- Published on
A wise man (or maybe it was a woman) once said something about wanting a thing was an entirely different experience than having a thing.
Though the heart wants what the heart wants, such covetousness is largely driven by desire and not, say, factual experience. We don’t know what it’s like to live a life of luxury, but that ignorance never lessens the burgeoning appeal. Once we have it and we’ve shackled with all of the trials and tribulations that typically goes hand-in-hand with money management, government grift, and family and friends coming out of the woodwork to share in our wealth, then we come to understand what is meant by the phrase: “Money doesn’t necessarily solve all your problems.” Typically, the accrual of wealth usually brings with it a whole new spectrum of difficulties; and, while we still might wish to see what those lifestyles of the rich and famous are truly like, there’s always a downside to every advantage. You might just have to work harder to find it.
For me, the same could be said about living a life obsessed with film. Over the years of watching them, reading about them, and reviewing them online and beyond, I’ve heard so many great things about so many productions that I stopped years ago adding any new titles to my Bucket List. I’ll simply have to see what I can get to, and everything else will simply have to wait until my next go-round assuming I qualify for reincarnation. The only flicks I still hold out hope to witness at this point are those that I can make time for and I’ve heard plenty about – meaning it’s basically a required experience – and that brings me to today’s vision: 1932’s The Old Dark House.
Directed by James Whale, this Classic/Drama was adapted from J.B. Preistley’s 1928 novel (“Benighted”) by Benn W. Levy and R.C. Sherriff. It stars Boris Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Charles Laughton, Gloria Stuart, and Lilian Bond in key roles. The story essentially revolves some weary travelers who seek refuge from the rain inside the Femm Mansion – about as curious a collection of misfits that has even been captured on film – for the duration of what appears to be the darkest and stormiest of nights ever. While the picture veers heavily toward Horror of the bygone era, its plot never quite commits strong enough to make it worthy of the reputation I’ve seen attached to it. Though that’s a tad disheartening, I’d still encourage those who’ve never seen it that it’s worth the time … especially if you’re a fan of Karloff. His work here is impressive, even more so given the fact that he’s in surprisingly few scenes.
(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 IMBD.com page:
“Seeking shelter from a storm, five travelers are in for a bizarre and terrifying night when they stumble upon the Femm family estate.”
Though the heart wants what the heart wants, such covetousness is largely driven by desire and not, say, factual experience. We don’t know what it’s like to live a life of luxury, but that ignorance never lessens the burgeoning appeal. Once we have it and we’ve shackled with all of the trials and tribulations that typically goes hand-in-hand with money management, government grift, and family and friends coming out of the woodwork to share in our wealth, then we come to understand what is meant by the phrase: “Money doesn’t necessarily solve all your problems.” Typically, the accrual of wealth usually brings with it a whole new spectrum of difficulties; and, while we still might wish to see what those lifestyles of the rich and famous are truly like, there’s always a downside to every advantage. You might just have to work harder to find it.
For me, the same could be said about living a life obsessed with film. Over the years of watching them, reading about them, and reviewing them online and beyond, I’ve heard so many great things about so many productions that I stopped years ago adding any new titles to my Bucket List. I’ll simply have to see what I can get to, and everything else will simply have to wait until my next go-round assuming I qualify for reincarnation. The only flicks I still hold out hope to witness at this point are those that I can make time for and I’ve heard plenty about – meaning it’s basically a required experience – and that brings me to today’s vision: 1932’s The Old Dark House.
Directed by James Whale, this Classic/Drama was adapted from J.B. Preistley’s 1928 novel (“Benighted”) by Benn W. Levy and R.C. Sherriff. It stars Boris Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Charles Laughton, Gloria Stuart, and Lilian Bond in key roles. The story essentially revolves some weary travelers who seek refuge from the rain inside the Femm Mansion – about as curious a collection of misfits that has even been captured on film – for the duration of what appears to be the darkest and stormiest of nights ever. While the picture veers heavily toward Horror of the bygone era, its plot never quite commits strong enough to make it worthy of the reputation I’ve seen attached to it. Though that’s a tad disheartening, I’d still encourage those who’ve never seen it that it’s worth the time … especially if you’re a fan of Karloff. His work here is impressive, even more so given the fact that he’s in surprisingly few scenes.
(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 IMBD.com page:
“Seeking shelter from a storm, five travelers are in for a bizarre and terrifying night when they stumble upon the Femm family estate.”
Those of you who like those ‘dark and stormy night’ stories? Well, then you have a treat in store for you because – by all accounts – The Old Dark House is arguably the original ‘dark and stormy night.’ Yes, it’s set entirely in a single night – though daylight breaks in the last few scenes – and its curious inhabitants spend the better part of those overnight hours either in conversation or kinda/sorta running for their lives, though the sense of tension is a bit overplayed in the way that films from the 1930’s and 1940’s had a habit of doing. The talented bunch – all at Whale’s direction – make the most of the affair, even if the story revolves more on its manufactured circumstances than it does any singular performance.
Basically, Philip Waverton (played by Raymond Massey), Margaret Waverton (Gloria Stuart), and their tagalong pal Penderel (Melvyn Douglas) find themselves in an increasingly frightening thunderstorm, one that keeps washing out the road they’re traveling on. Before long, they seek refuge at a rather dark estate owned by Sir Roderick Femm (Elspeth Dudgeon) and his heirs, Horace (Ernest Thesiger), Saul (Brember Wills), and Rebecca (Eva Moore), along with their heavily scarred manservant Morgan (Boris Karloff). Sir William Porterhouse (Charles Laughton) and Gladys (Lilian Bond) join the group later as another group caught out in the downpour. Before the night is over, the house’s secrets will be revealed – whether anyone wanted to know them or not – and new allegiances will be forged … but not without the threat of violence making some band together for fear of their mortal lives.
Now, I don’t want to spoil things about whether or not blood gets spilled because – with a flick like House – a great deal of the joy in experiencing it is seeing it fresh and firsthand. Each and every member of the Femm household is a bit of a character (to say the least); and we learn just enough about them to loosely grasp why it is they are they way they are but nothing more. Some might argue that the script suggests other layers to some of these relationships, but I’m not one to overthink such themes, leaving that kind of esoteric fluff to those who think they know better than I. (Could the siblings have partaken of taboo feelings for one another? Might even a few of the men shared some heterosexual longings? This was pre-Code Hollywood, after all, so make of that what you will.) The whole shebang works just fine given those traits plainly established, so I’ll ignore the usual did-they-or-didn’t-they speculation because is irrelevant to the plot.
Frankly, I think it’s highly inaccurate to refer to The Old Dark House exclusively as a Horror movie. Mind you: a great deal of what has been written about the flick suggests it deserves to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Universal Pictures output of the early 1930’s especially when it comes to Horror, and you won’t find me arguing otherwise. Director Whale truly put the studio on the map with outings like Frankenstein (1931), The Invisible Man (1933), and Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), and it’s very easy to see House existing in that same cinematic universe much in the same way Walt Disney and Marvel’s slate of Superhero/Thrillers exist in the same construct though there may be little or no crossover characters or circumstances. While the film arguably has some recognizable bits and pieces commonly associated with the genre – i.e. a Gothic mansion, mildly crazed if not borderline psychotic characters, and Hollywood heavyweight Boris Karloff doing what only he could do so well – the story bobs and weaves too much between oddball comedy and the worst trappings of dated melodrama possible. In fact, House only borrows lightly from perhaps the Slasher subset of Horror – and, even then, only in the last reel – leaving me a bit underwhelmed so far as thrills and spills go. Imagine – if you will – Dracula opened his own bread-and-breakfast for the sole purpose of entertaining wayward travelers and never partook of his usual bloody behaviors, and that’s kinda/sorta the dynamic audiences get with House. It’s close yet a distant second.
Basically, Philip Waverton (played by Raymond Massey), Margaret Waverton (Gloria Stuart), and their tagalong pal Penderel (Melvyn Douglas) find themselves in an increasingly frightening thunderstorm, one that keeps washing out the road they’re traveling on. Before long, they seek refuge at a rather dark estate owned by Sir Roderick Femm (Elspeth Dudgeon) and his heirs, Horace (Ernest Thesiger), Saul (Brember Wills), and Rebecca (Eva Moore), along with their heavily scarred manservant Morgan (Boris Karloff). Sir William Porterhouse (Charles Laughton) and Gladys (Lilian Bond) join the group later as another group caught out in the downpour. Before the night is over, the house’s secrets will be revealed – whether anyone wanted to know them or not – and new allegiances will be forged … but not without the threat of violence making some band together for fear of their mortal lives.
Now, I don’t want to spoil things about whether or not blood gets spilled because – with a flick like House – a great deal of the joy in experiencing it is seeing it fresh and firsthand. Each and every member of the Femm household is a bit of a character (to say the least); and we learn just enough about them to loosely grasp why it is they are they way they are but nothing more. Some might argue that the script suggests other layers to some of these relationships, but I’m not one to overthink such themes, leaving that kind of esoteric fluff to those who think they know better than I. (Could the siblings have partaken of taboo feelings for one another? Might even a few of the men shared some heterosexual longings? This was pre-Code Hollywood, after all, so make of that what you will.) The whole shebang works just fine given those traits plainly established, so I’ll ignore the usual did-they-or-didn’t-they speculation because is irrelevant to the plot.
Frankly, I think it’s highly inaccurate to refer to The Old Dark House exclusively as a Horror movie. Mind you: a great deal of what has been written about the flick suggests it deserves to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Universal Pictures output of the early 1930’s especially when it comes to Horror, and you won’t find me arguing otherwise. Director Whale truly put the studio on the map with outings like Frankenstein (1931), The Invisible Man (1933), and Bride Of Frankenstein (1935), and it’s very easy to see House existing in that same cinematic universe much in the same way Walt Disney and Marvel’s slate of Superhero/Thrillers exist in the same construct though there may be little or no crossover characters or circumstances. While the film arguably has some recognizable bits and pieces commonly associated with the genre – i.e. a Gothic mansion, mildly crazed if not borderline psychotic characters, and Hollywood heavyweight Boris Karloff doing what only he could do so well – the story bobs and weaves too much between oddball comedy and the worst trappings of dated melodrama possible. In fact, House only borrows lightly from perhaps the Slasher subset of Horror – and, even then, only in the last reel – leaving me a bit underwhelmed so far as thrills and spills go. Imagine – if you will – Dracula opened his own bread-and-breakfast for the sole purpose of entertaining wayward travelers and never partook of his usual bloody behaviors, and that’s kinda/sorta the dynamic audiences get with House. It’s close yet a distant second.
Furthermore, House is one of the chattiest vintage frights I’ve come across in some time.
The lion’s share of the screen time is spent in conversations between these various and asunder couplings, some of which might have modern viewers rolling their eyes over the incredulity. That’s not a complaint for me because I do enjoy a good talker, and – on that front – I enjoyed spending time with characters who had something to say. (Sorry, folks, but real love – the kind that effective marriages are built on – isn’t achieved at first sight nor after a single meal and a snuggle in a parked car.) In particular, Thesiger, Moore, and Wills put on incredibly creepy performances that give an otherwise somber palate the vivid life you never thought possible. Dudgeon’s turn as the elder Femm is good, although it feels a bit too clean based entirely on the winding branches sprung from family tree. Thankfully, the last third of the motion picture gives way to the ultimate reason why House is considered a Horror – Morgan shows what a screen menace could look like physically whilst Saul might give Hannibal Lecter a run for his money – and finally a good time is had by all … well, at least the audience, that is.
The Old Dark House (1932) was produced by Universal Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at the Cohen Film Collection. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were exceptional for this restored print. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts not one but two commentary tracks – one from Whale biographer James Curtis and another from actress Stuart – along with a few nicely produced extras. It’s a solid effort.
Recommended.
As I’ve tried to be clear, The Old Dark House (1932) is and isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be. Supported by an incredible reputation amongst film elite, I went in to these 70+ minutes expecting a lot more than what was delivered; and I think that’s because it had been elevated to something no flick could be in my own mind. Granted, there’s a good deal to explore and pontificate over – if that’s your thing – but as a standalone experience? Well … it’s not quite a Horror, it’s not quite a Comedy, and it’s not quite a Melodrama. The fact that it so effectively avoids being pigeonholed into any specific category does suggest it’s worth the time; and still I found it to fall short of the legend so many had previously painted it to be.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at the Cohen Media Group provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Old Dark House (1932) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The lion’s share of the screen time is spent in conversations between these various and asunder couplings, some of which might have modern viewers rolling their eyes over the incredulity. That’s not a complaint for me because I do enjoy a good talker, and – on that front – I enjoyed spending time with characters who had something to say. (Sorry, folks, but real love – the kind that effective marriages are built on – isn’t achieved at first sight nor after a single meal and a snuggle in a parked car.) In particular, Thesiger, Moore, and Wills put on incredibly creepy performances that give an otherwise somber palate the vivid life you never thought possible. Dudgeon’s turn as the elder Femm is good, although it feels a bit too clean based entirely on the winding branches sprung from family tree. Thankfully, the last third of the motion picture gives way to the ultimate reason why House is considered a Horror – Morgan shows what a screen menace could look like physically whilst Saul might give Hannibal Lecter a run for his money – and finally a good time is had by all … well, at least the audience, that is.
The Old Dark House (1932) was produced by Universal Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at the Cohen Film Collection. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were exceptional for this restored print. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts not one but two commentary tracks – one from Whale biographer James Curtis and another from actress Stuart – along with a few nicely produced extras. It’s a solid effort.
Recommended.
As I’ve tried to be clear, The Old Dark House (1932) is and isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be. Supported by an incredible reputation amongst film elite, I went in to these 70+ minutes expecting a lot more than what was delivered; and I think that’s because it had been elevated to something no flick could be in my own mind. Granted, there’s a good deal to explore and pontificate over – if that’s your thing – but as a standalone experience? Well … it’s not quite a Horror, it’s not quite a Comedy, and it’s not quite a Melodrama. The fact that it so effectively avoids being pigeonholed into any specific category does suggest it’s worth the time; and still I found it to fall short of the legend so many had previously painted it to be.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at the Cohen Media Group provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Old Dark House (1932) 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
Sorry, folks, but there are some things one just shouldn't joke about ... and -- for what it's worth -- I think pedophilia is amongst them.
Back in the early days of SciFiHistory.Net, I had this podcast I listened to daily, and the host knew it. (No, I'm not gonna name names because, ultimately, 'who' isn't important.) In any event, there was this one morning amidst all of the -- ahem -- kerfuffle involving James Gunn's online identity -- it would seem he has had a tendency in the past to make jokes about his sexual predilections or if not his sexual predilections some very inappropriate ones -- and I was listening to this morning podcast wherein the host actually defended Gunn despite the writer/director recently having been fired from the Walt Disney Company. (This was following Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2, I believe.) The bloke's position was that if we wanted to get the very best in entertainment then we were just going to have to look the other way on a storyteller's personal foibles because -- in his opinion -- conservative artists just don't tell good stories.
Yeah. You read that right.
In any event, I kinda/sorta put out a challenge on that front, suggesting that turning the other way is what kinda/sorta got us in this mess culturally to begin with and maybe such topics really couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't be off limits in any forum. The long and the short of it is, then, this podcast guy used his platform to pretty much bully me for my position; and he wound down his sermon with his own testimony of how he wears a button at conventions for the protection of anyone against bullies. I'm guessing this fellow wasn't bright enough to understand the irony of his statements; and I've never listened to his show or any of his affiliates ever since. In life, you gotta stand for something; and I choose for standing on substance ... not for being proud enough to wear a button yet do nothing to demonstrate what the button allegedly stands for.
As most know by now, none of this hubbub actually hurt Gunn's career. In Hollywood, it's been said such behaviors are career enhancements; and certainly the storied careers of one Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, and even Bill Cosby show that such insiders are all-too-happy to look the other way if there's some financial gain involved. Eventually, even the Mouse House recanted on their position, bringing the writer/director back into the fold to wrap up his Guardians saga; and it wasn't long after that Gunn was hired by Warner Bros. to head up their all-new revamp of DC Studios. (See what I mean? Such folks are sought after in Tinseltown, don't you believe otherwise.)
Of course, I've no way of knowing whether or not Gunn actually partook of those things he alleged to have done in his various Tweets and the like. (Yes, yes, and yes: I've heard he claims he was just joking, but -- as I said at the top -- there are some topics a bit too taboo so far as I give a damn.) Truth is never something that gets bandied about in public, after all: the rumors are usually far more salacious and intriguing, which is why I do try to avoid them when and if at all possible. While Gunn's stories haven't been to my liking, it's pretty clear that he's crafted an audience for his stuff, and it's that reality that probably brought Warner to making the decision to hand him the keys to their and DC's oft-maligned kingdom.
Well ...
We're really about to see whether or not this was all worth the controversy as DC Studios released a promotional trailer for Creature Commandos -- what I think is the first truly Gunn-initiated effort. Though he's sounded off on other properties along with leaving a talent like Gal Gadot kinda/sorta hanging in oblivion, Gunn will now be allowed to sink or swin on his own merits. I've not seen a specific premiere date in all of this (there could be one in the trailer, I watched it yesterday, but I honestly forget now), so all I can say is you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for this one to hit the small screen.
Back in the early days of SciFiHistory.Net, I had this podcast I listened to daily, and the host knew it. (No, I'm not gonna name names because, ultimately, 'who' isn't important.) In any event, there was this one morning amidst all of the -- ahem -- kerfuffle involving James Gunn's online identity -- it would seem he has had a tendency in the past to make jokes about his sexual predilections or if not his sexual predilections some very inappropriate ones -- and I was listening to this morning podcast wherein the host actually defended Gunn despite the writer/director recently having been fired from the Walt Disney Company. (This was following Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2, I believe.) The bloke's position was that if we wanted to get the very best in entertainment then we were just going to have to look the other way on a storyteller's personal foibles because -- in his opinion -- conservative artists just don't tell good stories.
Yeah. You read that right.
In any event, I kinda/sorta put out a challenge on that front, suggesting that turning the other way is what kinda/sorta got us in this mess culturally to begin with and maybe such topics really couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't be off limits in any forum. The long and the short of it is, then, this podcast guy used his platform to pretty much bully me for my position; and he wound down his sermon with his own testimony of how he wears a button at conventions for the protection of anyone against bullies. I'm guessing this fellow wasn't bright enough to understand the irony of his statements; and I've never listened to his show or any of his affiliates ever since. In life, you gotta stand for something; and I choose for standing on substance ... not for being proud enough to wear a button yet do nothing to demonstrate what the button allegedly stands for.
As most know by now, none of this hubbub actually hurt Gunn's career. In Hollywood, it's been said such behaviors are career enhancements; and certainly the storied careers of one Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, and even Bill Cosby show that such insiders are all-too-happy to look the other way if there's some financial gain involved. Eventually, even the Mouse House recanted on their position, bringing the writer/director back into the fold to wrap up his Guardians saga; and it wasn't long after that Gunn was hired by Warner Bros. to head up their all-new revamp of DC Studios. (See what I mean? Such folks are sought after in Tinseltown, don't you believe otherwise.)
Of course, I've no way of knowing whether or not Gunn actually partook of those things he alleged to have done in his various Tweets and the like. (Yes, yes, and yes: I've heard he claims he was just joking, but -- as I said at the top -- there are some topics a bit too taboo so far as I give a damn.) Truth is never something that gets bandied about in public, after all: the rumors are usually far more salacious and intriguing, which is why I do try to avoid them when and if at all possible. While Gunn's stories haven't been to my liking, it's pretty clear that he's crafted an audience for his stuff, and it's that reality that probably brought Warner to making the decision to hand him the keys to their and DC's oft-maligned kingdom.
Well ...
We're really about to see whether or not this was all worth the controversy as DC Studios released a promotional trailer for Creature Commandos -- what I think is the first truly Gunn-initiated effort. Though he's sounded off on other properties along with leaving a talent like Gal Gadot kinda/sorta hanging in oblivion, Gunn will now be allowed to sink or swin on his own merits. I've not seen a specific premiere date in all of this (there could be one in the trailer, I watched it yesterday, but I honestly forget now), so all I can say is you'll have to keep your eyes peeled for this one to hit the small screen.
Now, yes, I realize that Gunn has a few other properties that have come before with DC, and I'm not arguing the contrary. My point is that this -- to my knowledge -- is the first to come to fruition since he took the top job at DC Studios and Warner Bros., and that's it. His Suicide Squad was clever enough, but I think I turned off his Peacemaker series after the second episode. I really didn't see the point. We'd already seen that schtick with Amazon Studios' The Boys program, and Peacemaker really felt like more of the same. So ... it fell flat with me.
Meh. It is what it is.
In any event, enjoy the trailer.
-- EZ
Meh. It is what it is.
In any event, enjoy the trailer.
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the more pleasant developments in all of Horrordom is that fans of the best chillers and thrillers often end up getting into the entertainment business, hoping to make their own additions to that vast, vast catalogue exploring things to go bump in the night.
And … why shouldn’t they?
While Hollywood craftsmen and storytellers undoubtedly have a gift for spinning their own frights, fans of the Horror genre have invested countless hours in watching both big and low budget productions; and – unlike under categories of films – they’ve come to understand what works and what doesn’t on screens big and small. These fans are practically on a first-name-basis with jump scares. Many of them know how to mix up their own buckets of blood from things found in any household pantry. And I’ll bet even a few more have tinkered with their own gags to the point wherein they’ve filmed something on a video camera or smartphone to pass around amongst friends or maybe even post to the World Wide Web. Because they’re uniquely ‘in the know,’ they often understand how to approach the foundational elements of mythmaking – imitation is the highest form of flattery, don’t you know – so why shouldn’t they take their shot at securing a place in film history?
Certainly, that’s what writer/director Adam Green did. As a fanatic of all things gruesome, this award-winning talent had probably watched enough Horror flicks to grasp what he needed; and – in 2006 – his Hatchet was hatched on unsuspecting audiences. This blood-spattered fable of Victor Crowley – a deformed Louisiana swamp dweller grown into dreadful proportions – set the stage for a small stable of features wherein the usual cast of dead meat roamed the countryside waiting for their respective moments to meet some horrendous demise. It may not have been the perfect first picture, but it was perfect enough to establish both Green and Crowley with reputations in the industry, meaning that audiences would be wise to keep their eyes peeled for more to come from this dynamic duo.
Why … it was as if their very lives depended upon it!
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or character. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a group of tourists in a New Orleans haunted swamp tour find themselves stranded in the wilderness, their evening of fun and spooks turns into a horrific nightmare.”
And … why shouldn’t they?
While Hollywood craftsmen and storytellers undoubtedly have a gift for spinning their own frights, fans of the Horror genre have invested countless hours in watching both big and low budget productions; and – unlike under categories of films – they’ve come to understand what works and what doesn’t on screens big and small. These fans are practically on a first-name-basis with jump scares. Many of them know how to mix up their own buckets of blood from things found in any household pantry. And I’ll bet even a few more have tinkered with their own gags to the point wherein they’ve filmed something on a video camera or smartphone to pass around amongst friends or maybe even post to the World Wide Web. Because they’re uniquely ‘in the know,’ they often understand how to approach the foundational elements of mythmaking – imitation is the highest form of flattery, don’t you know – so why shouldn’t they take their shot at securing a place in film history?
Certainly, that’s what writer/director Adam Green did. As a fanatic of all things gruesome, this award-winning talent had probably watched enough Horror flicks to grasp what he needed; and – in 2006 – his Hatchet was hatched on unsuspecting audiences. This blood-spattered fable of Victor Crowley – a deformed Louisiana swamp dweller grown into dreadful proportions – set the stage for a small stable of features wherein the usual cast of dead meat roamed the countryside waiting for their respective moments to meet some horrendous demise. It may not have been the perfect first picture, but it was perfect enough to establish both Green and Crowley with reputations in the industry, meaning that audiences would be wise to keep their eyes peeled for more to come from this dynamic duo.
Why … it was as if their very lives depended upon it!
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or character. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a group of tourists in a New Orleans haunted swamp tour find themselves stranded in the wilderness, their evening of fun and spooks turns into a horrific nightmare.”
In fairness, I’ve always cautioned readers that – when it comes to Horror – practically any Tom, Dick, Harry, Jan, Marcia, or Cindy can make such a picture. The advent of home video – a craze started in the 1980’s and perfected not long after the advent of smartphones – meant that anyone could dabble in creating such pressure cookers. Start with an active imagination, set up a respectable premise, and throw in a relative number of homegrown special effects; and the sky was truly the limit. Anyone and everyone could give it the ‘sailor’s try,’ and – quite frankly – I’ve experienced a good deal of modestly-budgeted capers that have made for a great 90-minutes of viewing.
Adam Green’s Hatchet is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. While it arguably had more capital invested in the process of bringing it from the storyboards to the cineplexes, the film still retains that independent feel – the kind most folks call ‘guerilla filmmaking’ – while balancing out scenes with a better-than-average cast along with some impressive practical make-up effects that, sadly, studios just don’t give fans all that much any longer. None of this praise is intended to suggest that Hatchet is perfect because that’s far from the truth; still, the flick accomplishes a great deal on the back of its sheer enthusiasm, making it arguably worthy of the buzz it received from fans and the film festival circuit of its day.
Ben (played by Joel David Moore) is presently a ‘sad sack’ of a human being. Recently, his girlfriend broke up with him, sending the man spiraling into the sadness most associated with a broken heart. Hoping to lift Ben’s spirits, Marcus (Deon Richmond) drags him basically kicking and screaming to New Orleans – a place where such national treasures as boobs, beer, and beads rule the days of Mardi Gras on a regular basis. Unable to shake himself from the funk, Ben insists they try something different; and the two – after some argument – settle into a ghost tour of the city. But when their pontoon boat runs aground deep in the Louisiana Bayou, they find themselves – along with the other tourists – running for their dear lives from Victor Crowley, a veritable swamp demon whose daily pursuits consists of dismembering any and all he finds lost in the murk.
Now, Horrors – by the very nature – are uncomplicated affairs. Yes, it’s true that they’re formulaic, subsisting mainly on ratcheting up tension with the sometimes-ferocious depiction of the untimeliest demises caught on film. Audiences get introduced to the players – usually an assortment of stereotypes ranging from good to bad to (well) ugly – and it becomes clear fairly early on who of them might outlast others in the bid to escape death’s door. Hatchet is no different – yes, it’s pretty clear that Ben is destined to see the final reel, and it’s pretty easy to suggest that Marybeth Dunstan (Amara Zaragoza) is destined to pair up with him for the duration of their time as prey – and that’s probably the film’s biggest strength. It never strays too far from the predictability of its ideas and the capabilities of its players. Comfort food being what it is, one might argue that Horror is ‘comfort food’ for the eyes, and Hatchet digests about as easily as does anything similar.
Along with this accessibility, however, the film suffers from the usual weaknesses.
Adam Green’s Hatchet is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. While it arguably had more capital invested in the process of bringing it from the storyboards to the cineplexes, the film still retains that independent feel – the kind most folks call ‘guerilla filmmaking’ – while balancing out scenes with a better-than-average cast along with some impressive practical make-up effects that, sadly, studios just don’t give fans all that much any longer. None of this praise is intended to suggest that Hatchet is perfect because that’s far from the truth; still, the flick accomplishes a great deal on the back of its sheer enthusiasm, making it arguably worthy of the buzz it received from fans and the film festival circuit of its day.
Ben (played by Joel David Moore) is presently a ‘sad sack’ of a human being. Recently, his girlfriend broke up with him, sending the man spiraling into the sadness most associated with a broken heart. Hoping to lift Ben’s spirits, Marcus (Deon Richmond) drags him basically kicking and screaming to New Orleans – a place where such national treasures as boobs, beer, and beads rule the days of Mardi Gras on a regular basis. Unable to shake himself from the funk, Ben insists they try something different; and the two – after some argument – settle into a ghost tour of the city. But when their pontoon boat runs aground deep in the Louisiana Bayou, they find themselves – along with the other tourists – running for their dear lives from Victor Crowley, a veritable swamp demon whose daily pursuits consists of dismembering any and all he finds lost in the murk.
Now, Horrors – by the very nature – are uncomplicated affairs. Yes, it’s true that they’re formulaic, subsisting mainly on ratcheting up tension with the sometimes-ferocious depiction of the untimeliest demises caught on film. Audiences get introduced to the players – usually an assortment of stereotypes ranging from good to bad to (well) ugly – and it becomes clear fairly early on who of them might outlast others in the bid to escape death’s door. Hatchet is no different – yes, it’s pretty clear that Ben is destined to see the final reel, and it’s pretty easy to suggest that Marybeth Dunstan (Amara Zaragoza) is destined to pair up with him for the duration of their time as prey – and that’s probably the film’s biggest strength. It never strays too far from the predictability of its ideas and the capabilities of its players. Comfort food being what it is, one might argue that Horror is ‘comfort food’ for the eyes, and Hatchet digests about as easily as does anything similar.
Along with this accessibility, however, the film suffers from the usual weaknesses.
Green’s script never quite tackles the challenge of explaining why these folks probably couldn’t find their way out of a paper bag. As one who has been lost in the wilderness (hiking be damned), I can tell you that there are still ways and means to recognizing that you’re going in a circle; but no one in this cast of characters was apparently up to the task. Of course, the fact that this excursion into the swamp took place at night complicates matters to a greater degree; but none of that excuses the fact that – ahem – this was quite possibly one of the best lit nighttime shoots I’ve ever seen in a Horror film. In fact, one might argue that there’s far too much clarity in some scenes, and that kinda/sorta ruins the aesthetic of this supposedly being a group of people lost in the dark in a highly uncharacteristic setting. I’ll chalk that artistic choice up to being a beginner’s error.
Yet, because all of this was so well lit – props to the production crew, by the way – it really defies logic as to how Crowley – a big and lumbering menace who’d give Jason Voorhees a run for his money – could sneak up on the men and women. Sadly, there’s a scene wherein the demon literally pops up, screaming, gesticulating, etc.; and – when the camera pans back quickly – it becomes clear that he must’ve crawled up to them on his hands and knees in this perfect clearing while no one saw him coming. Why? Why do that? None of them are his physical equal. Even together, they couldn’t stand toe-to-toe. He’s a behemoth, and they’re all small fries. If the only reason was to manufacture the resulting jump scare (on the audience), then (again) I’ll have to chalk that up to another beginner’s mistake.
Ultimately, that’s the problem with Hatchet: it always aims for the middle ground, and it accepts such territory without ever trying to be anything greater. As good as Crowley’s background is (and it is interesting), he – as a villain – winds up being shackled in an entirely normal procedural, one wherein he’s going to spend a lot of time chasing idiots, jumping out of the dark, screeching and howling his delight, and – inevitably – winning the day in a closing scene that’s a bit too reminiscent of Friday The 13th’s ending. A bit of extra effort could’ve given the franchise an even greater start, but – alas – it would seem that ‘good enough’ was ‘good enough’ while I’m the type of fan who wanted something just a tad bit extra.
Hatchet (2006) was produced by ArieScope Pictures, High Seas Entertainment, Radioaktive Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Dark Sky Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the flicks provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional – perhaps even too good in some spots as too much clarity kinda/sorta spoils the Horror, if you ask me – from start to finish. Lastly, as for the special features? To the distributor’s credit, there are some excellent making-of shorts assembled here – perhaps a necessary evil considering the first film was the start of an all-new franchise – along with the usual gag reel, interviews, and theatrical trailers. It’s a solid assortment for die-hard enthusiasts. Well done!
Recommended.
Enthusiasm carries the day in the arduously formulaic Hatchet (2006). It isn’t a great outing, but it’s the kind of harmless Horror affair one might discover on cable and watch because there’s nothing else up against it. As a first picture, it’s well made – not exactly a winning endorsement, I realize – and it establishes a new threat to mankind that needs to be dealt with. Still, there’s an irrepressible sameness to all too much of it, leaving me wishing that everyone involved had tried harder than just twisting off skulls, shattering spines, and tearing off limbs. Besides, haven’t we seen that before?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with a Blu-ray copy of Hatchet: The Complete Collection 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
Yet, because all of this was so well lit – props to the production crew, by the way – it really defies logic as to how Crowley – a big and lumbering menace who’d give Jason Voorhees a run for his money – could sneak up on the men and women. Sadly, there’s a scene wherein the demon literally pops up, screaming, gesticulating, etc.; and – when the camera pans back quickly – it becomes clear that he must’ve crawled up to them on his hands and knees in this perfect clearing while no one saw him coming. Why? Why do that? None of them are his physical equal. Even together, they couldn’t stand toe-to-toe. He’s a behemoth, and they’re all small fries. If the only reason was to manufacture the resulting jump scare (on the audience), then (again) I’ll have to chalk that up to another beginner’s mistake.
Ultimately, that’s the problem with Hatchet: it always aims for the middle ground, and it accepts such territory without ever trying to be anything greater. As good as Crowley’s background is (and it is interesting), he – as a villain – winds up being shackled in an entirely normal procedural, one wherein he’s going to spend a lot of time chasing idiots, jumping out of the dark, screeching and howling his delight, and – inevitably – winning the day in a closing scene that’s a bit too reminiscent of Friday The 13th’s ending. A bit of extra effort could’ve given the franchise an even greater start, but – alas – it would seem that ‘good enough’ was ‘good enough’ while I’m the type of fan who wanted something just a tad bit extra.
Hatchet (2006) was produced by ArieScope Pictures, High Seas Entertainment, Radioaktive Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Dark Sky Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the flicks provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional – perhaps even too good in some spots as too much clarity kinda/sorta spoils the Horror, if you ask me – from start to finish. Lastly, as for the special features? To the distributor’s credit, there are some excellent making-of shorts assembled here – perhaps a necessary evil considering the first film was the start of an all-new franchise – along with the usual gag reel, interviews, and theatrical trailers. It’s a solid assortment for die-hard enthusiasts. Well done!
Recommended.
Enthusiasm carries the day in the arduously formulaic Hatchet (2006). It isn’t a great outing, but it’s the kind of harmless Horror affair one might discover on cable and watch because there’s nothing else up against it. As a first picture, it’s well made – not exactly a winning endorsement, I realize – and it establishes a new threat to mankind that needs to be dealt with. Still, there’s an irrepressible sameness to all too much of it, leaving me wishing that everyone involved had tried harder than just twisting off skulls, shattering spines, and tearing off limbs. Besides, haven’t we seen that before?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with a Blu-ray copy of Hatchet: The Complete Collection 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
I kid you not: back in the days of my high school literature class, I actually scoffed at the mysteries involving Sherlock Holmes.
Realizing that the readership might think less of me, let me clarify that even at that point in my youth I was a long-established fan of written mysteries. While I didn’t exactly have access to a vast library of such literary puzzles, I was still hungry for adventures predicated on locked boxes, whodunnits, and the like. My issue with Holmes as his investigations were orchestrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rather fabulously in print was that these enigmas weren’t exactly solvable by those partaking the tales. In most cases, the clues were entirely hidden from readers, meaning that the only one aware of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth was only captured in Holmes’ brilliantly deductive mind. While, hey, it was somewhat fascinating to watch him work, I – as a reader – couldn’t match wits with the master detective because Doyle’s presentation concealed details required … and I felt somewhat cheated in the process.
When my tastes in entertainment transformed from the written page to the silver or television screens, I did invest some time in a great many adaptations of the various adventures Holmes and his reliable sidekick – Dr. John Watson – and, yes, many were quite good. Some of them followed the Doyle construction – that is, they cloaked some elements and left them solely the province of the chief investigator – but I think I found greater enjoyment with those that allowed me to follow closely, absorb the right bits and pieces, and maybe relish in reaching the proper conclusion alongside the big lead. Though I realize this isn’t how most brains are wired, I assure you that I know what I like, and I do tend to stick with what I know.
Regardless, I leapt at the chance to check out Severin Films’ latest Baker Street product: the distributor has released the surviving episodes of the BBC’s second season of Sherlock Holmes – properly titled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes – on home video. I’d been aware of the serial chiefly owed to Peter Cushing’s involvement – he took over the center seat vacated by actor Douglas Wilmer (who allegedly struggled with the program’s written script quality and bowed out for other pursuits). Over the next few days, I’ll be reviewing several episodes for posterity’s sake, giving you some of the highs and lows of these various whodunits.
First up: “A Study In Scarlet,” the third episode of the show’s second season.
(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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a man is found poisoned in an abandoned building with the word "RACHE" written in blood on the wall. LaStrade confidently declares, ‘Cherchez la femme!’”
Aye begorrah …
One of the problems with relying on plot synopses as I do from IMDB.com to kinda/sorta ‘set the stage’ for my own reviews is that, occasionally, the database either gets the premise stunningly wrong or reveals a bit too many specifics, thus spoiling a surprise or two. Such is the case with their summary of “A Study In Scarlet” wherein not one but two elements that don’t get unearthed until somewhat late in the action come front-and-center a bit too soon.
Allow me …
Realizing that the readership might think less of me, let me clarify that even at that point in my youth I was a long-established fan of written mysteries. While I didn’t exactly have access to a vast library of such literary puzzles, I was still hungry for adventures predicated on locked boxes, whodunnits, and the like. My issue with Holmes as his investigations were orchestrated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rather fabulously in print was that these enigmas weren’t exactly solvable by those partaking the tales. In most cases, the clues were entirely hidden from readers, meaning that the only one aware of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth was only captured in Holmes’ brilliantly deductive mind. While, hey, it was somewhat fascinating to watch him work, I – as a reader – couldn’t match wits with the master detective because Doyle’s presentation concealed details required … and I felt somewhat cheated in the process.
When my tastes in entertainment transformed from the written page to the silver or television screens, I did invest some time in a great many adaptations of the various adventures Holmes and his reliable sidekick – Dr. John Watson – and, yes, many were quite good. Some of them followed the Doyle construction – that is, they cloaked some elements and left them solely the province of the chief investigator – but I think I found greater enjoyment with those that allowed me to follow closely, absorb the right bits and pieces, and maybe relish in reaching the proper conclusion alongside the big lead. Though I realize this isn’t how most brains are wired, I assure you that I know what I like, and I do tend to stick with what I know.
Regardless, I leapt at the chance to check out Severin Films’ latest Baker Street product: the distributor has released the surviving episodes of the BBC’s second season of Sherlock Holmes – properly titled Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes – on home video. I’d been aware of the serial chiefly owed to Peter Cushing’s involvement – he took over the center seat vacated by actor Douglas Wilmer (who allegedly struggled with the program’s written script quality and bowed out for other pursuits). Over the next few days, I’ll be reviewing several episodes for posterity’s sake, giving you some of the highs and lows of these various whodunits.
First up: “A Study In Scarlet,” the third episode of the show’s second season.
(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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a man is found poisoned in an abandoned building with the word "RACHE" written in blood on the wall. LaStrade confidently declares, ‘Cherchez la femme!’”
Aye begorrah …
One of the problems with relying on plot synopses as I do from IMDB.com to kinda/sorta ‘set the stage’ for my own reviews is that, occasionally, the database either gets the premise stunningly wrong or reveals a bit too many specifics, thus spoiling a surprise or two. Such is the case with their summary of “A Study In Scarlet” wherein not one but two elements that don’t get unearthed until somewhat late in the action come front-and-center a bit too soon.
Allow me …
The body of travelling American capitalist Enoch Drebber (played by Craig Hunter) is discovered in an abandoned building – true – but there really is no significant indication initially as to what caused his demise; and this is the chief reason why inspectors Gregson (George A. Cooper) and Lestrade (William Lucas) call upon the renowned Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cushing) and Dr. Watson (Nigel Stock). Despite the fact that Holmes provides them with information sufficient to put them onto a new course of action, the inspectors instead proceed on their original assumptions, neither of which bear fruit except to say that Drebber’s activity over his final days brings new information to light. Still, only Holmes’ ability to stay the course and follow his keen intellectual insights unmasks the true culprit … a man with the unique ability to both be well within sight but equally above suspicion due to his unquestionable anonymity.
Now, what I liked about “A Study In Scarlet” was that those of us watching closely were delivered an all-too-brief vignette involving a deceased woman. The hand of an unseen person – most likely a male – reaches into the frame to remove a ring from her cold fingers, only then to clutch it tightly in his own grasp. A quick dissolve to the program’s opening credits might very well have left most in the audience to forget this impressionable little nugget of information, mostly because it never gets explained and resolved until the final reel. But my being a fan of mysteries served me well as I kept wondering how this quick snippet might possibly have figured into the whole affair: even though the script by Hugh Leonard (adapted on Doyle’s original yarn) provides plenty of redirects, I encourage watchers to keep it in mind throughout Scarlet’s 50-minute run-time, and you might stay one step ahead … just like Holmes does.
And the nature of just how these procedurals unfold provides plenty of room for misdirects, which are consistently spread throughout the case. This has always been my chief bugaboo with Doyle’s prose – far too many clues are hidden away where only the detective sees them – and, yes, it reduces some aspects of the entertainment factor here. However, Cushing’s portrayal of this epic solver of problems is interesting enough to set aside some modest quibbles with the script as he rather effortlessly dismantles competing theories while equally vexing those around him to try a bit harder (especially Watson). Not every twist and turn makes perfect sense in the moment, but by the time the caper is suitably wrapped up by the lead it all adds up in only the way that Sherlock could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve seen it coming.
That said, production details are fairly solid. Scarlet includes some exterior shooting as well as studio sequences; and, yes, it’s quite obvious when the narrative is shifting between the film stock choices. Because some of the developments are a bit elusive, I’d argue that what matters more is that the screen talents all hit their marks effectively, and I’m pleased to conclude that’s the case here. Cushing makes for a winning lead, and even a few small(ish) bits with supporting players – Edina Ronay as a kinda/sorta romantic interest, Joe Melia as a stage actor exploring his male and female appeal, and Dorothy Edwards as a domineering house madame – are given something to do and make the most of it … all of it accomplished in under 50 minutes.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 was produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure you that the provided sights-and-sounds are occasionally very underwhelming here: as I understand it, these surviving masters are the best available – some episodes are even completely lost to history – and there’s an incredible amount of grain and decided loss of clarity in sections apparently switching between film stocks. Yes, it’s often somewhat distracting, but I suspect fans of either Cushing or Holmes aficionados will celebrate either way. Lastly, as for the special features? Authors Kim Newman and David Stuart Davies provide a lively commentary track, but they do irregularly drift into minutiae that’s a bit ancillary for my tastes, being what it is. It’s good, but I found some of it a bit irrelevant.
Recommended.
Though the truth is – in typical Doyle fashion – audiences may not see the ending coming, “A Study In Scarlet” is still a surprisingly engaging event. There’s this hidden vastness to the central story – again, it gets revealed mostly in the final monologue, so it’s equally elusive – that gives watchers more to chew on than contemporary C.S.I. puzzles, all of which harkens back to a time when characters and motivations were crafted with a scale occasionally bigger than life. Though modern audiences might remain a bit hard-pressed to stick with something requiring greater cognitive participation, I find this one amiable enough to give it a recommendation.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 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
Now, what I liked about “A Study In Scarlet” was that those of us watching closely were delivered an all-too-brief vignette involving a deceased woman. The hand of an unseen person – most likely a male – reaches into the frame to remove a ring from her cold fingers, only then to clutch it tightly in his own grasp. A quick dissolve to the program’s opening credits might very well have left most in the audience to forget this impressionable little nugget of information, mostly because it never gets explained and resolved until the final reel. But my being a fan of mysteries served me well as I kept wondering how this quick snippet might possibly have figured into the whole affair: even though the script by Hugh Leonard (adapted on Doyle’s original yarn) provides plenty of redirects, I encourage watchers to keep it in mind throughout Scarlet’s 50-minute run-time, and you might stay one step ahead … just like Holmes does.
And the nature of just how these procedurals unfold provides plenty of room for misdirects, which are consistently spread throughout the case. This has always been my chief bugaboo with Doyle’s prose – far too many clues are hidden away where only the detective sees them – and, yes, it reduces some aspects of the entertainment factor here. However, Cushing’s portrayal of this epic solver of problems is interesting enough to set aside some modest quibbles with the script as he rather effortlessly dismantles competing theories while equally vexing those around him to try a bit harder (especially Watson). Not every twist and turn makes perfect sense in the moment, but by the time the caper is suitably wrapped up by the lead it all adds up in only the way that Sherlock could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve seen it coming.
That said, production details are fairly solid. Scarlet includes some exterior shooting as well as studio sequences; and, yes, it’s quite obvious when the narrative is shifting between the film stock choices. Because some of the developments are a bit elusive, I’d argue that what matters more is that the screen talents all hit their marks effectively, and I’m pleased to conclude that’s the case here. Cushing makes for a winning lead, and even a few small(ish) bits with supporting players – Edina Ronay as a kinda/sorta romantic interest, Joe Melia as a stage actor exploring his male and female appeal, and Dorothy Edwards as a domineering house madame – are given something to do and make the most of it … all of it accomplished in under 50 minutes.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 was produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC). DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure you that the provided sights-and-sounds are occasionally very underwhelming here: as I understand it, these surviving masters are the best available – some episodes are even completely lost to history – and there’s an incredible amount of grain and decided loss of clarity in sections apparently switching between film stocks. Yes, it’s often somewhat distracting, but I suspect fans of either Cushing or Holmes aficionados will celebrate either way. Lastly, as for the special features? Authors Kim Newman and David Stuart Davies provide a lively commentary track, but they do irregularly drift into minutiae that’s a bit ancillary for my tastes, being what it is. It’s good, but I found some of it a bit irrelevant.
Recommended.
Though the truth is – in typical Doyle fashion – audiences may not see the ending coming, “A Study In Scarlet” is still a surprisingly engaging event. There’s this hidden vastness to the central story – again, it gets revealed mostly in the final monologue, so it’s equally elusive – that gives watchers more to chew on than contemporary C.S.I. puzzles, all of which harkens back to a time when characters and motivations were crafted with a scale occasionally bigger than life. Though modern audiences might remain a bit hard-pressed to stick with something requiring greater cognitive participation, I find this one amiable enough to give it a recommendation.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Season 02 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
I’m old enough to remember a time when sequels needed to go the extra mile to prove the need for their own existence.
While an argument could be made that follow-ups featuring ‘the son of’ or ‘the return of’ any central property – i.e. Son Of Kong, The Return Of The Invisible Man, etc. – didn’t work so hard, I think storytellers did for a time try to bring something fresh and/or original to sequels and prequels. For example, the Godfather Saga grew exponentially between Parts 1 and 2 – 3, not so much – and audiences were rewarded with new characters and new circumstances for sticking with the franchise. The Star Wars films – Chapters 1 through 6 – organically took viewers both into the parallel tracks of family and politics, expanding the parameters with each outing in ways that strengthened the journey’s core ideas. Heck, even the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World iterations tweaked what we knew about their movie science and expended screen time minimally in amping up the threats, making each successive thrill ride a respectable variation on the original formula. This isn’t to say that these sequels were good; rather, it’s only indicating that there was a recognizable attempt at trying something brand new if even to a small degree.
Alas, the Ghostbusters Saga hasn’t quite been on the receiving end of what I’d say is great mythmaking. It’s a franchise that’s always been a bit more about moxie and attitude – nerdy scientists taking on the occult with plenty of good-hearted laughs thrown in – where things like logic, special effects, and narrative cohesiveness are important but not as meaningful as how the quirky cast of characters deal with them. And that isn’t a bad thing, honestly. When these screen people are as intoxicating and inviting as Dr. Peter Venkman, Dr. Ray Stantz, and others, then you go with what works; and comic charm along with excellent timing sells the sizzle when acceptable imagery doesn’t. Still, at some point, one would hope that the powers that be would recognize a property needs to evolve in ways more than adding new clowns to the mix … but Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) kinda/sorta lazily unspools to remind you that creativity is dead in Hollywood, and the best fans might hope for – at this point – is nostalgia-fueled ‘memberberries.’
(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 …)
While an argument could be made that follow-ups featuring ‘the son of’ or ‘the return of’ any central property – i.e. Son Of Kong, The Return Of The Invisible Man, etc. – didn’t work so hard, I think storytellers did for a time try to bring something fresh and/or original to sequels and prequels. For example, the Godfather Saga grew exponentially between Parts 1 and 2 – 3, not so much – and audiences were rewarded with new characters and new circumstances for sticking with the franchise. The Star Wars films – Chapters 1 through 6 – organically took viewers both into the parallel tracks of family and politics, expanding the parameters with each outing in ways that strengthened the journey’s core ideas. Heck, even the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World iterations tweaked what we knew about their movie science and expended screen time minimally in amping up the threats, making each successive thrill ride a respectable variation on the original formula. This isn’t to say that these sequels were good; rather, it’s only indicating that there was a recognizable attempt at trying something brand new if even to a small degree.
Alas, the Ghostbusters Saga hasn’t quite been on the receiving end of what I’d say is great mythmaking. It’s a franchise that’s always been a bit more about moxie and attitude – nerdy scientists taking on the occult with plenty of good-hearted laughs thrown in – where things like logic, special effects, and narrative cohesiveness are important but not as meaningful as how the quirky cast of characters deal with them. And that isn’t a bad thing, honestly. When these screen people are as intoxicating and inviting as Dr. Peter Venkman, Dr. Ray Stantz, and others, then you go with what works; and comic charm along with excellent timing sells the sizzle when acceptable imagery doesn’t. Still, at some point, one would hope that the powers that be would recognize a property needs to evolve in ways more than adding new clowns to the mix … but Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) kinda/sorta lazily unspools to remind you that creativity is dead in Hollywood, and the best fans might hope for – at this point – is nostalgia-fueled ‘memberberries.’
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second ice age.”
As I get older, I think I’ve grown to enjoy franchises less and less.
What these wizened old eyes see is that stories just don’t work all that hard anymore, especially those that are part of an ongoing entity. It isn’t so much intellectual laziness I see creeping in so much as it is corporate greed: we’ve already built it, so let’s just serve up more of the same because it worked last time, meaning it’ll work again if we can separate the same fools from their monies like we did last time. JJ Abrams – as the worst example possible – quite figuratively defecated all over both Star Trek and Star Wars audiences, never once trying to concoct anything worthy of being called a franchise entry and, instead, delivering hokum that many suggest would be better off left to fan fiction attempts. Who am I to argue with such winning cynicism?
I will, however, stop a bit short of declaring everything in Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire a failure.
Mind you: it isn’t a great film.
In fact, it’s reasonably entertaining here and there, the kind of forgettable fluff one shouldn’t watch too closely. Let it unfurl. Watch it twist and turn, forcing a bit of comic cringe into the discourse. A few of the surviving principal players – Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, William Atherton, and the delightful Annie Potts – show up more so to remind you that they’re still around more than they have any authentic reason to be in this in the first place, but that’s an easily forgivable sin. The setting is transported from rural America back into the familiar confines of the Ghostbusters fire station; and – to a small degree – it feels like we’ve come back home. Yes, Frozen Empire is chocked full of memberberries – some work, some don’t – but it’s also curiously light on the same level of heart that elevated 2021’s Afterlife with an emotional core.
Essentially, young Phoebe Spengler (Mckenna Grace) is back in action as the lead ‘buster in this film, but as her ‘busting takes place well within the confines of New York City she’s suddenly the source of great controversy. Mayor Peck (Atherton) points out that not only is what she is doing dangerous but also she’s a child; and – labor laws being what they are – he demands she be benched if the Spengler family insists on doing commercial business in the Big Apple. Begrudgingly, mother Callie (Carrie Coon) and stepfather Gary (Paul Rudd) concur, and Phoebe is stripped of her uniform and proton pack, giving her time to experience what life as a normal teenager is.
“When the discovery of an ancient artifact unleashes an evil force, Ghostbusters new and old must join forces to protect their home and save the world from a second ice age.”
As I get older, I think I’ve grown to enjoy franchises less and less.
What these wizened old eyes see is that stories just don’t work all that hard anymore, especially those that are part of an ongoing entity. It isn’t so much intellectual laziness I see creeping in so much as it is corporate greed: we’ve already built it, so let’s just serve up more of the same because it worked last time, meaning it’ll work again if we can separate the same fools from their monies like we did last time. JJ Abrams – as the worst example possible – quite figuratively defecated all over both Star Trek and Star Wars audiences, never once trying to concoct anything worthy of being called a franchise entry and, instead, delivering hokum that many suggest would be better off left to fan fiction attempts. Who am I to argue with such winning cynicism?
I will, however, stop a bit short of declaring everything in Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire a failure.
Mind you: it isn’t a great film.
In fact, it’s reasonably entertaining here and there, the kind of forgettable fluff one shouldn’t watch too closely. Let it unfurl. Watch it twist and turn, forcing a bit of comic cringe into the discourse. A few of the surviving principal players – Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, William Atherton, and the delightful Annie Potts – show up more so to remind you that they’re still around more than they have any authentic reason to be in this in the first place, but that’s an easily forgivable sin. The setting is transported from rural America back into the familiar confines of the Ghostbusters fire station; and – to a small degree – it feels like we’ve come back home. Yes, Frozen Empire is chocked full of memberberries – some work, some don’t – but it’s also curiously light on the same level of heart that elevated 2021’s Afterlife with an emotional core.
Essentially, young Phoebe Spengler (Mckenna Grace) is back in action as the lead ‘buster in this film, but as her ‘busting takes place well within the confines of New York City she’s suddenly the source of great controversy. Mayor Peck (Atherton) points out that not only is what she is doing dangerous but also she’s a child; and – labor laws being what they are – he demands she be benched if the Spengler family insists on doing commercial business in the Big Apple. Begrudgingly, mother Callie (Carrie Coon) and stepfather Gary (Paul Rudd) concur, and Phoebe is stripped of her uniform and proton pack, giving her time to experience what life as a normal teenager is.
Well, naturally a mind as precocious as hers is doesn’t take kindly to be sidelined; and – before you know it – the script concocts not one but two winning distractions. The first: Phoebe finds herself befriended by the chess-playing ghost Melody (Emily Alyn Lind), a spirit who can’t ‘cross over’ to be with her family for reasons unknown. The second: Ray Stantz has stumbled across an object of incredible supernatural significance, leaving the youngest Ghostbuster – with plenty of free time on her hands – the chance to join him in investigating the emerging threat behind an ancient spirit named Garraka, an incarcerated malevolence who threatens to cover our world in ice if released. It doesn’t take a genius to see that, yes, Garraka will get lose, things will start to freeze, and our young hero will represent the last line of defense to save mankind as we know it.
So, yes, it’s always easy to accept some small amount of predictability so long as the script is well-intentioned and equally well delivered. Frozen Empire works best when it’s in young Grace’s hands: she’s developed into a solid talent in this spooky universe – likeable, knowledgeable, and impressionable ain’t an easy combination, but she makes it look effortless – and the script by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman should’ve respected that and given her a bit more to do. Some of their best quips and observations are handed off to the familiar faces around her, including a few that came over from Afterlife, and – sorry – they’re just not as appealing. Another draft – one that focused a bit more on Phoebe’s ascent to picking up the mantle raised by her departed grandfather Egan Spengler (the late Harold Ramis) – might’ve raised her up front-and-center properly instead of leaving her journey feeling so much like it was tacked on in order to give her something to do. It isn’t so much a creative miss as it feels like a miscalculation here, but that’s just my own two cents on that front.
Instead, Frozen Empire gives an inordinate amount of screen time to introducing the character of Nadeem (Kumail Nanjiani), a “talent” who never quite finds the comic rhythm necessary to be part and parcel of the Ghostbusters galaxy. While I mean no disrespect, I’ll concede I’ve yet to see the actor effective in any role he’s been cast. He certainly gravitates toward comic relief; and, yet, he displays no adequate sense of timing here much less the purpose needed to fulfill his secret life’s mission. In fact, he almost uncomfortably gropes and lurches his way through lines that might’ve been delivered with greater effect by someone else; and Nanjiani winds up feeling more like an anchor holding scenes in place instead of advancing the ideas albeit with uncharacteristic wit. Sometimes, there’s just no easy way to say it other than to point out his casting was a mistake.
Furthermore, the film suffers to an appreciable degree by incorporating a villain entirely the product of special effects.
So, yes, it’s always easy to accept some small amount of predictability so long as the script is well-intentioned and equally well delivered. Frozen Empire works best when it’s in young Grace’s hands: she’s developed into a solid talent in this spooky universe – likeable, knowledgeable, and impressionable ain’t an easy combination, but she makes it look effortless – and the script by Gil Kenan and Jason Reitman should’ve respected that and given her a bit more to do. Some of their best quips and observations are handed off to the familiar faces around her, including a few that came over from Afterlife, and – sorry – they’re just not as appealing. Another draft – one that focused a bit more on Phoebe’s ascent to picking up the mantle raised by her departed grandfather Egan Spengler (the late Harold Ramis) – might’ve raised her up front-and-center properly instead of leaving her journey feeling so much like it was tacked on in order to give her something to do. It isn’t so much a creative miss as it feels like a miscalculation here, but that’s just my own two cents on that front.
Instead, Frozen Empire gives an inordinate amount of screen time to introducing the character of Nadeem (Kumail Nanjiani), a “talent” who never quite finds the comic rhythm necessary to be part and parcel of the Ghostbusters galaxy. While I mean no disrespect, I’ll concede I’ve yet to see the actor effective in any role he’s been cast. He certainly gravitates toward comic relief; and, yet, he displays no adequate sense of timing here much less the purpose needed to fulfill his secret life’s mission. In fact, he almost uncomfortably gropes and lurches his way through lines that might’ve been delivered with greater effect by someone else; and Nanjiani winds up feeling more like an anchor holding scenes in place instead of advancing the ideas albeit with uncharacteristic wit. Sometimes, there’s just no easy way to say it other than to point out his casting was a mistake.
Furthermore, the film suffers to an appreciable degree by incorporating a villain entirely the product of special effects.
Garraka isn’t some ‘Gollum’ like character – meaning the demon doesn’t deliver a substantial number of lines nor create much presence greater than just being a shadowy monster – and his depiction in the film feels more cartoonish than it ever does authentically scary. Of course, Ghostbusters isn’t necessarily predicated on exploring sources of evil like TV procedurals The X-Files or The Night Stalker did; but there’s a lack of authenticity to villainy when its invested solely in something essentially crafted in post-production. The original film was better for casting human actors and actresses in roles because, this way, there could be a degree of the ordinary to encounters with the extraordinary. It’s more effective, and it helps audiences accept such spectral confines because they still have a human face. Garraka never worked for me because I knew he was fully animated in the studio, never present on the set, so the big finish felt a bit empty as a result.
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) was produced by Columbia Pictures, Ghostcorps, TSG Entertainment, BRON Studios, and Right Of Way Films. (A full accounting of all partners can be found on IMDB.com.) The film is presently available for digital and/or physical purchase from a variety of platforms and ventures. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish, pretty much the way one would expect from the Ghostbusters franchise. As for the special features? Given the fact that I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
Seriously, about the best thing that I can say in defense of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) is that it not only feels like it exists in the same universe as the original but also does so in a way that it won’t offend the delicate sensibilities of modern moviegoers. It’s more of the same – some familiar faces, some dubious effects, and suitable wrap-up to a rather unengaging affair, putting it on par with Ghostbusters 2 (1989) and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) – and it goes down as a suitable distraction so long as there’s nothing else more interesting on television or playing on the next screen. But when a property begins poking fun at itself so openly as this one does, would it be too much to ask that we reward the audience for showing up next time? Give them something worth the effort? No sense of impending catastrophe left this one kinda/sorta empty in the last reel, and I think viewers deserve a bit more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) as I viewed the release via my very own Netflix subscription.
-- EZ
Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) was produced by Columbia Pictures, Ghostcorps, TSG Entertainment, BRON Studios, and Right Of Way Films. (A full accounting of all partners can be found on IMDB.com.) The film is presently available for digital and/or physical purchase from a variety of platforms and ventures. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish, pretty much the way one would expect from the Ghostbusters franchise. As for the special features? Given the fact that I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Recommended.
Seriously, about the best thing that I can say in defense of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) is that it not only feels like it exists in the same universe as the original but also does so in a way that it won’t offend the delicate sensibilities of modern moviegoers. It’s more of the same – some familiar faces, some dubious effects, and suitable wrap-up to a rather unengaging affair, putting it on par with Ghostbusters 2 (1989) and Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) – and it goes down as a suitable distraction so long as there’s nothing else more interesting on television or playing on the next screen. But when a property begins poking fun at itself so openly as this one does, would it be too much to ask that we reward the audience for showing up next time? Give them something worth the effort? No sense of impending catastrophe left this one kinda/sorta empty in the last reel, and I think viewers deserve a bit more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) as I viewed the release via my very own Netflix subscription.
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I've had the great pleasure of partaking of quite a few exceptional chillers compliments of the good people at Shudder.
I know, I know, I know ... not everybody gets scared by the same things, and that's true. My particular taste in Horror is most definitely not what mainstream audiences gravitate toward; and that's because as I've often opined I just don't find a great deal of what gets trafficked to be all that horrific. For me, there has to be some great, scary idea at the core of whatever story is being spun in front of me, and that's why I do find so few thrills to be truly original. They're out there, peeps, and I'm always happy to keep searching for them.
Lo and behold, I was recently offered up the press release for Hell Hole, a Shudder original, that's getting released to the masses-at-large this upcoming August 23rd. While I'll admit that the trailer is a bit heavy on predictability here, I'll also saw that the modest creature effects do promise that there might be a bit more to this one than what first meets the eye. I do like flicks that set their characters out away from civilization -- setting them off with very few resources at their fingertips to resolve the bloody central conflict -- and that certainly looks to be the case here.
I'll do the noble copy-and-paste below; and I'll going to keep my eyes peeled for more on this one in the weeks ahead. You might want to put this one on your calendars, though, as it looks to deliver some requisite flesh and bones for those of you who like that sort of thing.
-- EZ
I know, I know, I know ... not everybody gets scared by the same things, and that's true. My particular taste in Horror is most definitely not what mainstream audiences gravitate toward; and that's because as I've often opined I just don't find a great deal of what gets trafficked to be all that horrific. For me, there has to be some great, scary idea at the core of whatever story is being spun in front of me, and that's why I do find so few thrills to be truly original. They're out there, peeps, and I'm always happy to keep searching for them.
Lo and behold, I was recently offered up the press release for Hell Hole, a Shudder original, that's getting released to the masses-at-large this upcoming August 23rd. While I'll admit that the trailer is a bit heavy on predictability here, I'll also saw that the modest creature effects do promise that there might be a bit more to this one than what first meets the eye. I do like flicks that set their characters out away from civilization -- setting them off with very few resources at their fingertips to resolve the bloody central conflict -- and that certainly looks to be the case here.
I'll do the noble copy-and-paste below; and I'll going to keep my eyes peeled for more on this one in the weeks ahead. You might want to put this one on your calendars, though, as it looks to deliver some requisite flesh and bones for those of you who like that sort of thing.
-- EZ
Hell Hole
An Adams Family Film
Directed by Toby Poser & John Adams
Streaming on Shudder Friday, August 23rd
An Adams Family Film
Directed by Toby Poser & John Adams
Streaming on Shudder Friday, August 23rd
Synopsis
In the Adams Family's celebration of the classic creature-feature, an American-led fracking crew working deep in the Serbian wilderness find themselves at odds with government assigned environmental advisors. When they get approval to drill, the workers uncover the unimaginable: a dormant parasitic monster entombed deep in the frozen rock. Now awakened, it tears through the mining facility in search of the perfect host.
About the Filmmakers
John Adams, Toby Poser, and their daughters, Lulu and Zelda, are a filmmaking family under the creative marquee of Wonder Wheel Productions. They have 7 previous features: Where The Devil Roams (2023), Hellbender (2021), The Deeper You Dig (2020), which premiered at Fantasia Film Festival and is distributed by Dark Sky Films and Arrow Video; Halfway to Zen (2016); The Shoot (2014); Knuckle Jack (2013); Rumblestrips (2012) — all earning a hearty reception on the festival circuit, including Best in Show and Audience awards. For each they’ve employed the same DIY ethic: as a collective team they write, direct, produce; they shoot, edit, act, and compose. The family lives in the Catskill Mountains of New York.
Director: John Adams and Toby Poser
Writers: Lulu Adams, John Adams, Toby Poser
Cast: Toby Poser, John Adams, Max Portman, Anders Hove, Olivera Perunicic, Aleksandar Trmcic, Petar Arsic, Bruno Veljanovski
Executive Producers: Emily Gotto, Nicholas Lazo, Samuel Zimmerman
Producers: Justin Martell, Matt Manjourides, Miloš Ðukelić
Director of Photography: Sean Dahlberg
Editor: John Adams
Composer: John Adams
Creature Design: MastersFX, Inc
Visual Effects & Stop-Motion Animation: Trey Lindsay
Special Effects Makeup: Kristina Miljački, Veroljub Naumović
Special Effects Makeup Coordinator: Todd Masters
Assistant Special Effects Makeup: Dijana Molac
Production Designer: Vladimir Vićentić
Costume Designer: Ivana Mazić
Language: English, Serbian, French
Runtime: 92 min
In the Adams Family's celebration of the classic creature-feature, an American-led fracking crew working deep in the Serbian wilderness find themselves at odds with government assigned environmental advisors. When they get approval to drill, the workers uncover the unimaginable: a dormant parasitic monster entombed deep in the frozen rock. Now awakened, it tears through the mining facility in search of the perfect host.
About the Filmmakers
John Adams, Toby Poser, and their daughters, Lulu and Zelda, are a filmmaking family under the creative marquee of Wonder Wheel Productions. They have 7 previous features: Where The Devil Roams (2023), Hellbender (2021), The Deeper You Dig (2020), which premiered at Fantasia Film Festival and is distributed by Dark Sky Films and Arrow Video; Halfway to Zen (2016); The Shoot (2014); Knuckle Jack (2013); Rumblestrips (2012) — all earning a hearty reception on the festival circuit, including Best in Show and Audience awards. For each they’ve employed the same DIY ethic: as a collective team they write, direct, produce; they shoot, edit, act, and compose. The family lives in the Catskill Mountains of New York.
Director: John Adams and Toby Poser
Writers: Lulu Adams, John Adams, Toby Poser
Cast: Toby Poser, John Adams, Max Portman, Anders Hove, Olivera Perunicic, Aleksandar Trmcic, Petar Arsic, Bruno Veljanovski
Executive Producers: Emily Gotto, Nicholas Lazo, Samuel Zimmerman
Producers: Justin Martell, Matt Manjourides, Miloš Ðukelić
Director of Photography: Sean Dahlberg
Editor: John Adams
Composer: John Adams
Creature Design: MastersFX, Inc
Visual Effects & Stop-Motion Animation: Trey Lindsay
Special Effects Makeup: Kristina Miljački, Veroljub Naumović
Special Effects Makeup Coordinator: Todd Masters
Assistant Special Effects Makeup: Dijana Molac
Production Designer: Vladimir Vićentić
Costume Designer: Ivana Mazić
Language: English, Serbian, French
Runtime: 92 min
- Published on
Folks, I don't mean to 'hate on' any franchise.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. Doctor Who isn't as healthy as he's once been. Star Wars best days look like they, too, were a long time ago. Marvel at present is experiencing a relatively resurgence thanks in no small part to the team-up of Deadpool and Wolverine, but otherwise? Well, the MouseHouse has really hurt that intellectuall property as well. And ... Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek? Argh. I really don't wanna commit ink to my honest thoughts, so let's just leave it this way: few are going where many used to go before.
Again, that isn't hating exactly because it's my opinion backed up by ratings. Since chucking the Final Frontier behind the paywall that is now Paramount+ -- after several name changes and rebrandings, I might add -- Star Trek has largely returned culturally to what it really was in the late 1960's when it first aired on television: a niche show. It really didn't ignite the following that it enjoyed in the 1970's and 1980's until man landed on the moon -- for those unaware, the original series was absolute gangbusters in TV syndication (ask your parents, kids) -- and both the classic cast and the Next Generation crew rode that wave as long as was possible. But today? Well, no one really watches it any more -- really, there's no need to debate this, people -- and it's returned to the state wherein Roddenberry launched it for the few, the proud, the space marines. How fitting, am I right?
Well, Alex Kurtzman has done just about everything humanly possible to -- ahem -- recreate Star Trek for a modern audience. If by 'modern audience' one means 'no audience,' then he's an unqualified success! Gone is Trek's ability to spin yarns meant to teach everyone about morality and the like; and I really don't think it'll return to that prowess ever. I really don't. It's dead, Jim, and it ain't coming back. At best, Strange New Worlds occasionally looks like its writers understood that original formula, but that incarnation's second season was -- ahem -- just God awful. At this juncture, I'm fine with re-runs and the like; and if you like it then more power to you. It just ain't for me, and that's perfectly okay. Sad. But okay.
In any event ...
Kurtzman tried for quite some time to bring an even darker iteration to the masses: his fascination with the Federation's once super-secret Section 31 -- a dark ops division -- had the man promising what he felt would be an interesting counterpoint to the United Federation Of Planets enduring grace and goodness in the galaxy. After several years of using whatever clout he has, it looks like the suits at Paramount+ finally gave him a check: this past weekend, a teaser trailer for a solo movie event -- appropriately named Section 31 -- was dumped at San Diego's Comic Con. While I've watched it, I can assure you that I have absolutely no idea what it'll be about: the trailer truly reveals nothing but some snappy totalitarian and narcissistic dialogue, meaning that -- once again -- this is most likely no Trek I'd possibly recognize.
The trailer is below. You know what to do.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. Doctor Who isn't as healthy as he's once been. Star Wars best days look like they, too, were a long time ago. Marvel at present is experiencing a relatively resurgence thanks in no small part to the team-up of Deadpool and Wolverine, but otherwise? Well, the MouseHouse has really hurt that intellectuall property as well. And ... Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek? Argh. I really don't wanna commit ink to my honest thoughts, so let's just leave it this way: few are going where many used to go before.
Again, that isn't hating exactly because it's my opinion backed up by ratings. Since chucking the Final Frontier behind the paywall that is now Paramount+ -- after several name changes and rebrandings, I might add -- Star Trek has largely returned culturally to what it really was in the late 1960's when it first aired on television: a niche show. It really didn't ignite the following that it enjoyed in the 1970's and 1980's until man landed on the moon -- for those unaware, the original series was absolute gangbusters in TV syndication (ask your parents, kids) -- and both the classic cast and the Next Generation crew rode that wave as long as was possible. But today? Well, no one really watches it any more -- really, there's no need to debate this, people -- and it's returned to the state wherein Roddenberry launched it for the few, the proud, the space marines. How fitting, am I right?
Well, Alex Kurtzman has done just about everything humanly possible to -- ahem -- recreate Star Trek for a modern audience. If by 'modern audience' one means 'no audience,' then he's an unqualified success! Gone is Trek's ability to spin yarns meant to teach everyone about morality and the like; and I really don't think it'll return to that prowess ever. I really don't. It's dead, Jim, and it ain't coming back. At best, Strange New Worlds occasionally looks like its writers understood that original formula, but that incarnation's second season was -- ahem -- just God awful. At this juncture, I'm fine with re-runs and the like; and if you like it then more power to you. It just ain't for me, and that's perfectly okay. Sad. But okay.
In any event ...
Kurtzman tried for quite some time to bring an even darker iteration to the masses: his fascination with the Federation's once super-secret Section 31 -- a dark ops division -- had the man promising what he felt would be an interesting counterpoint to the United Federation Of Planets enduring grace and goodness in the galaxy. After several years of using whatever clout he has, it looks like the suits at Paramount+ finally gave him a check: this past weekend, a teaser trailer for a solo movie event -- appropriately named Section 31 -- was dumped at San Diego's Comic Con. While I've watched it, I can assure you that I have absolutely no idea what it'll be about: the trailer truly reveals nothing but some snappy totalitarian and narcissistic dialogue, meaning that -- once again -- this is most likely no Trek I'd possibly recognize.
The trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Once again, folks, I don't exist to 'hate on' franchises.
(Deja vu, am I right?)
To be perfectly honest, Star Trek has always been very sacred to me. While I was too young to fully appreciate seeing the show when it first aired on television in the late 1960's, I distinctly recall being exposed to it in my youth via TV syndication. I just devoured those original stories of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as they spoke to me in a way that I fully understood and appreciated even though their lessons were occasionally just out of my rational reach. I was glad that Paramount eventually returned us to that world -- what with the motion pictures of the original crew and even the Star Trek: The Next Generation spin-off -- and still at some point I began wondering if too much was going to spoil the tapestry.
You see, I struggled with a good deal of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Mind you: I loved its characters, but I wasn't always intrigued by the stories the writers delivered. The same thing could be said for Star Trek: Voyager -- though a few characters were, quite frankly, unnecessary -- and I just couldn't even begin to tolerate Star Trek: Enterprise. (I think I made it two seasons, and then I've watched bits and pieces of Seasons 3 and 4, never being surprised it was inevitably cancelled.) Star Trek: Discovery? Good grief. I've seen two seasons of that, and I've no interest in completing it whatsoever. Star Trek: Lower Decks? No. Not for me. Star Trek: Prodigy? Took in the pilot and couldn't find any appeal.
Well ... Star Trek: Strange New Worlds had some promise. Not a lot. But it occasionally feels good. Its first season was interesting; and -- ahem -- then its second season went totally off the rails into 'WTF am I watching' territory. Yes, it sticks largely to the original Trek formula -- each episode functions as its own entity, and it tries very hard to deliver reasonable commentary for those watching -- but I think it fails more than it truly succeeds. Season 2 ended on a cliffhanger that -- again -- I didn't much care for, so I'll likely not tune in for Season 3 unless it's offered freebie somewheres where I consume my entertainment.
This past weekend, Paramount offered up some footage at the San Diego Comic Con in hopes of spurring our collective interest in the next season ... and -- ahem -- color me underwhelmed. I do appreciate that they've finally dropped all pretense of claiming Strange New Worlds is a 'space Drama' and they're digging deep solely for Comedy. Maybe that's the best they have to offer at this point in the franchise's once storied history.
In any event, the footage is below. Watch it if you will. Cry if you must.
(Deja vu, am I right?)
To be perfectly honest, Star Trek has always been very sacred to me. While I was too young to fully appreciate seeing the show when it first aired on television in the late 1960's, I distinctly recall being exposed to it in my youth via TV syndication. I just devoured those original stories of Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as they spoke to me in a way that I fully understood and appreciated even though their lessons were occasionally just out of my rational reach. I was glad that Paramount eventually returned us to that world -- what with the motion pictures of the original crew and even the Star Trek: The Next Generation spin-off -- and still at some point I began wondering if too much was going to spoil the tapestry.
You see, I struggled with a good deal of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Mind you: I loved its characters, but I wasn't always intrigued by the stories the writers delivered. The same thing could be said for Star Trek: Voyager -- though a few characters were, quite frankly, unnecessary -- and I just couldn't even begin to tolerate Star Trek: Enterprise. (I think I made it two seasons, and then I've watched bits and pieces of Seasons 3 and 4, never being surprised it was inevitably cancelled.) Star Trek: Discovery? Good grief. I've seen two seasons of that, and I've no interest in completing it whatsoever. Star Trek: Lower Decks? No. Not for me. Star Trek: Prodigy? Took in the pilot and couldn't find any appeal.
Well ... Star Trek: Strange New Worlds had some promise. Not a lot. But it occasionally feels good. Its first season was interesting; and -- ahem -- then its second season went totally off the rails into 'WTF am I watching' territory. Yes, it sticks largely to the original Trek formula -- each episode functions as its own entity, and it tries very hard to deliver reasonable commentary for those watching -- but I think it fails more than it truly succeeds. Season 2 ended on a cliffhanger that -- again -- I didn't much care for, so I'll likely not tune in for Season 3 unless it's offered freebie somewheres where I consume my entertainment.
This past weekend, Paramount offered up some footage at the San Diego Comic Con in hopes of spurring our collective interest in the next season ... and -- ahem -- color me underwhelmed. I do appreciate that they've finally dropped all pretense of claiming Strange New Worlds is a 'space Drama' and they're digging deep solely for Comedy. Maybe that's the best they have to offer at this point in the franchise's once storied history.
In any event, the footage is below. Watch it if you will. Cry if you must.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
I think everyone has suspected that the copyright expiring on 'Steamboat Willie' -- the inspiration behind Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse -- would lead to some interesting consequences.
It goes without saying that this beloved animated character has been front-and-center behind the happiness of children around the world for the better part of the last century. Created in 1928 (according to Google.com), the Mick has inspired others to laugh in ways only a true pioneer could; thus, that copyright issue -- one would think -- might've been a bigger deal than the Mouse House ever anticipated it would, could, and should be. Whatever the case may be, I think we're resting on the perch of something completely different in entertainment now that its in public domain ... and one of the very first mutations looks to be coming to screens near you very, very, very soon.
Why, it was just today that I received the press release from Gravitas Ventures promoting their forthcoming The Mouse Trap (aka Mickey's Mouse Trap) for video and physical release this next month in August. In lieu of any further commentary on part, I'm going to do the noble copy-and-paste from their materials, this way preserving exactly what the powers that be want you to know about their impending Horror flick entirely.
Read up, kids! Mickey's taking a rather dark turn!
-- EZ
It goes without saying that this beloved animated character has been front-and-center behind the happiness of children around the world for the better part of the last century. Created in 1928 (according to Google.com), the Mick has inspired others to laugh in ways only a true pioneer could; thus, that copyright issue -- one would think -- might've been a bigger deal than the Mouse House ever anticipated it would, could, and should be. Whatever the case may be, I think we're resting on the perch of something completely different in entertainment now that its in public domain ... and one of the very first mutations looks to be coming to screens near you very, very, very soon.
Why, it was just today that I received the press release from Gravitas Ventures promoting their forthcoming The Mouse Trap (aka Mickey's Mouse Trap) for video and physical release this next month in August. In lieu of any further commentary on part, I'm going to do the noble copy-and-paste from their materials, this way preserving exactly what the powers that be want you to know about their impending Horror flick entirely.
Read up, kids! Mickey's taking a rather dark turn!
-- EZ
The Mouse Trap
Announces Distribution Partner And Release Dates
Announces Distribution Partner And Release Dates
Into Frame Productions partners Jamie Bailey and Simon Phillips are pleased to announce several multi-region partnerships for The Mouse Trap. The film garnered huge press attention when their teaser trailer dropped on January 1st on Simon Phillips' personal YouTube account and has since been seen by millions of people worldwide.
The film producers inked deals with Gravitas Ventures, An Anthem Sports & Entertainment Company, for the United States and Canada. The Horror feature The Mouse Trap releasing on VOD on August 6th, and DVD and Blu-Ray on August 13th 2024.
Steamboat Willie is the earliest version of Disney’s Mickey Mouse character, which entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024.
The film's Director Jamie Bailey states "The Mouse Trap film is famously the first horror film to use the Mickey Mouse character from Steamboat Willie. We just wanted to have fun with it all. I mean it's Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse murdering people. It's ridiculous. We ran with it and had fun doing it and I think it shows."
The film stars Simon Phillips (THE WITCHER, FUBAR) as the titular villain, said of the film "We have a childlike excitement to show the world the film! We love the amazing work Walt Disney created here and we love the creative freedom the character coming into public domain provided. Fun. That's what we had making it and what you will get watching it."
It was produced by Paul Whitney, Mark Popejoy, Alexander Gausman and Andrew Agopsowicz and the Co Producer is Filmcore's Mem Ferda.
About Gravitas Ventures
Gravitas Ventures is a leading all rights distributor of independent feature films and documentaries. Founded in 2006, Gravitas connects independent filmmakers and producers with distribution opportunities across the globe. Working with talented directors and producers, Gravitas Ventures has distributed thousands of films into over a hundred million homes in North America - over one billion homes worldwide. Recent Gravitas Venture releases include Deep Fear, Slotherhouse, Padre Pio, Gringa, The Pez Outlaw, Downwind, Mack & Rita, The King’s Daughter, Queen Bees, Our Friend, Vanguard, and The Secret: Dare to Dream. For more information, please visit www.gravitasventures.com, and follow @GravitasVOD on X and @gravitasventures on Instagram.
About Anthem Sports & Entertainment, Inc.
Anthem Sports & Entertainment Inc. is a global multi-platform media company with offices and studios in Toronto, Los Angeles, Denver, Nashville, New York, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Anthem's portfolio includes AXS TV, a leading music, entertainment, and lifestyle television channel and digital media company; global film distribution companyGravitas Ventures; Fight Network, the world's premier combat sports channel with broadcast distribution across 10+ countries and available globally through multiple OTT platforms; IMPACT Wrestling, one of the world's leading wrestling organizations; Invicta Fighting Championships, the world’s premier all-women mixed martial arts promotion; Game+, the leader in sports wagering, Esports and gaming content; GameTV, the home of game shows and competition-based reality series; and HDNet Movies, which features theatrically released films anddocumentaries. Anthem also has a significant ownership interest in Pursuit Channel, one of the top outdoor channels in the U.S. For more information, visit www.anthemse.com.
Simon Phillips Bio: Simon Phillips is an award-winning British actor, probably best-known for the Netflix show FUBAR with Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Witcher Season 3. He has also cited and won awards for his gruesome portrayal of Santa Claus in Christmas Horror features Once Upon A Time At Christmas and The Nights Before Christmas. His Feature film - Butchers, garnered high praise from The Guardian newspaper stating "It's Phillips' performance that keeps the film's pulse going. His Owen is exhilarating unpredictable, alternating between moments of meticulous villainy and sheer lunacy - one moment he will be refitting a spooky music box while eyeing his oblivious prey, next he will be whacking his victim bloodily, channeling a kind of biblical righteousness that makes him slippery, fascinating and, most importantly, terrifying to watch." He has appeared in feature films with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Mark Hamill, Robert Englund, Rutger Hauer, Richard E. Grant, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, John Malkovich, and Mel Gibson.
The film producers inked deals with Gravitas Ventures, An Anthem Sports & Entertainment Company, for the United States and Canada. The Horror feature The Mouse Trap releasing on VOD on August 6th, and DVD and Blu-Ray on August 13th 2024.
Steamboat Willie is the earliest version of Disney’s Mickey Mouse character, which entered the public domain on Jan. 1, 2024.
The film's Director Jamie Bailey states "The Mouse Trap film is famously the first horror film to use the Mickey Mouse character from Steamboat Willie. We just wanted to have fun with it all. I mean it's Steamboat Willie's Mickey Mouse murdering people. It's ridiculous. We ran with it and had fun doing it and I think it shows."
The film stars Simon Phillips (THE WITCHER, FUBAR) as the titular villain, said of the film "We have a childlike excitement to show the world the film! We love the amazing work Walt Disney created here and we love the creative freedom the character coming into public domain provided. Fun. That's what we had making it and what you will get watching it."
It was produced by Paul Whitney, Mark Popejoy, Alexander Gausman and Andrew Agopsowicz and the Co Producer is Filmcore's Mem Ferda.
About Gravitas Ventures
Gravitas Ventures is a leading all rights distributor of independent feature films and documentaries. Founded in 2006, Gravitas connects independent filmmakers and producers with distribution opportunities across the globe. Working with talented directors and producers, Gravitas Ventures has distributed thousands of films into over a hundred million homes in North America - over one billion homes worldwide. Recent Gravitas Venture releases include Deep Fear, Slotherhouse, Padre Pio, Gringa, The Pez Outlaw, Downwind, Mack & Rita, The King’s Daughter, Queen Bees, Our Friend, Vanguard, and The Secret: Dare to Dream. For more information, please visit www.gravitasventures.com, and follow @GravitasVOD on X and @gravitasventures on Instagram.
About Anthem Sports & Entertainment, Inc.
Anthem Sports & Entertainment Inc. is a global multi-platform media company with offices and studios in Toronto, Los Angeles, Denver, Nashville, New York, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Anthem's portfolio includes AXS TV, a leading music, entertainment, and lifestyle television channel and digital media company; global film distribution companyGravitas Ventures; Fight Network, the world's premier combat sports channel with broadcast distribution across 10+ countries and available globally through multiple OTT platforms; IMPACT Wrestling, one of the world's leading wrestling organizations; Invicta Fighting Championships, the world’s premier all-women mixed martial arts promotion; Game+, the leader in sports wagering, Esports and gaming content; GameTV, the home of game shows and competition-based reality series; and HDNet Movies, which features theatrically released films anddocumentaries. Anthem also has a significant ownership interest in Pursuit Channel, one of the top outdoor channels in the U.S. For more information, visit www.anthemse.com.
Simon Phillips Bio: Simon Phillips is an award-winning British actor, probably best-known for the Netflix show FUBAR with Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Witcher Season 3. He has also cited and won awards for his gruesome portrayal of Santa Claus in Christmas Horror features Once Upon A Time At Christmas and The Nights Before Christmas. His Feature film - Butchers, garnered high praise from The Guardian newspaper stating "It's Phillips' performance that keeps the film's pulse going. His Owen is exhilarating unpredictable, alternating between moments of meticulous villainy and sheer lunacy - one moment he will be refitting a spooky music box while eyeing his oblivious prey, next he will be whacking his victim bloodily, channeling a kind of biblical righteousness that makes him slippery, fascinating and, most importantly, terrifying to watch." He has appeared in feature films with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Mark Hamill, Robert Englund, Rutger Hauer, Richard E. Grant, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, John Malkovich, and Mel Gibson.
- Published on
Where oh where does our collective fear of spiders come from?
A quick Google.com search suggests that an average of 24% of Americans live with arachnophobia – the fear of spiders – and that’s only eclipsed by the fear of public speaking. An article published by the British Psychological Society suggests that not only is that 24% high – their research pits it around a negligible 6% (although qualified by ‘extreme arachnophobia,’ as if that makes it any more impressive) – but also it’s a highly irrational anxiety: spiders are our friends, only a scant 0.5% are deadly to humans, and they actually dine on other insects that likely terrify us as much if not more. The article goes on to suggest that, chiefly, scholars believe spiders get psychologically associated with the more deadly scorpion – they’re also arachnids – making any attempt to convince sufferers otherwise a bit of an uphill battle at best.
Indeed, this irrational fear of spiders has been exploited by a great many storytellers, so much so that perhaps filmmakers should be sued by any ‘arachnid society’ for contributing to their noxious reputation. The 1950’s not only saw The Incredible Shrinking Man taking it on-the-lam inside his own house to escape the clutches of a common house pest but also studios put out three silver screen releases – Tarantula (1955) and The Spider (1958) – that supersized their arachnids and put them rampaging in giant-style across the American countryside. Roughly two decades later, Hollywood rekindled their love affair with the creeping crawlies with such outings as The Giant Spider Invasion (1975) and Kingdom Of The Spiders (1977). Then – in 1990 – director Frank Marshall really went for broke in delivering the aptly titled Arachnophobia to theaters, a tale that saw a lethal South American spider terrorizing small-town America as a starting point for its global domination.
Now, there have been more – many more, in fact – so it should go without saying that this particular paranoia isn’t going away any time soon: earlier this year, writer/director Kiah Roache-Turner ventured back into the dark with Sting (2024), a yarn that aesthetically has a great deal in common with those aforementioned 50’s flicks. This protagonist arrives from Outer Space, and it crashes down unseen into a big city side-street apartment building where unsuspecting occupants slowly comes to grips with this extraordinarily intelligent mutation of the species. Before all is over, blood will be let, lives will be lost, and a little girl will come to love the surrogate father she nearly lost in the process.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After raising an unnervingly talented spider in secret, 12-year-old Charlotte must face the facts about her pet-and fight for her family's survival-when the once-charming creature rapidly transforms into a giant, flesh-eating monster.”
A quick Google.com search suggests that an average of 24% of Americans live with arachnophobia – the fear of spiders – and that’s only eclipsed by the fear of public speaking. An article published by the British Psychological Society suggests that not only is that 24% high – their research pits it around a negligible 6% (although qualified by ‘extreme arachnophobia,’ as if that makes it any more impressive) – but also it’s a highly irrational anxiety: spiders are our friends, only a scant 0.5% are deadly to humans, and they actually dine on other insects that likely terrify us as much if not more. The article goes on to suggest that, chiefly, scholars believe spiders get psychologically associated with the more deadly scorpion – they’re also arachnids – making any attempt to convince sufferers otherwise a bit of an uphill battle at best.
Indeed, this irrational fear of spiders has been exploited by a great many storytellers, so much so that perhaps filmmakers should be sued by any ‘arachnid society’ for contributing to their noxious reputation. The 1950’s not only saw The Incredible Shrinking Man taking it on-the-lam inside his own house to escape the clutches of a common house pest but also studios put out three silver screen releases – Tarantula (1955) and The Spider (1958) – that supersized their arachnids and put them rampaging in giant-style across the American countryside. Roughly two decades later, Hollywood rekindled their love affair with the creeping crawlies with such outings as The Giant Spider Invasion (1975) and Kingdom Of The Spiders (1977). Then – in 1990 – director Frank Marshall really went for broke in delivering the aptly titled Arachnophobia to theaters, a tale that saw a lethal South American spider terrorizing small-town America as a starting point for its global domination.
Now, there have been more – many more, in fact – so it should go without saying that this particular paranoia isn’t going away any time soon: earlier this year, writer/director Kiah Roache-Turner ventured back into the dark with Sting (2024), a yarn that aesthetically has a great deal in common with those aforementioned 50’s flicks. This protagonist arrives from Outer Space, and it crashes down unseen into a big city side-street apartment building where unsuspecting occupants slowly comes to grips with this extraordinarily intelligent mutation of the species. Before all is over, blood will be let, lives will be lost, and a little girl will come to love the surrogate father she nearly lost in the process.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After raising an unnervingly talented spider in secret, 12-year-old Charlotte must face the facts about her pet-and fight for her family's survival-when the once-charming creature rapidly transforms into a giant, flesh-eating monster.”
It’s been suggested over the years that writer/director Steven Spielberg truly invigorated Hollywood’s best efforts to focus on storytelling for the young and the young-at-heart. While I’ll concede that’s a valid argument, I’ve always insisted that he was far from the first to do so; still, given the fact that I think his films were among those big studio efforts largely embraced for this emphasis, he winds up getting a great deal of credit. Thankfully, many other auteurs have followed in those footsteps – Chris Columbus, Robert Zemeckis, JJ Abrams, etc. – and even a good deal more have tapped into the Spielberg vision while pushing their adventures in decidedly different directions.
Given that cinematic Fantasy borders very, very closely to topics and subject matter obsessed with things that go bump in the night, the Horror genre has benefitted as well from what I’ll call a bit of bleedover effect. For example, Netflix’s widely popular Stranger Things has amassed a huge fan following by picking up on such Spielbergian magic but infesting its various plotlines with some adult trappings of conspiracy and – more importantly – authentic screen Horror. The Duffer Brothers – the siblings largely credited with a great deal of what’s evolved from the streaming show – have certainly proven that screen magic and mystery need not ignore that there are things both children and adults should be afraid of; and the franchise continues to be a juggernaut by mixing the good, the bad, and the terrifying with each season.
For what it’s worth, Sting – even with its faults – fits within this same construct. While it’s functionally the story of young Charlotte (Alyla Browne), an artistic misfit struggling to fit in at home in much the same way screen children rather commonly get portrayed, director Roache-Turner never shies away from the chance to remind us that Char’s still a kid within an adult world … and maybe even they’re not enough to protect her from the monster she inadvertently releases.
We’re first introduced to Sting – the film’s central baddie – when it cracks open from the small meteor(ish) egg which crashes down into an elaborate dollhouse. Much like those facehuggers from Ridley Scott’s spectacular Alien (1979), Sting stretches its legs and crawls out into the faux domicile, slowly making its way from room to room whilst credits roll in the set-up. In short order, we meet Charlotte – a bit of a benign cat burglar using the apartment building’s HVAC ducts to explore her neighbors – who finds the tiny arachnid, captures it in a matchbox (do those things exist anymore?), and takes it back to her room as a newfound pet.
Where there are children, it naturally follows there will be parents (or some other figures of authority); and Char is very soon confronted by her step-father Ethan (Ryan Corr), a hopeful comic book illustrator whose day job it is to manage the building’s many, many, many maintenance issues for his abusive aunt-in-law, landlord, and fellow tenant Gunter (Robyn Nevin). With a name like ‘Gunter,’ she’s every bit the full-blooded German matriarch the Third Reich would’ve produced, leaving Ethan with a never-ending list of jobs needing his immediate, undivided attention. His wife – Char’s mother – Heather (Penelope Mitchell) spends her days toiling in her work-from-home career and her nights caring for her Alzheimer’s afflicted mother Helga (Noni Hazlehurst). Torn between an endless list of responsibilities, Ethan has begun to show cracks of frustration between managing the needs of so many while watching his personal dreams slowly slip away.
Given that cinematic Fantasy borders very, very closely to topics and subject matter obsessed with things that go bump in the night, the Horror genre has benefitted as well from what I’ll call a bit of bleedover effect. For example, Netflix’s widely popular Stranger Things has amassed a huge fan following by picking up on such Spielbergian magic but infesting its various plotlines with some adult trappings of conspiracy and – more importantly – authentic screen Horror. The Duffer Brothers – the siblings largely credited with a great deal of what’s evolved from the streaming show – have certainly proven that screen magic and mystery need not ignore that there are things both children and adults should be afraid of; and the franchise continues to be a juggernaut by mixing the good, the bad, and the terrifying with each season.
For what it’s worth, Sting – even with its faults – fits within this same construct. While it’s functionally the story of young Charlotte (Alyla Browne), an artistic misfit struggling to fit in at home in much the same way screen children rather commonly get portrayed, director Roache-Turner never shies away from the chance to remind us that Char’s still a kid within an adult world … and maybe even they’re not enough to protect her from the monster she inadvertently releases.
We’re first introduced to Sting – the film’s central baddie – when it cracks open from the small meteor(ish) egg which crashes down into an elaborate dollhouse. Much like those facehuggers from Ridley Scott’s spectacular Alien (1979), Sting stretches its legs and crawls out into the faux domicile, slowly making its way from room to room whilst credits roll in the set-up. In short order, we meet Charlotte – a bit of a benign cat burglar using the apartment building’s HVAC ducts to explore her neighbors – who finds the tiny arachnid, captures it in a matchbox (do those things exist anymore?), and takes it back to her room as a newfound pet.
Where there are children, it naturally follows there will be parents (or some other figures of authority); and Char is very soon confronted by her step-father Ethan (Ryan Corr), a hopeful comic book illustrator whose day job it is to manage the building’s many, many, many maintenance issues for his abusive aunt-in-law, landlord, and fellow tenant Gunter (Robyn Nevin). With a name like ‘Gunter,’ she’s every bit the full-blooded German matriarch the Third Reich would’ve produced, leaving Ethan with a never-ending list of jobs needing his immediate, undivided attention. His wife – Char’s mother – Heather (Penelope Mitchell) spends her days toiling in her work-from-home career and her nights caring for her Alzheimer’s afflicted mother Helga (Noni Hazlehurst). Torn between an endless list of responsibilities, Ethan has begun to show cracks of frustration between managing the needs of so many while watching his personal dreams slowly slip away.
Similarly, Roache-Turner’s script suffers under the weight of trying to keep the expected suspense moving forward while balancing out screen time between this rather slim cast of characters. Gunter and Helga are the first obvious casualties here, reduced from the onset to being little more than stereotypical old codgers – one somewhat debilitated and the other little more than a Nazi(ish) shrew – so they wind up serving more as comic fodder whenever they appear. Upstairs neighbor Erik (Danny Kim) gets portrayed as the – ahem – brainy foreigner with no social skills and a penchant for knowing whatever science fact is required to effectively more the plot forward when needed. The building’s only other resident – Maria (a luminous Silvia Colloca) – has apparently suffered some dire tragedy – it’s implied that she lost her husband and children to some grim affair – but none of that really matters as (you guessed it) she’ll wind up as one of the earliest victims to Sting’s growing hunger.
Still, it helps that both Browne and Corr are well cast in their respective roles. Their father-daughter dynamic works almost whenever it’s relied upon (there are a few rough spots, but given Browne’s young age it’s easy to overlook), even though the man winds up acting a bit cowardly in a few small spots. I could be wrong (I have been before), but I’m apt to wonder if Roache-Turner felt responsible to – ahem – defang any appearance of a strong male lead – an ongoing problem inside Hollywood and beyond, from what I’ve seen – in favor of handing more heroics to the women and children. While I can appreciate just how put upon the father felt at times, I still couldn’t wonder what his motivation was for cracking so much as he does late in the picture. Charlotte does have the answers necessary to guarantee everyone’s survival up to a point; but it’s Ethan’s handyman(esque) moxie that comes into play in the final reel. Though the kid gets to ultimately vanquish her mortal enemy – Sting has now grown to man-sized proportions, wouldn’t you know – I’d argue that she deserved the honor of delivering the coup de grace given the way the story was crafted.
Horrors of this particular variety – like those mentioned above from the 1950’s and 1970’s – operate on a slim efficiency. Basically, there isn’t much to know, nor much need to know, and you’re just here to observe. Audiences aren’t required to wade through a great deal scientific meandering to grasp what’s transpiring – basically, there’s a spider, it has an insatiable appetite and some cosmic talents, and it’s getting larger and larger with each passing meal – and, from there, you roll with the changes. What, how, and why the creature does what it does matters not. What, why, and how the monster varies its killing style isn’t meant to be a distraction so much as it is the main attraction; and that’s all you need to know. Sting is the kind of circus sideshow – the bearded lady, the intelligent donkey, the fire-breathing man, etc. – that exists entirely on one level. You’re not given a lot of time to mull things over for fear that you’d change from a believer to a skeptic. It’s disposable entertainment, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
To the film’s credit, Roache-Turner’s script stays pretty lean. As I said, it’s a thin cast of characters, and this allows for the efforts of crafting tension with some excellent camera trickery – accomplished largely in such a way to minimize the need for too many intrusive special effects – to remain always at the forefront. While it might’ve been nice to have a bit more scientific explanation for how and why Sting – the spider – is able to exist, grow, and feed, it isn’t all that important because what’s assembled here is a (collective) house haunted by an aggressive monster. One spill is little more than the set-up for the next chill, and viewers are constantly encouraged to do nothing more than sit back and enjoy the ride.
Still, it helps that both Browne and Corr are well cast in their respective roles. Their father-daughter dynamic works almost whenever it’s relied upon (there are a few rough spots, but given Browne’s young age it’s easy to overlook), even though the man winds up acting a bit cowardly in a few small spots. I could be wrong (I have been before), but I’m apt to wonder if Roache-Turner felt responsible to – ahem – defang any appearance of a strong male lead – an ongoing problem inside Hollywood and beyond, from what I’ve seen – in favor of handing more heroics to the women and children. While I can appreciate just how put upon the father felt at times, I still couldn’t wonder what his motivation was for cracking so much as he does late in the picture. Charlotte does have the answers necessary to guarantee everyone’s survival up to a point; but it’s Ethan’s handyman(esque) moxie that comes into play in the final reel. Though the kid gets to ultimately vanquish her mortal enemy – Sting has now grown to man-sized proportions, wouldn’t you know – I’d argue that she deserved the honor of delivering the coup de grace given the way the story was crafted.
Horrors of this particular variety – like those mentioned above from the 1950’s and 1970’s – operate on a slim efficiency. Basically, there isn’t much to know, nor much need to know, and you’re just here to observe. Audiences aren’t required to wade through a great deal scientific meandering to grasp what’s transpiring – basically, there’s a spider, it has an insatiable appetite and some cosmic talents, and it’s getting larger and larger with each passing meal – and, from there, you roll with the changes. What, how, and why the creature does what it does matters not. What, why, and how the monster varies its killing style isn’t meant to be a distraction so much as it is the main attraction; and that’s all you need to know. Sting is the kind of circus sideshow – the bearded lady, the intelligent donkey, the fire-breathing man, etc. – that exists entirely on one level. You’re not given a lot of time to mull things over for fear that you’d change from a believer to a skeptic. It’s disposable entertainment, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
To the film’s credit, Roache-Turner’s script stays pretty lean. As I said, it’s a thin cast of characters, and this allows for the efforts of crafting tension with some excellent camera trickery – accomplished largely in such a way to minimize the need for too many intrusive special effects – to remain always at the forefront. While it might’ve been nice to have a bit more scientific explanation for how and why Sting – the spider – is able to exist, grow, and feed, it isn’t all that important because what’s assembled here is a (collective) house haunted by an aggressive monster. One spill is little more than the set-up for the next chill, and viewers are constantly encouraged to do nothing more than sit back and enjoy the ride.
I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Roache-Turner and cinematographer Brad Shield do an amazing job infecting almost each and every visual with something to watch. Like that Spielbergian magic I mentioned above, the camera captures every sheen and every glimmer; and it bobs, weaves, and – dare I say – crawls from point to point with an irrepressibly whimsical style, much like a spider creeping exactly where it always intended to go. Rarely is such a technique as laudable as it is here – I’ve seen it done in Dramas and Comedies, and it’s felt like stylistic overload – elevating what they’ve captured on film to have been possibly plucked from nightmares in the best way possible … if such a thing were ever desired, that is.
Simply put, Sting emerges as a project that’s fun to watch and watch closely. There’s often more going on in there that meets the eye, and such creativity should be celebrated when caught in such an subversive web.
And … yes … I say this as one who is very, very, very afraid of spiders.
Sting (2024) was produced by Align, Pictures In Paradise, and See Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the project’s sights and sounds to be pretty damn exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, sadly, there isn’t much. You get a trailer and a brief making-of – one that serves more as a bloated promotional short – to digest; and that just wasn’t enough for this viewer. Never is.
Recommended.
What I like about Sting (2024) is that – most of the time – it functions very much like a late 1950’s oversized monster movie, complete with the trappings of the fateful spider possibly coming from outer space and sticking all of the action very close to a slim cast of characters. What I didn’t like was that – with such a small cast – the script really should’ve invested a bit more time in actually developing these players other than being stock additions. Sadly, they end up being little more than victims (to a degree), and we only got to know them passingly. A bit more effort could’ve had this one being worth a repeat visit … if not the rather obviously promised sequel.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sting (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
Simply put, Sting emerges as a project that’s fun to watch and watch closely. There’s often more going on in there that meets the eye, and such creativity should be celebrated when caught in such an subversive web.
And … yes … I say this as one who is very, very, very afraid of spiders.
Sting (2024) was produced by Align, Pictures In Paradise, and See Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the project’s sights and sounds to be pretty damn exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, sadly, there isn’t much. You get a trailer and a brief making-of – one that serves more as a bloated promotional short – to digest; and that just wasn’t enough for this viewer. Never is.
Recommended.
What I like about Sting (2024) is that – most of the time – it functions very much like a late 1950’s oversized monster movie, complete with the trappings of the fateful spider possibly coming from outer space and sticking all of the action very close to a slim cast of characters. What I didn’t like was that – with such a small cast – the script really should’ve invested a bit more time in actually developing these players other than being stock additions. Sadly, they end up being little more than victims (to a degree), and we only got to know them passingly. A bit more effort could’ve had this one being worth a repeat visit … if not the rather obviously promised sequel.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sting (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