they thought fit to dish were a handful of deleted scenes. Meh. Little to no bite.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
A great many pictures come-and-go without leaving an imprint on the domestic box office, so that fact alone isn’t necessarily a qualifier on a story’s success; and, yet, I’m finding it hard to promote anything of substance in 2024’s kinda/sorta confusing Werewolves. To its benefit, screenwriter Kennedy tried to do something different with the mythology and director Miller capably drags audiences through some visual excitement; but this one never quite rises over that ‘movie of the week’ aesthetic that anchors a good many lesser outings to pay cable airings. While not a complete failure, it still brings nothing memorable to the party; and that’s its biggest shortcoming.
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 Werewolves (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
I suspect many showing up to Werewolves know fully what they’re in store for: it’s the usual race-against-the-clock where beasts provide both the impetus for showing up and paying attention. Humans always have and likely always will play second fiddle in these circumstances, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. The transformation sequences – while not groundbreaking in any respect – are serviceable, and the resulting mayhem once all turns to crap works just fine though likely won’t have viewers chatting this one up around the water cooler on Monday.
Sadly, screenwriter Matthew Kennedy’s story feels a bit incomplete presented entirely as is in the complete cut of the film.
The release strongly suggests that there’s more to the story involving a few of these characters – Miles Chen (James Kyson) and Amy’s personal relationship gets heavily truncated and seemingly disappears once he’s stricken by the SuperMoon, and Amy’s ‘vanishing sequence’ from the battle-raging streets plays like it was merely a set-up for a bigger payoff and yet we get nothing – and I can’t help but wonder what may’ve been lost at some point in the production process. There are also loose indications that some in this universe have entirely altered their living conditions – a group of folks seem to have taken up residence in underground tunnels – but it’s an idea that only serves a singular purpose and then vanishes, much like indigestion or the average rug burn. The fact that Marshall’s character arc turns out to be little more than a cinematic spat with his militiaman neighbor also cheapens what could’ve, would’ve, and/or should’ve been, but I suppose it works solely on the popcorn level for which this was all designed.
Werewolves (2024) was produced by Burke Management, Monty The Dog Productions, and Solution Entertainment Group. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Allied Vaugh. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to be respectably solid from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? All they thought fit to dish were a handful of deleted scenes. Meh. Little to no bite.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
A great many pictures come-and-go without leaving an imprint on the domestic box office, so that fact alone isn’t necessarily a qualifier on a story’s success; and, yet, I’m finding it hard to promote anything of substance in 2024’s kinda/sorta confusing Werewolves. To its benefit, screenwriter Kennedy tried to do something different with the mythology and director Miller capably drags audiences through some visual excitement; but this one never quite rises over that ‘movie of the week’ aesthetic that anchors a good many lesser outings to pay cable airings. While not a complete failure, it still brings nothing memorable to the party; and that’s its biggest shortcoming.
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 Werewolves (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
Star Trek: Generations (1994) has this one little moment that – for better or for worse – has always kept me from truly appreciating it.
For those of you who haven’t seen it, Generations is the film that Paramount Pictures crafted chiefly to be a “passing of the torch” from the classic era of Star Trek to TV’s Next Generation. To accomplish this, screenwriters Rick Berman, Ronald D. Moore, and Brannon Braga crafted a preamble focused on what audiences were led to believe would be the last adventure of Starfleet’s legendary Captain James T. Kirk. As bigger than life heroes always do on the silver screen, he went out saving the ship but – in the process – seemingly fell to a force vastly greater than he’d ever encountered before. It was called The Nexus, and it was something that transcended space and time.
This is where it gets a bit tricky for me.
In order to weave a compelling tale, Science Fiction and Fantasy stories do have to sometimes play fast and loose with the facts as conceived. Naturally, when you’re dealing with a phenomenon like The Nexus – something that’s a bit more magical than it is factual – then it helps to couch the supporting circumstances as close to reality as is possible so as to avoid having viewers ask too many questions about its functionality. Therein lay the problem for me because – in a short sequence – Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott announces that – according to his instruments – victims interacting with The Nexus had “their life signs phasing in and out of the space-time continuum.”
So, what was supposed to be a bit of a throwaway line establishing only how Kirk and company knew that the crew of a nearby ship were in danger ended up intellectually hijacking the film’s entire premise for me. Was I supposed to believe that a Federation starship had an instrument that measured not just the space-time continuum but also how individuals cooperated with it? How in the name of Gene Roddenberry would a scientist have invented and built such a gauge, and why in the name of all that is sacred and holy would that scientist have thought to place such a measure on the bridge of a starship? The existence of a device alone suggests that these people had quite possibly supplanted all the known laws of reality, and – having been a Trek enthusiast for decades – I knew nothing was further from the truth.
I bring this up because 2024’s Omni Loop offers a similar piece of scientific crackpottery. Written and directed by Bernardo Britto, the SciFi/Fantasy tells the story of a woman who is clinically diagnosed with a black hole growing inside of her. (Yes. You read that right.) Of course, it’s a terminal condition (duh), but it’s a conclusion delivered and handled as if it were entirely as commonplace as the seasonal flu. Knowing this isn’t the case, my mind immediately leapt into overdrive, and I began trying to fathom exactly how, when, where, and why modern science thought to study the existence of black holes not out there in the cosmos far and wide but, instead, trapped inside the breast of your average adult female.
Thankfully, I was eventually able to roll with the idea, and I’m glad I did. What emerges isn’t exactly what might be a winning tale of personal enlightenment for everyone, but it is very good in places. Despite the presence of a gravity sucking singularity, let’s just say that the picture’s heart was in the right place.
For those of you who haven’t seen it, Generations is the film that Paramount Pictures crafted chiefly to be a “passing of the torch” from the classic era of Star Trek to TV’s Next Generation. To accomplish this, screenwriters Rick Berman, Ronald D. Moore, and Brannon Braga crafted a preamble focused on what audiences were led to believe would be the last adventure of Starfleet’s legendary Captain James T. Kirk. As bigger than life heroes always do on the silver screen, he went out saving the ship but – in the process – seemingly fell to a force vastly greater than he’d ever encountered before. It was called The Nexus, and it was something that transcended space and time.
This is where it gets a bit tricky for me.
In order to weave a compelling tale, Science Fiction and Fantasy stories do have to sometimes play fast and loose with the facts as conceived. Naturally, when you’re dealing with a phenomenon like The Nexus – something that’s a bit more magical than it is factual – then it helps to couch the supporting circumstances as close to reality as is possible so as to avoid having viewers ask too many questions about its functionality. Therein lay the problem for me because – in a short sequence – Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott announces that – according to his instruments – victims interacting with The Nexus had “their life signs phasing in and out of the space-time continuum.”
So, what was supposed to be a bit of a throwaway line establishing only how Kirk and company knew that the crew of a nearby ship were in danger ended up intellectually hijacking the film’s entire premise for me. Was I supposed to believe that a Federation starship had an instrument that measured not just the space-time continuum but also how individuals cooperated with it? How in the name of Gene Roddenberry would a scientist have invented and built such a gauge, and why in the name of all that is sacred and holy would that scientist have thought to place such a measure on the bridge of a starship? The existence of a device alone suggests that these people had quite possibly supplanted all the known laws of reality, and – having been a Trek enthusiast for decades – I knew nothing was further from the truth.
I bring this up because 2024’s Omni Loop offers a similar piece of scientific crackpottery. Written and directed by Bernardo Britto, the SciFi/Fantasy tells the story of a woman who is clinically diagnosed with a black hole growing inside of her. (Yes. You read that right.) Of course, it’s a terminal condition (duh), but it’s a conclusion delivered and handled as if it were entirely as commonplace as the seasonal flu. Knowing this isn’t the case, my mind immediately leapt into overdrive, and I began trying to fathom exactly how, when, where, and why modern science thought to study the existence of black holes not out there in the cosmos far and wide but, instead, trapped inside the breast of your average adult female.
Thankfully, I was eventually able to roll with the idea, and I’m glad I did. What emerges isn’t exactly what might be a winning tale of personal enlightenment for everyone, but it is very good in places. Despite the presence of a gravity sucking singularity, let’s just say that the picture’s heart was in the right place.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A woman from Miami, Florida decides to solve time travel in order to go back and be the person she always intended to.”
A wise man once suggested that life is best lived in the moment. When you spend time searching for greater meaning, then you run the risk of missing a good deal of what makes an experience singularly interesting all on its own. Regrets might begin to pile up, and none of us should want to meet his or her maker with such considerations weighing down our mortal souls.
Former researcher and present author Zoya Lowe (Mary-Louise Parker) – along with her professional partner husband Donald (Carlos Jacott) – lived a life trying to provide answers to those who’d come looking through her written works, textbooks, and more. Though she hasn’t quite reached the level of personal success she once believed she was capable of, Lowe persevered the way a good worker does. Now that she’s been given that fateful ‘end of life counseling’ each and every one of us must certainly hear – the one wherein a person learns there are only a few days of life remaining – she finally asks what it all means and decides to do something about it.
However, the truth is that Lowe has already lived a life in pursuits of answers: the problem is that she’s been asking all of the wrong questions.
When she was but twelve years old, the young girl was gifted with a prescription bottle bearing her name that’s been filled with pills that – when ingested – magically allow a person to travel back in time five days. Because such trips return the user to a point wherein no pill has been taken, the girl virtually maintains an endless supply of this miraculous medicine. Eventually, we learn that Lowe has used it at different points in her life trying to correct events that she feels went awry, though it would seem that she’s still arrived at her end stage with little to nothing to show for the efforts. Though the script never clarifies the cause of her dire medical circumstance, a reasonable person might conclude that messing with the laws of time and space comes with a price; and perhaps the growing black hole threatening to swallow her whole is the consequence of tempting fate.
Like Bill Murray spends an inconceivable number of attempts reliving Groundhog Day (1993), Lowe, too, traffics in like-minded territory. The audience is spirited along her personal vision quest, watching as she tries against all odds to crack the science that gave her this special ability to beat the clock believing there must be a way to, perhaps, start everything over and do things differently. Eventually, she joins forces with a young research aide – Paula (Ayo Edebiri) – who shares in the enthusiasm to learn the ultimate ‘life hack’; and it’s their relationship that gives Omni Loop a great deal of its best moments.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A woman from Miami, Florida decides to solve time travel in order to go back and be the person she always intended to.”
A wise man once suggested that life is best lived in the moment. When you spend time searching for greater meaning, then you run the risk of missing a good deal of what makes an experience singularly interesting all on its own. Regrets might begin to pile up, and none of us should want to meet his or her maker with such considerations weighing down our mortal souls.
Former researcher and present author Zoya Lowe (Mary-Louise Parker) – along with her professional partner husband Donald (Carlos Jacott) – lived a life trying to provide answers to those who’d come looking through her written works, textbooks, and more. Though she hasn’t quite reached the level of personal success she once believed she was capable of, Lowe persevered the way a good worker does. Now that she’s been given that fateful ‘end of life counseling’ each and every one of us must certainly hear – the one wherein a person learns there are only a few days of life remaining – she finally asks what it all means and decides to do something about it.
However, the truth is that Lowe has already lived a life in pursuits of answers: the problem is that she’s been asking all of the wrong questions.
When she was but twelve years old, the young girl was gifted with a prescription bottle bearing her name that’s been filled with pills that – when ingested – magically allow a person to travel back in time five days. Because such trips return the user to a point wherein no pill has been taken, the girl virtually maintains an endless supply of this miraculous medicine. Eventually, we learn that Lowe has used it at different points in her life trying to correct events that she feels went awry, though it would seem that she’s still arrived at her end stage with little to nothing to show for the efforts. Though the script never clarifies the cause of her dire medical circumstance, a reasonable person might conclude that messing with the laws of time and space comes with a price; and perhaps the growing black hole threatening to swallow her whole is the consequence of tempting fate.
Like Bill Murray spends an inconceivable number of attempts reliving Groundhog Day (1993), Lowe, too, traffics in like-minded territory. The audience is spirited along her personal vision quest, watching as she tries against all odds to crack the science that gave her this special ability to beat the clock believing there must be a way to, perhaps, start everything over and do things differently. Eventually, she joins forces with a young research aide – Paula (Ayo Edebiri) – who shares in the enthusiasm to learn the ultimate ‘life hack’; and it’s their relationship that gives Omni Loop a great deal of its best moments.
Still, Loop feels surprisingly hollow at times to the point wherein I’m not convinced Britto brought all of its pieces to the completed whole. The story at several points strongly suggests that vastly more was going on at the cosmic level than the director would have you superficially believe. In fact, I began to wonder if Lowe might've emerged as a better person had she been put on this journey by another party, and I’m happy to explain.
It isn’t until after Lowe’s Sisyphean trial is fully established that she meets Paula. Literally, the two collide at a nursing home (our lead’s mother is a resident of the place); and the young woman carries with her one of the author’s earlier textbooks. Their encounter would be otherwise unspectacular except for the fact that Lowe states that this is the first time in all of her hundreds if not thousands of iterations of living and reliving these specific five days in which Paula appeared. Are we to accept that such an appearance – which never happened before – was mere chance? Or did someone manipulate it? (Don’t answer that now, folks, as there’s more.)
Once Paula and Lowe join forces, the research aide takes the author to the local community college where she has a key to a lab which grants them access to just the equipment they need to begin their investigation of substance-fueled time travel. Here, again, Lowe comes face-to-face with another specialist we learn is key to her journey: Professor Duselberg (Harris Yulin) – one of her former collegiate sponsors – is spending his golden years conveniently in a post wherein he can now both challenge her to best instincts as well as provide a key piece of information necessary to fulfill the final leg of her personal journey. Again, are we to accept this as the luck of the draw, or is there someone working behind the scenes? (Again: don’t answer that. Yet. But get ready.)
Eventually, Lowe decides that her love of a former partner – Mark (Eddie Cahill) – is the answer that she seeks; and it’s here that Duselberg was able to point her in the right direction. To her disappointment, she learns that the man has tragically passed away but managed to secure and hold on to all of the research she’d previously amassed regarding time travel. Though she has no means to achieve closure on matters of the heart, she’s thankful to have her journals again because she firmly believes the answers are in there. Once more – and perhaps definitively, at this point – we see the suggestion that someone somewhere in all of the universe has put her on this path … and (now you can safely answer) this is where it’s pretty clear that someone is herself.
Sadly, I don’t think we needed nearly 120 minutes for such a rather obvious reveal.
Had the kind-hearted culprit been some other person – say Mark had survived in some reality and had planted this evidence to put her back on track to find himself even though he had now passed over, or perhaps even Paula from the future who finally cracked the puzzle and went back in time to tie such loose ends up – then all of this might’ve resonated as a journey a bit more strongly. When the shortest distance between two points is a line, Britto chooses instead to take the audience into a corn maze wherein we end at the exact same place we started; and that feels … well … artificial. In other words, this isn’t so much traveling in a line as it is standing at and achieving the same spot despite all of the mileage; and I’m questioning if all of it was purposefully necessary.
It isn’t until after Lowe’s Sisyphean trial is fully established that she meets Paula. Literally, the two collide at a nursing home (our lead’s mother is a resident of the place); and the young woman carries with her one of the author’s earlier textbooks. Their encounter would be otherwise unspectacular except for the fact that Lowe states that this is the first time in all of her hundreds if not thousands of iterations of living and reliving these specific five days in which Paula appeared. Are we to accept that such an appearance – which never happened before – was mere chance? Or did someone manipulate it? (Don’t answer that now, folks, as there’s more.)
Once Paula and Lowe join forces, the research aide takes the author to the local community college where she has a key to a lab which grants them access to just the equipment they need to begin their investigation of substance-fueled time travel. Here, again, Lowe comes face-to-face with another specialist we learn is key to her journey: Professor Duselberg (Harris Yulin) – one of her former collegiate sponsors – is spending his golden years conveniently in a post wherein he can now both challenge her to best instincts as well as provide a key piece of information necessary to fulfill the final leg of her personal journey. Again, are we to accept this as the luck of the draw, or is there someone working behind the scenes? (Again: don’t answer that. Yet. But get ready.)
Eventually, Lowe decides that her love of a former partner – Mark (Eddie Cahill) – is the answer that she seeks; and it’s here that Duselberg was able to point her in the right direction. To her disappointment, she learns that the man has tragically passed away but managed to secure and hold on to all of the research she’d previously amassed regarding time travel. Though she has no means to achieve closure on matters of the heart, she’s thankful to have her journals again because she firmly believes the answers are in there. Once more – and perhaps definitively, at this point – we see the suggestion that someone somewhere in all of the universe has put her on this path … and (now you can safely answer) this is where it’s pretty clear that someone is herself.
Sadly, I don’t think we needed nearly 120 minutes for such a rather obvious reveal.
Had the kind-hearted culprit been some other person – say Mark had survived in some reality and had planted this evidence to put her back on track to find himself even though he had now passed over, or perhaps even Paula from the future who finally cracked the puzzle and went back in time to tie such loose ends up – then all of this might’ve resonated as a journey a bit more strongly. When the shortest distance between two points is a line, Britto chooses instead to take the audience into a corn maze wherein we end at the exact same place we started; and that feels … well … artificial. In other words, this isn’t so much traveling in a line as it is standing at and achieving the same spot despite all of the mileage; and I’m questioning if all of it was purposefully necessary.
Britto also utilizes another metaphor to underscore that some of us might not be destined to achieve so much as a footnote in the history books: Paula introduces Lowe to ‘the nanoscopic man,’ a subject who volunteered for reduction to microscopic levels apparently for no better reason than science figured out a way to accomplish such a thing. Sadly, the process went awry, leaving this now unseen person in a state of perpetually miniaturization but still with the ability to communicate via technology. (Our leading ladies use him to analyze the magic pills at the atomic level.) Like this man, it’s suggested that we’re all on the path to obscurity, a concept that was dealt with more transcendentally in 1957’s The Incredible Shrinking Man. There, such a state resulted in bliss. Here, it really only underscores our quintessential uselessness when confronting cosmic forces bigger and more complex than we are.
The problem with a film like Omni Loop is that one’s assessment of it is ultimately owed to the key factor of whether or not the viewer interprets our time traveler’s lesson learned as authentic or not; and, frankly, I didn’t. In other words, the narrative payoff didn’t match or exceed the required investment.
Zoya Lowe takes what could be an endlessly circuitous route to essentially arrive at a point that I think a great many of us probably already expected: there’s no outrunning fate. No matter how well Parker’s work as our leading lady is, that fact alone – the ‘how did she not see this coming’ reality or the ‘haven’t we been here before’ effect – will likely produce mixed results at best. As a person, she’s rather contemptible. She seems to loathe her husband, her daughter, and her son-in-law. Why, she spends the bulk of her personal story running away from her family, those the rest of us would be thankful to share our final moments with. To her, they’re expendable if not downright replaceable. She even chases down a long-lost love in her quest to find meaning, and it’s only after she learns that he’s dead and gone that she inevitably realizes that maybe contentment starts with living within one’s means instead of embracing a potentially hollow dream.
Of course, a great deal of her motivation is tied to her circumstances. There’s no denying that Lowe might not be of the right mind; as such, it might be easy to see the how and the why of her plight to not so much withdraw as it is to escape what she sees as a bitter final chapter. My point is that living one’s best life and living one’s best end are not necessarily synonymous; and this suggests to me that this scientist needed more grounding in humanity. They call them ‘hollow pursuits’ for a reason. While I do appreciate that she learned something in those last days lived on repeat for what could’ve been a billion times, was that simple truth really that difficult to learn for one of the supposed best and brightest?
The problem with a film like Omni Loop is that one’s assessment of it is ultimately owed to the key factor of whether or not the viewer interprets our time traveler’s lesson learned as authentic or not; and, frankly, I didn’t. In other words, the narrative payoff didn’t match or exceed the required investment.
Zoya Lowe takes what could be an endlessly circuitous route to essentially arrive at a point that I think a great many of us probably already expected: there’s no outrunning fate. No matter how well Parker’s work as our leading lady is, that fact alone – the ‘how did she not see this coming’ reality or the ‘haven’t we been here before’ effect – will likely produce mixed results at best. As a person, she’s rather contemptible. She seems to loathe her husband, her daughter, and her son-in-law. Why, she spends the bulk of her personal story running away from her family, those the rest of us would be thankful to share our final moments with. To her, they’re expendable if not downright replaceable. She even chases down a long-lost love in her quest to find meaning, and it’s only after she learns that he’s dead and gone that she inevitably realizes that maybe contentment starts with living within one’s means instead of embracing a potentially hollow dream.
Of course, a great deal of her motivation is tied to her circumstances. There’s no denying that Lowe might not be of the right mind; as such, it might be easy to see the how and the why of her plight to not so much withdraw as it is to escape what she sees as a bitter final chapter. My point is that living one’s best life and living one’s best end are not necessarily synonymous; and this suggests to me that this scientist needed more grounding in humanity. They call them ‘hollow pursuits’ for a reason. While I do appreciate that she learned something in those last days lived on repeat for what could’ve been a billion times, was that simple truth really that difficult to learn for one of the supposed best and brightest?
Perhaps if the character had started out a bit more obviously cynically jaded or more worn down from the effects of her prolonged journey, her epiphany – that the ones closest to us do matter most – could’ve had a bit more meaning once reached. Yet, it didn’t, so I didn’t feel as strongly as I should have in spite of the heart-tugging twist or two delivered expertly in the end. Good moments will always be good moments, especially when they’re brought to life by an actress as accomplished as Parker … but truly great stories are increasingly difficult to find.
Omni Loop (2024) was produced by 2AM, Killer Films, and Lou Filmproduction. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the accompanying sights and sounds to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, what a big, big, big miss as the disc boasts absolutely nothing. A massive disappointment for this guy as I definitely would’ve liked to have had more.
Recommended.
Once again, I may’ve ‘overthunk’ it all, but that’s the risks one takes with stories like Omni Loop (2024). Some of us look for meaning in places where none is intended – Lowe shows us that isn’t exactly time well spent – and the reward for such pursuits rarely if ever is divine existence. Of course, this is the movies; and that’s a place wherein almost everyone these days expects a happy ending even when none is possible. If it’s a loop you want, then you definitely have one here, though I can’t help but wonder how many feel a bit disenfranchised with the destination.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Omni Loop (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
Omni Loop (2024) was produced by 2AM, Killer Films, and Lou Filmproduction. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the accompanying sights and sounds to be quite good from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, what a big, big, big miss as the disc boasts absolutely nothing. A massive disappointment for this guy as I definitely would’ve liked to have had more.
Recommended.
Once again, I may’ve ‘overthunk’ it all, but that’s the risks one takes with stories like Omni Loop (2024). Some of us look for meaning in places where none is intended – Lowe shows us that isn’t exactly time well spent – and the reward for such pursuits rarely if ever is divine existence. Of course, this is the movies; and that’s a place wherein almost everyone these days expects a happy ending even when none is possible. If it’s a loop you want, then you definitely have one here, though I can’t help but wonder how many feel a bit disenfranchised with the destination.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Omni Loop (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
In this day and age, ghost stories can be a tough sell.
After all, we’ve seen it all before, haven’t we? From poltergeists to just your average run-of-the-mill specter, ghosts have filled screens big and small in, likely, thousands of adventures. Because there have been so many major motion pictures releases as well as any number of direct-to-DVD properties to explore all of these nether worldly shenanigans, audiences have grown accustomed to spotting the stitches on the fast ball. No doubt even Casper himself – herself? Itself? – would find unemployment a dull existence given the amount of merriment that would be sacrificed in the big loss.
Still, there’s praise to be earned for even modest, workmanlike productions like We Are Still Here (2015). Written and directed by Ted Geoghegan, the chiller starred Andrew Sensenig, Larry Fessenden, Monte Markham, Barbara Crampton, and Lisa Marie in big roles. While it may not be the most original experience you’ll have with spooks this year, it may be one of the most committed to its premise, and that should say something positive.
(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:
“After their teenage son is killed in a car crash, Paul and Anne moves to the New England countryside to try to start a new life. But the grieving couple unknowingly becomes the prey of a family of vengeful spirits that reside in their new home, and before long they discover that the seemingly peaceful town is hiding a terrifying dark secret …”
There’s a bit more, but I’ll leave it at that as I think that really sums up We Are Still Here quite effectively without tripping over any of this tale’s various reveals.
Writer/director Geoghegan obviously worked very hard here at capturing a very particular tale with some very particular atmosphere, though I’ll admit I wasn’t convinced he did it as efficiently as he could. The problem (so far as I saw it) is that – for reasons that are never quite clear to the narrative – he invests an awful lot of time and effort in trying to recreate a perhaps too particular rural setting. At times, it’s perceived as barren in much the same way the Coen brothers did in Fargo (1996); and at other times it just comes off as quirky camera angles capturing scenes we’ve otherwise seen before, not meant to necessarily convey any mood or effect but rather show a microcosm of a larger world as slightly askew.
Well, the problem there is that the audience soon learns that this world isn’t slightly askew in the slightest; it’s massively askew. Decidedly persistently askew. Perhaps the textbook definition of ‘askew.’ Once it’s been clearly established, the visual trickery becomes completely unnecessary, almost doubling down on something watchers already know full well. So what’s with the pervasive quirky camera angles, Ted?
Often times, I’m maligned as a critic who invests occasionally too much time into such minutiae, and – while that might sometimes be correct – I’d argue I’m on the money here. We Are Still Here works best when it centers in the here and now – this broken couple trying to put their lives back together after a tragic lost being while being forced to endure something dark and sinister – and those scenes do have some terrific merit here. While a few of the sequences felt a bit derivative of ‘scares’ explored in other pictures (1980’s The Changeling, 1982’s Poltergeist, etc.), there’s still enough substance here to keep true Horror fans watching, though they might nitpick the secondary characters who are far too ‘stock’ than they needed to be.
And how about that Barbara Crampton?
One of the great subversive scream queens from 80’s cult cinema, she manages to inject some life into even the smallest moments here, even when she trapped with nothing more than the most melancholy and predictable reflections of a grieving parent. This being the genre that perhaps she knows best, it’s great to see her turning in work that’s still admirable after a few decades. Also, it’s great to see the screen veteran Monte Markham turning in some great work at this seasoned point in his professional career. He plays the town patriarch with a bit too much first-hand knowledge of the local mythology the way an acting great would. Kudos on his casting.
In the end, We Are Still Here might not be as tight a Halloween thrill as all intended. Not every question is answered, and not every moment makes perfect narrative sense. As I said, even a few sequences weren’t as fresh as I’d hoped … but the cast and crew managed to dish out enough authentic old-school chills to keep my interest.
We Are Still Here (2015) is produced by Snowfort Pictures and Dark Sky Films. DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable Dark Sky Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the film peppered with as much good, atmospheric cinematography as it is some of the more dull and dreary frame caps – not entirely certain there was a consistent message inherent in either focus – and some of the sequences ‘feel’ a bit longer than necessary (as the point was made). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you do have a commentary along with the usual behind-the-scenes and trailers to look forward to. Enjoy … and bon appetite!
Recommended.
By golly, Barbara Crampton is still worth the price of admission to look at in this sometimes middle-of-the-road but sometimes pedal-to-the-metal chiller. We Are Still Here (2015) ain’t perfect, though its aims are pure: this is all meant to scare you – the viewers – be it visually or in your very own mind’s eye. Granted, it takes a few short cuts to get there (when travelling the long route might’ve been more fulfilling), but it serves up a pretty convincing ghost story using all of its 83 minutes.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with a Blu ray of We Are Still Here (2015) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
After all, we’ve seen it all before, haven’t we? From poltergeists to just your average run-of-the-mill specter, ghosts have filled screens big and small in, likely, thousands of adventures. Because there have been so many major motion pictures releases as well as any number of direct-to-DVD properties to explore all of these nether worldly shenanigans, audiences have grown accustomed to spotting the stitches on the fast ball. No doubt even Casper himself – herself? Itself? – would find unemployment a dull existence given the amount of merriment that would be sacrificed in the big loss.
Still, there’s praise to be earned for even modest, workmanlike productions like We Are Still Here (2015). Written and directed by Ted Geoghegan, the chiller starred Andrew Sensenig, Larry Fessenden, Monte Markham, Barbara Crampton, and Lisa Marie in big roles. While it may not be the most original experience you’ll have with spooks this year, it may be one of the most committed to its premise, and that should say something positive.
(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:
“After their teenage son is killed in a car crash, Paul and Anne moves to the New England countryside to try to start a new life. But the grieving couple unknowingly becomes the prey of a family of vengeful spirits that reside in their new home, and before long they discover that the seemingly peaceful town is hiding a terrifying dark secret …”
There’s a bit more, but I’ll leave it at that as I think that really sums up We Are Still Here quite effectively without tripping over any of this tale’s various reveals.
Writer/director Geoghegan obviously worked very hard here at capturing a very particular tale with some very particular atmosphere, though I’ll admit I wasn’t convinced he did it as efficiently as he could. The problem (so far as I saw it) is that – for reasons that are never quite clear to the narrative – he invests an awful lot of time and effort in trying to recreate a perhaps too particular rural setting. At times, it’s perceived as barren in much the same way the Coen brothers did in Fargo (1996); and at other times it just comes off as quirky camera angles capturing scenes we’ve otherwise seen before, not meant to necessarily convey any mood or effect but rather show a microcosm of a larger world as slightly askew.
Well, the problem there is that the audience soon learns that this world isn’t slightly askew in the slightest; it’s massively askew. Decidedly persistently askew. Perhaps the textbook definition of ‘askew.’ Once it’s been clearly established, the visual trickery becomes completely unnecessary, almost doubling down on something watchers already know full well. So what’s with the pervasive quirky camera angles, Ted?
Often times, I’m maligned as a critic who invests occasionally too much time into such minutiae, and – while that might sometimes be correct – I’d argue I’m on the money here. We Are Still Here works best when it centers in the here and now – this broken couple trying to put their lives back together after a tragic lost being while being forced to endure something dark and sinister – and those scenes do have some terrific merit here. While a few of the sequences felt a bit derivative of ‘scares’ explored in other pictures (1980’s The Changeling, 1982’s Poltergeist, etc.), there’s still enough substance here to keep true Horror fans watching, though they might nitpick the secondary characters who are far too ‘stock’ than they needed to be.
And how about that Barbara Crampton?
One of the great subversive scream queens from 80’s cult cinema, she manages to inject some life into even the smallest moments here, even when she trapped with nothing more than the most melancholy and predictable reflections of a grieving parent. This being the genre that perhaps she knows best, it’s great to see her turning in work that’s still admirable after a few decades. Also, it’s great to see the screen veteran Monte Markham turning in some great work at this seasoned point in his professional career. He plays the town patriarch with a bit too much first-hand knowledge of the local mythology the way an acting great would. Kudos on his casting.
In the end, We Are Still Here might not be as tight a Halloween thrill as all intended. Not every question is answered, and not every moment makes perfect narrative sense. As I said, even a few sequences weren’t as fresh as I’d hoped … but the cast and crew managed to dish out enough authentic old-school chills to keep my interest.
We Are Still Here (2015) is produced by Snowfort Pictures and Dark Sky Films. DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable Dark Sky Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the film peppered with as much good, atmospheric cinematography as it is some of the more dull and dreary frame caps – not entirely certain there was a consistent message inherent in either focus – and some of the sequences ‘feel’ a bit longer than necessary (as the point was made). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you do have a commentary along with the usual behind-the-scenes and trailers to look forward to. Enjoy … and bon appetite!
Recommended.
By golly, Barbara Crampton is still worth the price of admission to look at in this sometimes middle-of-the-road but sometimes pedal-to-the-metal chiller. We Are Still Here (2015) ain’t perfect, though its aims are pure: this is all meant to scare you – the viewers – be it visually or in your very own mind’s eye. Granted, it takes a few short cuts to get there (when travelling the long route might’ve been more fulfilling), but it serves up a pretty convincing ghost story using all of its 83 minutes.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with a Blu ray of We Are Still Here (2015) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Horror and Science Fiction can make for a difficult combination, but there's no denying that these two genres can occasionally come together and produce something special.
Now, I've absolutely no way of knowing whether or not lightning will strike for Ash. According to the press materials I've been supplied this morning, this impressive-looking flick will make its big screen debut for audiences of the popular SXSW Film Festival (March 7 - 15) in Austin, Texas; and maybe -- just maybe -- then we'll all know if it could be the 'next big thing' based solely on the word of mouth. While I'm not a huge fan of festival traffic, I'm nonetheless tickled pink that more and more and more of them do seem to highlight some very solid adventures set in the realms of the Fantastic. Given that this time of year tends to find audiences mired in a great amount of mediocre offerings from studios and independents, I'll keep my fingers crossed that this one might be a winner. The trailer has a solid feel to it, and that should count for something.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A woman wakes up on a distant planet and finds the crew of her space station viciously killed. Her investigation into what happened sets in motion a terrifying chain of events."
Also according to the movie database, the film is directed by White Lotus, the Grammy-nominated artist who apparently has skills beyond just his music. His IMDB.com profile shows a handful of directing gigs -- small stuff, mostly, but that doesn't mean anything -- and perhaps this might be an impressive feature debut. It's scripted by Jonni Remmler, a name I'm entirely unfamiliar with and has little information available on the Information Superhighway. The cast includes Eiza González (2021's Godzilla Vs. Kong, 2024's The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare), Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad), and Iko Uwais (2017's Beyond Skyline, 2023's The Expendables 4).
As a service, I'm doing the copy-and-paste of the press release provided to me via a distributor relationship. The trailer will follow.
You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Now, I've absolutely no way of knowing whether or not lightning will strike for Ash. According to the press materials I've been supplied this morning, this impressive-looking flick will make its big screen debut for audiences of the popular SXSW Film Festival (March 7 - 15) in Austin, Texas; and maybe -- just maybe -- then we'll all know if it could be the 'next big thing' based solely on the word of mouth. While I'm not a huge fan of festival traffic, I'm nonetheless tickled pink that more and more and more of them do seem to highlight some very solid adventures set in the realms of the Fantastic. Given that this time of year tends to find audiences mired in a great amount of mediocre offerings from studios and independents, I'll keep my fingers crossed that this one might be a winner. The trailer has a solid feel to it, and that should count for something.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A woman wakes up on a distant planet and finds the crew of her space station viciously killed. Her investigation into what happened sets in motion a terrifying chain of events."
Also according to the movie database, the film is directed by White Lotus, the Grammy-nominated artist who apparently has skills beyond just his music. His IMDB.com profile shows a handful of directing gigs -- small stuff, mostly, but that doesn't mean anything -- and perhaps this might be an impressive feature debut. It's scripted by Jonni Remmler, a name I'm entirely unfamiliar with and has little information available on the Information Superhighway. The cast includes Eiza González (2021's Godzilla Vs. Kong, 2024's The Ministry Of Ungentlemanly Warfare), Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad), and Iko Uwais (2017's Beyond Skyline, 2023's The Expendables 4).
As a service, I'm doing the copy-and-paste of the press release provided to me via a distributor relationship. The trailer will follow.
You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
ASH will have its World Premiere at SXSW
IN THEATERS MARCH 21, 2025
Synopsis: On the mysterious planet of Ash, Riya (González) awakens to find her crew slaughtered. When a man named Brion (Paul) arrives to rescue her, an ordeal of psychological and physical terror ensues while Riya and Brion must decide if they can trust one another to survive.
Directed and Composed by Flying Lotus
Written by Jonni Remmler
Producers: Nate Bolotin, Mathew Metcalfe
Executive Producers: Nick Spicer, Maxime Cottray, Aram Tertzakian, Maile Daughtery, Flying Lotus, Neill Blomkamp, Dave Brown, Adam Riback
Director of Photography: Ross McGarva
Edited by: Bryan Shaw
Starring Eiza González, Aaron Paul, Iko Uwais, Kate Elliott, Beulah Koale, and Flying Lotus
Directed and Composed by Flying Lotus
Written by Jonni Remmler
Producers: Nate Bolotin, Mathew Metcalfe
Executive Producers: Nick Spicer, Maxime Cottray, Aram Tertzakian, Maile Daughtery, Flying Lotus, Neill Blomkamp, Dave Brown, Adam Riback
Director of Photography: Ross McGarva
Edited by: Bryan Shaw
Starring Eiza González, Aaron Paul, Iko Uwais, Kate Elliott, Beulah Koale, and Flying Lotus
- Published on
For those of us who watch a lot of schlock, the name of Jim Wynorski rustles up a lot of mixed feelings.
Boasting an astonishing library of well over one hundred different titles, the writer, director, and producer has dabbled in everything from Science Fiction to Horror to Fantasy and even Pornography … though I’ve been told that by authentic pornographic standards his efforts are a bit light. Following in the footsteps of the great B-movie king Roger Corman, Wynorski pushed the boundaries of what audiences expect from these less-than-tentpole features, even turning out some notable small screen parodies that took swipes at projects mainstream viewers embraced. With that much production under his belt, it should go without saying that not all of it has been perfect; and yet he continues to deliver perfectly well enough to keep folks watching, laughing, celebrating, and promoting (via word-of-mouth) a great deal of what exists in his still growing catalogue.
My point in all of this isn’t to admonish the man in any way. I’ve seen a fair share of his wares; and though I may not exactly give any of them an enthusiastic ‘thumbs up’ I’m still convinced that – in some small way – my life is better for having been entertained. I laugh at a good deal of what he’s done, but it isn’t harmful or hurtful in any estimation. In some ways, I’m surprised with just what he can get away with: this and that wouldn’t work in a Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, or even Alfred Hitchcock picture, and yet there are moments in his efforts that feel like they very much have been drawn from that same inspiration. Cheaply? Sure. Shamelessly? Possibly. Gratuitously? Who’s to say? But it’s no less effective. It works. It just looks far more affordable. By community theater standards.
This is why I rarely pass up an opportunity to explore yet one more outing of his when they’re offered, so when a distributor ponied up Wynorski’s latest and greatest – 2024’s DinoGator – I just couldn’t say no. (Yes, I thought about it twice.) Written by Blake Miller, the Monster movie stars Michael Madsen, Paul Logan, Jesse Bernstein, Lauren Parkinson, and Aaron Groben in key roles; it explores what happens when a mutated reptile – part snake, part alligator – gets loose and terrorizes the backwoods Florida swamps. A great deal of it is derivative to the point wherein you might think you’ve seen it before … but rest assured that you haven’t seen it done schlocktacularly until you’ve seen it under the Wynorski imprimatur!
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary for 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 minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Boasting an astonishing library of well over one hundred different titles, the writer, director, and producer has dabbled in everything from Science Fiction to Horror to Fantasy and even Pornography … though I’ve been told that by authentic pornographic standards his efforts are a bit light. Following in the footsteps of the great B-movie king Roger Corman, Wynorski pushed the boundaries of what audiences expect from these less-than-tentpole features, even turning out some notable small screen parodies that took swipes at projects mainstream viewers embraced. With that much production under his belt, it should go without saying that not all of it has been perfect; and yet he continues to deliver perfectly well enough to keep folks watching, laughing, celebrating, and promoting (via word-of-mouth) a great deal of what exists in his still growing catalogue.
My point in all of this isn’t to admonish the man in any way. I’ve seen a fair share of his wares; and though I may not exactly give any of them an enthusiastic ‘thumbs up’ I’m still convinced that – in some small way – my life is better for having been entertained. I laugh at a good deal of what he’s done, but it isn’t harmful or hurtful in any estimation. In some ways, I’m surprised with just what he can get away with: this and that wouldn’t work in a Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, or even Alfred Hitchcock picture, and yet there are moments in his efforts that feel like they very much have been drawn from that same inspiration. Cheaply? Sure. Shamelessly? Possibly. Gratuitously? Who’s to say? But it’s no less effective. It works. It just looks far more affordable. By community theater standards.
This is why I rarely pass up an opportunity to explore yet one more outing of his when they’re offered, so when a distributor ponied up Wynorski’s latest and greatest – 2024’s DinoGator – I just couldn’t say no. (Yes, I thought about it twice.) Written by Blake Miller, the Monster movie stars Michael Madsen, Paul Logan, Jesse Bernstein, Lauren Parkinson, and Aaron Groben in key roles; it explores what happens when a mutated reptile – part snake, part alligator – gets loose and terrorizes the backwoods Florida swamps. A great deal of it is derivative to the point wherein you might think you’ve seen it before … but rest assured that you haven’t seen it done schlocktacularly until you’ve seen it under the Wynorski imprimatur!
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary for 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 minor hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A hip rock band films a music video and unknowingly disturbs a cryptic creature.”
Sometimes, a little history goes a long way.
For example, it might interest some readers to know that DinoGator is, in fact, not a new movie. Although it’s hitting the DVD and streaming shelves presently in 2025, the truth is that it originally sprang into its fertile existence back in 2015 under the name of CobraGator – a title some might suggest vastly more fitting given the seminal creature’s design – when it aired on the SciFi (aka Syfy) Channel said to have been produced by Roger Corman. (I have been unable to confirm Corman’s involvement in my research though he is cited on the flick’s IMDB.com page.) Apparently, the picture was shelved after that broadcast, but I’ve read an online petition was created sometime in 2020 calling for it to be available on home video.
Ask and you shall receive … but always remember to be careful what you wish for, folks.
While others in the critical community might insist that the film is not up to snuff, there’s always been an audience – perhaps not all that large – for such saccharin and derivative fare. Though not quite a traditional Monster movie, it borrows a few of the tropes in order to get its feet off the ground … or should that be ‘slithering?’ Though not quite a full-bodied Horror, Miller’s script still falls back on casting a group of young and naïve men and women to chiefly end up as monster chow before the last reel. And though there’s the hint of some dastardly mad science having taken place to get us where we are when the picture begins, absolutely none of it is seen onscreen so we’ll have to take their word for it as to just how, when, where, and why this hungry beast came into existence.
Plus … that deadly science?
Well, that occurs offscreen, we’re told. Long before this story begins. Such trickery would’ve been cost prohibitive, so it’s covered here in exposition that’s even shockingly economical.
Structurally, DinoGator isn’t all that different from Gojira (1954), The Fly (1986), or even Jurassic Park (1993). All of these features begin under the rubric of ‘science gone awry’ where mankind’s tinkering winds up instigating the potential for the end to life as we know it, only then to have our heroes big and small spending the better part of 90-minutes running from it before, ultimately, vanquishing the foe in the climax. That’s the formula, and it works nearly every time it’s applied. So, yes, all of that happens here. Make no mistake: Wynorski knows full well what cloth he’s spinning in his magic-making machine. The biggest difference here – aside from the vastly different production budgets – is that there are no current marquee heavyweights in the cast, so audiences have to make do with some relative unknowns or thereabouts.
“A hip rock band films a music video and unknowingly disturbs a cryptic creature.”
Sometimes, a little history goes a long way.
For example, it might interest some readers to know that DinoGator is, in fact, not a new movie. Although it’s hitting the DVD and streaming shelves presently in 2025, the truth is that it originally sprang into its fertile existence back in 2015 under the name of CobraGator – a title some might suggest vastly more fitting given the seminal creature’s design – when it aired on the SciFi (aka Syfy) Channel said to have been produced by Roger Corman. (I have been unable to confirm Corman’s involvement in my research though he is cited on the flick’s IMDB.com page.) Apparently, the picture was shelved after that broadcast, but I’ve read an online petition was created sometime in 2020 calling for it to be available on home video.
Ask and you shall receive … but always remember to be careful what you wish for, folks.
While others in the critical community might insist that the film is not up to snuff, there’s always been an audience – perhaps not all that large – for such saccharin and derivative fare. Though not quite a traditional Monster movie, it borrows a few of the tropes in order to get its feet off the ground … or should that be ‘slithering?’ Though not quite a full-bodied Horror, Miller’s script still falls back on casting a group of young and naïve men and women to chiefly end up as monster chow before the last reel. And though there’s the hint of some dastardly mad science having taken place to get us where we are when the picture begins, absolutely none of it is seen onscreen so we’ll have to take their word for it as to just how, when, where, and why this hungry beast came into existence.
Plus … that deadly science?
Well, that occurs offscreen, we’re told. Long before this story begins. Such trickery would’ve been cost prohibitive, so it’s covered here in exposition that’s even shockingly economical.
Structurally, DinoGator isn’t all that different from Gojira (1954), The Fly (1986), or even Jurassic Park (1993). All of these features begin under the rubric of ‘science gone awry’ where mankind’s tinkering winds up instigating the potential for the end to life as we know it, only then to have our heroes big and small spending the better part of 90-minutes running from it before, ultimately, vanquishing the foe in the climax. That’s the formula, and it works nearly every time it’s applied. So, yes, all of that happens here. Make no mistake: Wynorski knows full well what cloth he’s spinning in his magic-making machine. The biggest difference here – aside from the vastly different production budgets – is that there are no current marquee heavyweights in the cast, so audiences have to make do with some relative unknowns or thereabouts.
Backwoods geneticist Layton (played by Michael Madsen) is the resident megalomaniac who’s privately introduced the feared DinoGator into the food chain only to have his stuttering (autistic?) son Wyatt (Bryan Clark) let the massive Snakezilla loose apparently in their own backyard. (It’s horribly unclear. There was a shock collar involved. Wyatt took it off for reasons unexplained. And here we are.) Hoping to bring it back alive, Layton contracts sweaty bodybuilder and local hunting/boating tour guide Jake Dixon (Paul Logan) to brave the sunny swamps in search of the behemoth. But – damn it all! – a bunch of scantily-clad and rebellious rock’n’rollers filming their latest music video in the wild manage to gum up the works when they wind up adding themselves to the monster’s menu … and Dino’s gotta eat!
In true nihilist fashion, DinoGator makes only as much sense as it absolutely has to – which isn’t much – existing chiefly to give its trio of lovely young ladies – Roni (Lauren Parkinson), Aubrey (Savannah Goldstein), and Izzie (Grace Roubidoux) – an excuse to hoot, holler, and hell-raise whilst rewarding the audience with a fair amount of PG-rated skin. They’re even given a leading man – Nathan (Jesse Bernstein), a med school dropout who apparently prefers piloting a pontoon boat instead of performing surgeries – to fawn over in the downtime between Dino-munches. Predictably, Nate proves he’s up to the task: when the chips are down, he emerges packing heat, shooting first (poorly), and asking questions later. Hell, in true Hollywood style, he might find his way out of this glorified mess with a lifelong squeeze in the process.
In the end, Wynorski proves minimally he knows what he’s doing, churning out one more passable Saturday Night cable experience that’ll win no awards but go down easily with a case of beer and pizza. Madsen and Logan are capable screen chewers, but the script truly wastes their masculine talents with silly deadpans, sappy dialogue, and senseless attempts to maybe – maybe – craft a winning retort. None of the ladies are Academy Award caliber here either, though they look impressive in tight shirts and cut-offs when properly photographed to maximum effect. And that underwhelming CGI? Well, you’ve come a long way, baby, but daddy says you might be better appreciated back by audiences back in the Stone Age.
DinoGator (2024) was produced by Vision Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Archive and Vision Films. As for the technical specifications? Well … while I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights and sounds to be reasonable solid here and there. These aren’t – ahem – barn-burning special effects (and it shows), but they have the requisite charm to produce a chuckle even if none was intended. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, alas, you’ll come up empty on that score as the disc boasts nothing. Sad … but it happens.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary DVD of DinoGator (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
In true nihilist fashion, DinoGator makes only as much sense as it absolutely has to – which isn’t much – existing chiefly to give its trio of lovely young ladies – Roni (Lauren Parkinson), Aubrey (Savannah Goldstein), and Izzie (Grace Roubidoux) – an excuse to hoot, holler, and hell-raise whilst rewarding the audience with a fair amount of PG-rated skin. They’re even given a leading man – Nathan (Jesse Bernstein), a med school dropout who apparently prefers piloting a pontoon boat instead of performing surgeries – to fawn over in the downtime between Dino-munches. Predictably, Nate proves he’s up to the task: when the chips are down, he emerges packing heat, shooting first (poorly), and asking questions later. Hell, in true Hollywood style, he might find his way out of this glorified mess with a lifelong squeeze in the process.
In the end, Wynorski proves minimally he knows what he’s doing, churning out one more passable Saturday Night cable experience that’ll win no awards but go down easily with a case of beer and pizza. Madsen and Logan are capable screen chewers, but the script truly wastes their masculine talents with silly deadpans, sappy dialogue, and senseless attempts to maybe – maybe – craft a winning retort. None of the ladies are Academy Award caliber here either, though they look impressive in tight shirts and cut-offs when properly photographed to maximum effect. And that underwhelming CGI? Well, you’ve come a long way, baby, but daddy says you might be better appreciated back by audiences back in the Stone Age.
DinoGator (2024) was produced by Vision Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Archive and Vision Films. As for the technical specifications? Well … while I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights and sounds to be reasonable solid here and there. These aren’t – ahem – barn-burning special effects (and it shows), but they have the requisite charm to produce a chuckle even if none was intended. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, alas, you’ll come up empty on that score as the disc boasts nothing. Sad … but it happens.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary DVD of DinoGator (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
(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 1961, divorced Catholic couple Dom and Catherine Spages' life is upended when their teenage daughter Alice is suspected of her younger sister Karen's brutal murder during her First Holy Communion and a series of stabbings follow.”
Historically, Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) most definitely courted a great degree of controversy across several fronts.
For starters, writer/director Alfred Sole was lucky to have even gotten the picture made. In the wake of his first effort – an adult film under the name of Deep Sleep (1972) – the storyteller found himself on the receiving end of legal and financial woes when the pornographic feature was pulled from theaters over obscenity issues. From what I understand, he produced and shot the effort entirely without the required permits and such; and the resulting blowback – including the threat of imprisonment – put him in some compromising positions when he realized he wanted to work in film as a professional career.
Secondly, Alice dabbled a bit too closely and personally into the fictional affairs of the Catholic Church. While its story – that of a serial killer linked to a parish and its practitioners – was understandably bloody, critics and audiences alike didn’t take kindly to the depiction of faith and some associated iconography. Wikipedia.org reports that the film was seized and prohibited from theatrical exhibition in the United Kingdom with some nations even going so far as to declare the picture anti-Catholic. Add to this fact that Sole’s distributors kept coming and going as a consequence of these problems and one might agree that it’s surprising that Alice ever saw the light of day!
Well, the truth is that it did, albeit under a handful of different names, slightly diverse cuts, and at different times. In spite of the troubled road to screens big and small, Alice survived, and the end result is a story not so much about indicting institutionalized faith as it is a tale wherein its small cast of characters are all flawed equally regardless of their age, gender, or convictions. Frankly, there isn’t a saint anywhere among them – not even the men and women of the cloth – and it shows. That’s the territory firmly staked out by Sole and his co-scripter Rosemary Ritvo in every version available, and the narrative works well on that level.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In 1961, divorced Catholic couple Dom and Catherine Spages' life is upended when their teenage daughter Alice is suspected of her younger sister Karen's brutal murder during her First Holy Communion and a series of stabbings follow.”
Historically, Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) most definitely courted a great degree of controversy across several fronts.
For starters, writer/director Alfred Sole was lucky to have even gotten the picture made. In the wake of his first effort – an adult film under the name of Deep Sleep (1972) – the storyteller found himself on the receiving end of legal and financial woes when the pornographic feature was pulled from theaters over obscenity issues. From what I understand, he produced and shot the effort entirely without the required permits and such; and the resulting blowback – including the threat of imprisonment – put him in some compromising positions when he realized he wanted to work in film as a professional career.
Secondly, Alice dabbled a bit too closely and personally into the fictional affairs of the Catholic Church. While its story – that of a serial killer linked to a parish and its practitioners – was understandably bloody, critics and audiences alike didn’t take kindly to the depiction of faith and some associated iconography. Wikipedia.org reports that the film was seized and prohibited from theatrical exhibition in the United Kingdom with some nations even going so far as to declare the picture anti-Catholic. Add to this fact that Sole’s distributors kept coming and going as a consequence of these problems and one might agree that it’s surprising that Alice ever saw the light of day!
Well, the truth is that it did, albeit under a handful of different names, slightly diverse cuts, and at different times. In spite of the troubled road to screens big and small, Alice survived, and the end result is a story not so much about indicting institutionalized faith as it is a tale wherein its small cast of characters are all flawed equally regardless of their age, gender, or convictions. Frankly, there isn’t a saint anywhere among them – not even the men and women of the cloth – and it shows. That’s the territory firmly staked out by Sole and his co-scripter Rosemary Ritvo in every version available, and the narrative works well on that level.
After her marriage falls apart and her husband moves along, Catherine Spages (played by Linda Miller) finds solace in the embrace of her surviving family and her local church. Daughters Alice (Paula E. Sheppard) and Karen (Brooke Shields) remain at her side, though it grows somewhat obvious that Cathy might not have turned out to be the best mother she could be as the emotional aftermath of her broken nuptials has increased the strain of serving as the head of the household. To her benefit, she’s found some welcome support from the earnest Father Tom (Rudolph Willrich), who seems to have fostered a kind relationship with Karen, seemingly preferred the younger daughter over the slightly older Alice. As Karen is about to receive her first communion, he seems equally proud to have shared in her upbringing as any parent would.
While imparting the joy of uniting with others around a shared faith, Alice (as a film) simultaneously explores the dissolution of the nuclear family in these early scenes. Cathy and her sister Annie (Jane Lowry) share parenting responsibilities in the Spages’ home; and just as Father Tom appears to have issues with Alice, so does the aunt. The two spar pettily over the completion of household chores; and about the time that it looks as if their relationship has only been combative Sole’s story also suggests that both Cathy and Annie might have had a rough ride through their own upbringing. Clearly, not all is copacetic with the Spages’ women – both generations – and one needn’t be a professional therapist to predict that further turmoil is on the horizon.
It's in the holy confines of the church – that sacred sanctuary for all – in the midst of the scheduled ceremony that the unthinkable happens: while the other children are receiving their blessing, young Karen is strangled to death in the anteroom and stuffed into a small hutch where her raincoated attacker then sets her body on fire. Once Alice is found in possession of her sister’s missing veil, all eyes turn on her as the guilty culprit.
And why wouldn’t they?
At home, she’s grown increasingly difficult and argumentative, acting out against her mother and their creepy landlord, Mr. Alphonso (Alphonso DeNoble). Not even the return of her father Dominic (Niles McMaster) seems to bring her any peace of mind, though she seems to find some small comfort in knowing that he’s pledged to stay around until Karen’s murder is solved. Still, on the cusp of turning into a woman, Cathy’s begun menstruating. Her body has begun going through the biological, hormonal changes. Her metamorphosis is seen as a gateway toward even greater treachery. Once she fails the police-required polygraph, she’s ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and the doctor believes the young woman is displaying classic borderline psychotic behaviors.
While imparting the joy of uniting with others around a shared faith, Alice (as a film) simultaneously explores the dissolution of the nuclear family in these early scenes. Cathy and her sister Annie (Jane Lowry) share parenting responsibilities in the Spages’ home; and just as Father Tom appears to have issues with Alice, so does the aunt. The two spar pettily over the completion of household chores; and about the time that it looks as if their relationship has only been combative Sole’s story also suggests that both Cathy and Annie might have had a rough ride through their own upbringing. Clearly, not all is copacetic with the Spages’ women – both generations – and one needn’t be a professional therapist to predict that further turmoil is on the horizon.
It's in the holy confines of the church – that sacred sanctuary for all – in the midst of the scheduled ceremony that the unthinkable happens: while the other children are receiving their blessing, young Karen is strangled to death in the anteroom and stuffed into a small hutch where her raincoated attacker then sets her body on fire. Once Alice is found in possession of her sister’s missing veil, all eyes turn on her as the guilty culprit.
And why wouldn’t they?
At home, she’s grown increasingly difficult and argumentative, acting out against her mother and their creepy landlord, Mr. Alphonso (Alphonso DeNoble). Not even the return of her father Dominic (Niles McMaster) seems to bring her any peace of mind, though she seems to find some small comfort in knowing that he’s pledged to stay around until Karen’s murder is solved. Still, on the cusp of turning into a woman, Cathy’s begun menstruating. Her body has begun going through the biological, hormonal changes. Her metamorphosis is seen as a gateway toward even greater treachery. Once she fails the police-required polygraph, she’s ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and the doctor believes the young woman is displaying classic borderline psychotic behaviors.
In the style of Psychological Horror, a good deal of this is clever misdirection. That’s the beauty of exploring storytelling that has layers to it: you never quite know what you have until you reach the big finish, and – even then – you might question the diagnosis. Sole’s tale pivots to Drama and Mystery as much as it is a true chiller, but the auteur keeps his list of suspects reasonably small until, ultimately, you know what you know. Surprisingly, he doesn’t make you wait until the last reel, though when the last frame does arrive the audience might find themselves rethinking precisely how they got to that point. This construction allows the film to truly blossom – much as young Alice is doing – in its second half: it’s vastly more than the sum of its pieces, and, aesthetically, it about as close to Italian Giallo that perhaps has ever been made on this side of the pond.
There’s a great deal to enjoy for those meeting Alice for the first time. The family moments are occasionally cryptic and quite tense as not one but two sets of sisters turn on one another. Sheppard’s work here is quite good considering she was little more than a teenager: she reportedly turned nineteen while shooting the picture. To her credit, she manages an odd degree of charged eroticism whilst terrorizing the downstairs landlord, and her ability to command attention elevates even those moments when the audience remains uncertain as to her character’s motivation. For such a breakout performance, it’s surprising that she has only two credits on her professional resume.
As to the religious controversy, it’s easy to see where some may’ve taken issue with Sole’s presentation. Most of it descends from the depiction of Catholicism and the way sinners process guilt; and I suppose I’d largely agree were it not for the fact that, frankly, no institution in here emerges with looking good. Mom fails. Dad fails. The church fails. Why, the family unit, the medical community, and even law enforcement seems to be broken, inept, or corrupted in some way in this God forsaken place; and there isn’t a single truly good role model in any of this. Because Sole and Ritvo seem to be saying something critical about the wider world out there, I guess I’m less inclined to pick nits with God and his flock.
In fact, there’s a rundown building in Alice that I believe symbolizes the existence in which all of the elements collide.
Though I may’ve missed whatever business resided under this roof, the hints are that it was probably industrial, implying that something – some product, some gadget, some indefinable thing – was likely built there, only that invention is now obsolete. Social progress made it unnecessary, or someone designed a better one. Since that original is no longer needed or useful, those craftsmen and women who made it and the place where they gathered to assemble it grew insignificant. The workers are gone now. Their building is shuttered. Yet – interestingly enough – the guard dogs remain as we hear them barking off in some sealed up corner of the warehouse. Whatever this space once was, it most definitely no longer is. It’s assuredly been tossed aside and serves no purpose other than to be a dangerous escape where wayward children might now gather and, probably, injure themselves.
Here is where Karen and Alice come to play.
There’s a great deal to enjoy for those meeting Alice for the first time. The family moments are occasionally cryptic and quite tense as not one but two sets of sisters turn on one another. Sheppard’s work here is quite good considering she was little more than a teenager: she reportedly turned nineteen while shooting the picture. To her credit, she manages an odd degree of charged eroticism whilst terrorizing the downstairs landlord, and her ability to command attention elevates even those moments when the audience remains uncertain as to her character’s motivation. For such a breakout performance, it’s surprising that she has only two credits on her professional resume.
As to the religious controversy, it’s easy to see where some may’ve taken issue with Sole’s presentation. Most of it descends from the depiction of Catholicism and the way sinners process guilt; and I suppose I’d largely agree were it not for the fact that, frankly, no institution in here emerges with looking good. Mom fails. Dad fails. The church fails. Why, the family unit, the medical community, and even law enforcement seems to be broken, inept, or corrupted in some way in this God forsaken place; and there isn’t a single truly good role model in any of this. Because Sole and Ritvo seem to be saying something critical about the wider world out there, I guess I’m less inclined to pick nits with God and his flock.
In fact, there’s a rundown building in Alice that I believe symbolizes the existence in which all of the elements collide.
Though I may’ve missed whatever business resided under this roof, the hints are that it was probably industrial, implying that something – some product, some gadget, some indefinable thing – was likely built there, only that invention is now obsolete. Social progress made it unnecessary, or someone designed a better one. Since that original is no longer needed or useful, those craftsmen and women who made it and the place where they gathered to assemble it grew insignificant. The workers are gone now. Their building is shuttered. Yet – interestingly enough – the guard dogs remain as we hear them barking off in some sealed up corner of the warehouse. Whatever this space once was, it most definitely no longer is. It’s assuredly been tossed aside and serves no purpose other than to be a dangerous escape where wayward children might now gather and, probably, injure themselves.
Here is where Karen and Alice come to play.
What was once a place of high function is now an empty edifice, one where you bring whatever danger you wish with you. Like those institutions that Sole reminds have failed us – the Church, the family, the hospitals, law enforcement, etc. – so, too, have we failed as a civilization. We leave not only broken people in our wake but also broken places. The only thing we have to show for our troubles is a big empty warehouse; and that’s the kind of place where kids privately terrorize one another, dogs are left to their own devices, and killers seek to perform their darkest of deeds.
If that doesn’t chill you just a bit, then this nugget might: actress Miller actually attempted suicide on set while shooting one of the bigger sequences. (Sole details this in one of the extras on Arrow’s newly released set.) Thankfully, she survived in no small part owed to the efforts of a watchful cast and crew; but fans watching the film closely might notice a bandaged wrist on the lady here and there. That’s because she had to wear it whilst completing production on the film as she was still healing from the breakdown.
Alice, Sweet Alice (1974) was produced by Harristown Funding. 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 … wow. This film both looks and sounds incredible, said to have been restored to 4K from the original camera negative. There are a few sequences with some rather obvious grain, but it’s nothing that distracts from the enjoyment of the story. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, that’s Arrow’s specialty, so I’m doing the noble copy-and-paste from their press release previously published on Blu-ray.com:
Special Features and Technical Specs:
Once again, as a reviewer I’m only provided an industry copy of the disc, so I cannot speak to the efficacy of any association physical materials listed above. In those matters, I’ll always remind readers of the old ‘buyer beware’ clause.
Highly Recommended.
Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) might be a bit dated, but its ideas are still the stuff that likely haunt us in our quietest moments. Each of us wants to belong somewhere; and – when we cannot or do not – the break leaves a scar that can’t quite heal and continues to itch to the point wherein we’d do anything to – ahem – make it go away. It’s in this territory that these characters intersect; and it’s here where they seek affirmation that they’re still loved, that they’re still good people, and that they’re still deserving of affection, no matter what they did to get it. It’s that “what they did to get it” that has body piling up pretty quickly, and there’s little absolution for that.
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 Alice, Sweet Alice (1974) 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
If that doesn’t chill you just a bit, then this nugget might: actress Miller actually attempted suicide on set while shooting one of the bigger sequences. (Sole details this in one of the extras on Arrow’s newly released set.) Thankfully, she survived in no small part owed to the efforts of a watchful cast and crew; but fans watching the film closely might notice a bandaged wrist on the lady here and there. That’s because she had to wear it whilst completing production on the film as she was still healing from the breakdown.
Alice, Sweet Alice (1974) was produced by Harristown Funding. 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 … wow. This film both looks and sounds incredible, said to have been restored to 4K from the original camera negative. There are a few sequences with some rather obvious grain, but it’s nothing that distracts from the enjoyment of the story. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, that’s Arrow’s specialty, so I’m doing the noble copy-and-paste from their press release previously published on Blu-ray.com:
Special Features and Technical Specs:
- Brand new 4K restoration by Arrow Films from the original camera negative
- 4K presentations of three versions via seamless branching: Communion (original), Alice, Sweet Alice (theatrical) and Holy Terror (re-release)
- Original lossless mono audio
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Brand new audio commentary with Richard Harland Smith
- Archival audio commentary with co-writer/director Alfred Sole and editor M. Edward Salier
- First Communion: Alfred Sole Remembers Alice, Sweet Alice – director Alfred Sole looks back on his 1976 classic
- Alice on My Mind – a brand-new interview with composer Stephen Lawrence
- In the Name of the Father - brand new interview with actor Niles McMaster
- Sweet Memories: Dante Tomaselli on Alice, Sweet Alice – filmmaker Dante Tomaselli, cousin of Alfred Sole, discusses his longtime connection to the film
- Lost Childhood: The Locations of Alice, Sweet Alice - a tour of the original Alice, Sweet Alice shooting locations hosted by author Michael Gingold
- Deleted scenes
- Split-screen version comparison
- Trailer and TV Spot
- Image gallery, including the original screenplay
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Gilles Vranckx
- Illustrated collector’s booklet featuring new writing on the film by Michael Blyth
Once again, as a reviewer I’m only provided an industry copy of the disc, so I cannot speak to the efficacy of any association physical materials listed above. In those matters, I’ll always remind readers of the old ‘buyer beware’ clause.
Highly Recommended.
Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) might be a bit dated, but its ideas are still the stuff that likely haunt us in our quietest moments. Each of us wants to belong somewhere; and – when we cannot or do not – the break leaves a scar that can’t quite heal and continues to itch to the point wherein we’d do anything to – ahem – make it go away. It’s in this territory that these characters intersect; and it’s here where they seek affirmation that they’re still loved, that they’re still good people, and that they’re still deserving of affection, no matter what they did to get it. It’s that “what they did to get it” that has body piling up pretty quickly, and there’s little absolution for that.
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 Alice, Sweet Alice (1974) 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
Purchase your copy of Alice, Sweet Alice right here:
- Published on
In truth, is there a person alive who hasn’t received a spam email?
Honestly, I get hundreds of them a week. Though I’ve gone to some lengths to cultivate an online presence, there’s nothing I can do to eliminate the vast mountain of junk in any number of my inboxes over time. Occasionally out of curiosity I do read one or two more closely, spelling errors and all. In some ways, it’s much like being a motorist driving slowly past a recent automobile accident: sometimes, you just can’t help but gawk. It’s interesting to see what scam artists think will convince you that their efforts are authentic (as opposed to the thousands of other messages that went worldwide that day). Naturally, I (like you) have heard the horror stories – the urban legends – of folks (usually the elderly) who’ve been duped into acting on one or more of these cyberspace messages. Thankfully, no one near me has suffered, but I keep my eye open on behalf of mankind because it’s the least I could do.
2012’s Horror/Thriller 419 tried to put a contemporary spin on the phenomenon. While I’m guessing a great many folks never even knew the film existed, I snug a copy during the flick’s original home video tour; and I offer up my thoughts below for those of you who might appreciate what a smaller cautionary tale might tell us all.
(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 film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a struggling New York actor loses everything in a scam based in South Africa, his two best friends take him to Cape Town to find the scammer with the help of a smooth-talking local. The search begins well, but soon takes a dark turn.”
Mike (curiously played by a man named Mike Ivers) is an out-of-work New York actor who met a charming South African “businessman” in a bar and wired him money in hopes of seeing a monumental return on his investment. As you guessed it (why didn’t Mike?), the entire affair was a scam, and the young man lost over $30,000 in the process. Ned (filmmaker Ned Thorne) and Scott (Scott Kerns – I’m seeing a pattern here) are his best friends, and, as such, they decide to help him get his life back on track … by agreeing to take him to South Africa in pursuit of the scam artist.
Uh … really?
Pardon me for sounding more than a touch cynical (I’m good at it, I’m told), but what kinds of friends would want to take a ‘bestie’ halfway around the world to South Africa (of all places) in hopes of righting an internet wrong? I’ll admit that I find the premise behind the clever fake documentary 419 less than ‘realistic.’ Still, the word of mouth on this one from the film festival circuit was quite good, so I thought it would be worth a spin. I figured at 84 minutes it couldn’t be all that bad or, if it was, at least it wouldn’t last long.
To my surprise, I was mildly captivated by the tale of three grown men still trying to find themselves by setting out on a curiously well-intentioned but still misguided ‘vision quest.’ Despite promising up “twists and turns up to the very end” in its product packaging, most of 419 is pretty benign if not even a little banal: think three male pals coming together for mankind’s worst road trip E-V-E-R (without any comical escapades), and you get the gist. Thankfully, it isn’t hard to see Ivers, Thorne, and Kerns as buddies, and – despite some reservations with the basic premise – the strung together plot works mostly because there is no intellectual weight attached to most of this. It is what it is. You’ve got three guys. You’ve got three cameras. You put it together with a neo-noir-infused crime plot, and you’re modestly entertained as a consequence.
As anyone would’ve (or should’ve) expected, things don’t quite go as planned once the men arrive in South Africa, but that’s the stuff of good drama. And, to be perfectly clear, there is drama in here. It’s available in small doses, but it’s there. And it’s surprisingly well played by the talent.
Also to provide some clarification, I have read elsewhere on the web that 419 is being billed as one of those semi-popular “found footage films,” and I’d like to correct that misinformation: it isn’t. 419 is a faux documentary. Yes, it’s assembled from footage that – in some part – has been “found.” But to call it a “found footage film” is a disservice to “found footage films” as well as 419: this is a character drama – entirely fictional – put together in such a way as to tweak the narrative. It’s a fine line distinction, but a distinction that should be make.
419 [2012] is produced by 120bB Films and Indalo Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by MVD Visual, a division of MVD Entertainment Group. As for the technical specifications … well, bear in mind that Thorne wants to make you believe this is all a documentary culled together from his available camera work, so one should expect the usual shaky-cam action consistently from start to finish, along with some of the usual unframed shot, loss of focus, and questionable angles. (Relax, folks, because it’s all intended as part of the charm.) The sound was mostly solid, though there were a few sequences that came across a bit muddled. As for special features, the only thing I saw on the menu was deleted scenes, and, at that point, I really wasn’t all that interested in what didn’t make the finished product.
Recommended, but …
Seriously, there’s nothing groundbreaking here. Essentially, all 419 really does effectively is provide audiences with yet one more reminder about what everyone says could happen to you if you’re roped into an internet scam, but it’s theatrically escalated to the Nth degree for the purpose of having a more complex story to tell. Performances are fine; cinematography wasn’t all that inspiring but is tolerable (though the herky-jerky documentary style does get old in the final third); and the story is – well – a bit predictable. (Don’t believe everything the box art tells you otherwise.)
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group provided me with a DVD copy of 419 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
Honestly, I get hundreds of them a week. Though I’ve gone to some lengths to cultivate an online presence, there’s nothing I can do to eliminate the vast mountain of junk in any number of my inboxes over time. Occasionally out of curiosity I do read one or two more closely, spelling errors and all. In some ways, it’s much like being a motorist driving slowly past a recent automobile accident: sometimes, you just can’t help but gawk. It’s interesting to see what scam artists think will convince you that their efforts are authentic (as opposed to the thousands of other messages that went worldwide that day). Naturally, I (like you) have heard the horror stories – the urban legends – of folks (usually the elderly) who’ve been duped into acting on one or more of these cyberspace messages. Thankfully, no one near me has suffered, but I keep my eye open on behalf of mankind because it’s the least I could do.
2012’s Horror/Thriller 419 tried to put a contemporary spin on the phenomenon. While I’m guessing a great many folks never even knew the film existed, I snug a copy during the flick’s original home video tour; and I offer up my thoughts below for those of you who might appreciate what a smaller cautionary tale might tell us all.
(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 film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a struggling New York actor loses everything in a scam based in South Africa, his two best friends take him to Cape Town to find the scammer with the help of a smooth-talking local. The search begins well, but soon takes a dark turn.”
Mike (curiously played by a man named Mike Ivers) is an out-of-work New York actor who met a charming South African “businessman” in a bar and wired him money in hopes of seeing a monumental return on his investment. As you guessed it (why didn’t Mike?), the entire affair was a scam, and the young man lost over $30,000 in the process. Ned (filmmaker Ned Thorne) and Scott (Scott Kerns – I’m seeing a pattern here) are his best friends, and, as such, they decide to help him get his life back on track … by agreeing to take him to South Africa in pursuit of the scam artist.
Uh … really?
Pardon me for sounding more than a touch cynical (I’m good at it, I’m told), but what kinds of friends would want to take a ‘bestie’ halfway around the world to South Africa (of all places) in hopes of righting an internet wrong? I’ll admit that I find the premise behind the clever fake documentary 419 less than ‘realistic.’ Still, the word of mouth on this one from the film festival circuit was quite good, so I thought it would be worth a spin. I figured at 84 minutes it couldn’t be all that bad or, if it was, at least it wouldn’t last long.
To my surprise, I was mildly captivated by the tale of three grown men still trying to find themselves by setting out on a curiously well-intentioned but still misguided ‘vision quest.’ Despite promising up “twists and turns up to the very end” in its product packaging, most of 419 is pretty benign if not even a little banal: think three male pals coming together for mankind’s worst road trip E-V-E-R (without any comical escapades), and you get the gist. Thankfully, it isn’t hard to see Ivers, Thorne, and Kerns as buddies, and – despite some reservations with the basic premise – the strung together plot works mostly because there is no intellectual weight attached to most of this. It is what it is. You’ve got three guys. You’ve got three cameras. You put it together with a neo-noir-infused crime plot, and you’re modestly entertained as a consequence.
As anyone would’ve (or should’ve) expected, things don’t quite go as planned once the men arrive in South Africa, but that’s the stuff of good drama. And, to be perfectly clear, there is drama in here. It’s available in small doses, but it’s there. And it’s surprisingly well played by the talent.
Also to provide some clarification, I have read elsewhere on the web that 419 is being billed as one of those semi-popular “found footage films,” and I’d like to correct that misinformation: it isn’t. 419 is a faux documentary. Yes, it’s assembled from footage that – in some part – has been “found.” But to call it a “found footage film” is a disservice to “found footage films” as well as 419: this is a character drama – entirely fictional – put together in such a way as to tweak the narrative. It’s a fine line distinction, but a distinction that should be make.
419 [2012] is produced by 120bB Films and Indalo Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by MVD Visual, a division of MVD Entertainment Group. As for the technical specifications … well, bear in mind that Thorne wants to make you believe this is all a documentary culled together from his available camera work, so one should expect the usual shaky-cam action consistently from start to finish, along with some of the usual unframed shot, loss of focus, and questionable angles. (Relax, folks, because it’s all intended as part of the charm.) The sound was mostly solid, though there were a few sequences that came across a bit muddled. As for special features, the only thing I saw on the menu was deleted scenes, and, at that point, I really wasn’t all that interested in what didn’t make the finished product.
Recommended, but …
Seriously, there’s nothing groundbreaking here. Essentially, all 419 really does effectively is provide audiences with yet one more reminder about what everyone says could happen to you if you’re roped into an internet scam, but it’s theatrically escalated to the Nth degree for the purpose of having a more complex story to tell. Performances are fine; cinematography wasn’t all that inspiring but is tolerable (though the herky-jerky documentary style does get old in the final third); and the story is – well – a bit predictable. (Don’t believe everything the box art tells you otherwise.)
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group provided me with a DVD copy of 419 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