- Published on
in memoriam
Good morning, gentle readers ... and, alas, I have to pass on some bad news this morning as it looks like veteran screen actress Leslie Parrish has left us. I saw some indications regarding this yesterday on Facebook but wanted to wait until a major news outlet confirmed it. While that hasn't quite happened yet this morning, I did see it reconfirmed by several smaller outlets.
Though the actress hasn't appeared in anything in quite some time (which only means to say younger readers will likely not have heard of her), she was a somewhat regular face from television programs of the 1960's and 1970's. According to her IMDB.com profile, she got her professional start in an uncredited bit from a biographical drama titled A Man Called Peter back in 1955 ... and, as they say, the sky was the limit from there on out. She followed that up with another uncredited role aboard the Academy Award nominated musical Daddy Long Legs, but 'uncredited' opportunities didn't last much longer and audiences were better off for it.
As for genre work?
Well, it really wasn't until 1958 that she was gainfully employed exploring the realms of the Fantastic: Missile To The Moon -- from Layton Film Productions, Inc. and Legend Films -- might otherwise be a forgettable SciFi/Drama, but it does bear the distinction giving the lovely lady (under the name of Marjorie Hellen) of a pretty respectable role for genre fans to find.
Flash forward a few years later, and theatrical Cold War thrillers were all the rage. It was 1962, and one of very best flicks of that type -- indeed, some might argue it's a film amongst the screens very best -- The Manchurian Candidate from M.C. Productions tapped into our deepest fears about identity and consciousness set against the backdrop of a U.S. Presidential campaign. In it, Parrish played 'Jocelyn Jordan,' a somewhat ill-fated woman trapped between two powerful men -- her father and the Manchurian candidate himself, Raymond Shaw (played by Laurence Harvey) -- in a battle for control of these fifty states. While many don't consider the film Science Fiction in any way, I've often argued that it's central use of brainwashing definitely puts the John Frankenheimer-directed masterpiece in a SciFi-adjacent category, one definitely deserving our attention. Plus, it's just an exceptional picture.
Still, it was the period between 1965 and 1967 that likely saw the woman's work truly find grounding in Science Fiction and Fantasy. She paid two visits to The Wild Wild West, one to TV's Tarzan, three to that superhero camp classic that was TV's Batman, and one to Gene Roddenberry's seminal Science Fiction 'wagon train to the stars' -- Star Trek. In the guise of the Enterprise's 'Lieutenant Carolyn Palamas, she captured the eye and heart of an alien entity who took the image of the Greek god Apollo in the Season 2 adventure, "Who Mourns For Adonais?"
About her work aboard one of the greatest television shows ever, Parrish once told an interviewer (according to Facebook) that she considered the appearance a high point in her professional career. "Whenever I watch it, I go right back to the whole thing again and cry my way through it. I relive it," she said. "Of all the work I did, this is outstanding because it is rooted in something I believe so deeply." (Source: Google.com)
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Leslie Parrish.
May she rest in eternal peace ...
-- EZ
Though the actress hasn't appeared in anything in quite some time (which only means to say younger readers will likely not have heard of her), she was a somewhat regular face from television programs of the 1960's and 1970's. According to her IMDB.com profile, she got her professional start in an uncredited bit from a biographical drama titled A Man Called Peter back in 1955 ... and, as they say, the sky was the limit from there on out. She followed that up with another uncredited role aboard the Academy Award nominated musical Daddy Long Legs, but 'uncredited' opportunities didn't last much longer and audiences were better off for it.
As for genre work?
Well, it really wasn't until 1958 that she was gainfully employed exploring the realms of the Fantastic: Missile To The Moon -- from Layton Film Productions, Inc. and Legend Films -- might otherwise be a forgettable SciFi/Drama, but it does bear the distinction giving the lovely lady (under the name of Marjorie Hellen) of a pretty respectable role for genre fans to find.
Flash forward a few years later, and theatrical Cold War thrillers were all the rage. It was 1962, and one of very best flicks of that type -- indeed, some might argue it's a film amongst the screens very best -- The Manchurian Candidate from M.C. Productions tapped into our deepest fears about identity and consciousness set against the backdrop of a U.S. Presidential campaign. In it, Parrish played 'Jocelyn Jordan,' a somewhat ill-fated woman trapped between two powerful men -- her father and the Manchurian candidate himself, Raymond Shaw (played by Laurence Harvey) -- in a battle for control of these fifty states. While many don't consider the film Science Fiction in any way, I've often argued that it's central use of brainwashing definitely puts the John Frankenheimer-directed masterpiece in a SciFi-adjacent category, one definitely deserving our attention. Plus, it's just an exceptional picture.
Still, it was the period between 1965 and 1967 that likely saw the woman's work truly find grounding in Science Fiction and Fantasy. She paid two visits to The Wild Wild West, one to TV's Tarzan, three to that superhero camp classic that was TV's Batman, and one to Gene Roddenberry's seminal Science Fiction 'wagon train to the stars' -- Star Trek. In the guise of the Enterprise's 'Lieutenant Carolyn Palamas, she captured the eye and heart of an alien entity who took the image of the Greek god Apollo in the Season 2 adventure, "Who Mourns For Adonais?"
About her work aboard one of the greatest television shows ever, Parrish once told an interviewer (according to Facebook) that she considered the appearance a high point in her professional career. "Whenever I watch it, I go right back to the whole thing again and cry my way through it. I relive it," she said. "Of all the work I did, this is outstanding because it is rooted in something I believe so deeply." (Source: Google.com)
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Leslie Parrish.
May she rest in eternal peace ...
-- EZ
- Published on
Generally, I take the opportunity regarding almost every book review I do to remind viewers I really don’t read as much as I used to … and, consequently, I may not be the best voice when it comes to analyzing them.
In fact, I didn’t grow up being much a fan of reading. I found comic books very, very, very early; and I definitely gravitated more in that direction than I did conventional prose. Of course, I did stumble across a few authors in my youth whose works I enjoyed; but it really wasn’t until (maybe) junior high school or thereabouts when a really good teacher took the time to actually get to know his students and make recommendations about what he thought they’d like that I discovered a whole new world. The books I found then were really dynamic – the kind of characters and stories and universes that made me tick – and I do go back and reread some of them when time permits. But because I missed out on a good number of years at truly foundational experience, I have found that my taste in creativity is a bit off the beaten path, especially when compared with true book critics.
However, my love of Star Trek – which I discovered in television syndication – did have me picking up just about anything that came out back in those days. After those wonderful Star Trek photonovels, the first authentic Trek book I remember picking up and reading was 1981’s The Klingon Gambit by Robert E. Vardeman. Those ‘in the know’ might chuckle at that confession because – ahem – Gambit is kinda/sorta justly maligned at being one of the worst in all of Trek literature; and, yet, those of us who grew up wanting more Trek instead of less were willing to spend cold cash on it. No, I didn’t much care for it; but to my young soul it was always grand to see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy – the original trio – back in action … even when it was bad action.
Like so many Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts, I’ve picked up many more over the years. And – for what it’s worth – the current state of Trek generally – namely that it’s mostly dead creatively – has had me hungry for those days of classic adventure. It was for this reason – and this reason alone – that I picked up a copy of David Mack’s Harm’s Way, published in 2022 and widely praised as being one of the better novels to hit shelves in some time. After finishing it just yesterday evening, I wanted to put out a few thoughts: this won’t be anything groundbreaking as my book reviews never are, but I still had a bit of something I wanted to say for posterity’s sake.
Without getting to deeply into the plot – basically, Harm’s Way is and isn’t a standalone adventure, one that pits the crew of the original Enterprise and members of the somewhat like-minded Vanguard series – there’s this megalomaniacal alien entity that’s on the cusp of returning to existence and changing life as we know it. As tends to happen in Starfleet under such circumstances, only the best – Kirk and company – can respond in such a crisis; and they’re joined by the crew of this sister ship along with (I won’t spoil it) a handful of Klingon warriors who find themselves in a particular place and particular time requiring they cooperate with their sworn galactic enemies in order to facilitate a resolution. Mind you, this is all thrillingly told; and Mack – a favorite amongst many diehard Trek readers – clearly has a grasp on characterization and canon that makes much of it ring pitch perfect.
But …
Well, I started the book about a month ago; and even at my slow reading pace it never takes me that long to sort through a respectable 350 pages. After devouring the first half of the novel, I started losing interest more and more, so much so that I had to set the thing down for a few days at a clip before coming back to it. Honestly, these late 150 pages took real and recognizable effort … mostly because I didn’t see it as anything resembling a Star Trek story for a handful of reasons.
Structurally, Harm’s Way uses roughly its front half to both establish the people and places and things required to weave this yarn as well as Mack does. In doing so, the author does a masterful job of incorporating the bits and pieces within the broader Trek fictional timeline in order to cast how Kirk and Spock especially are dealing with the psychological aftermath of recent affairs. Set not all that long after the second season outings of Amok Time and The Doomsday Machine (definitely two of the series’ best episodes), he shows us that two of Starfleet’s best may be “feeling their oats” with where they are in their careers at the time. This characterization matters because it affects precisely how they try to manage what unfolds within Harm’s pages, so Mack’s efforts really give a good portion of this tale some winning exposition.
Still, it’s what that goes on down of the surface of Kolasi III that caused this book to unravel for me as a reader as so very little of it resembles anything I’ve ever seen in all of Trekdom. Of course, I realize that may seem a stretch to some, but this old dog is just hitting his sixties (in age) so that statement comes with a greater deal of water having run under the bridge.
Putting my disappointment as simply as I can, Harm’s Way devolves into what might be more fitting as an Aliens story. There’s an incredible amount of grim and bloody violence – something Trek uses rather sparingly even in its prose – and the body count is easily in the hundreds if not the low thousands. This isn’t to say that Mack gives no purpose for such a campaign because that’s patently false: there is plenty of substantiation, and yet the whole expansion of the well-written action just never feels to me like anything that would, could, or should take place in a fictional universe predicated on optimism. Instead, it’s a big, bold, bloody affair; and I really didn’t see any of it as being similar to so much of what this franchise has done before.
I don’t fault Mack for any of this. With his voluminous work in Trek literature, he’s built a following that, no doubt, likes what he does. (Otherwise, one can only assume he wouldn’t be asked back as often has he has been.) While I don’t appreciate what story he told here, I can still say that his use of these characters and the world as established is possibly peerless; but I can’t help but add that it just didn’t coalesce in any way I think demonstrates what mindset has made Trek the big success it has been for decades. It just … doesn’t fit … at least for me.
Now, I’ve read some of what the previous head of the Trek book lines has said he looked for in submissions back in the day; and I can say that – even though Harm’s Way didn’t feel authentic for me – it definitely aligned with what the publisher had stated. Essentially, his premise was that he looks for something that likely couldn’t be accomplished in film or on television – mostly due to budgetary restraints – and those were the novels he bumped up the chain for others to evaluate. Clearly, he wanted something that the Trek packaging but ‘swung for the fences’ with respect to what was possible in prose, not film. On that count, who could argue against Harm’s Way? It balanced those variables perfectly.
Because this was written by Mack and it utilizes some characters and elements he’d established previously (in the aforementioned Vanguards books), I might also add that, sadly, I’ve got absolutely zero desire to reach and explore those tales. This isn’t because I wound up disliking so much of Harm’s Way but rather because his personnel don’t in any way act like Starfleet officers of old. In fact, they look a great deal like what’s played out in Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Lower Decks, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Mack’s players look and sound like modern people – people from our time period, people who might be sitting right beside you right now – and that broke the whole milieu for me. Using modern slang in the 22nd, 23rd, or 24th century (or beyond) shatters the fictional universe in ways it can’t be put back together … and that makes Harm’s Way – much like these other modern Treks – just not for me.
Me? I'll be boldly going somewhere else.
-- EZ
In fact, I didn’t grow up being much a fan of reading. I found comic books very, very, very early; and I definitely gravitated more in that direction than I did conventional prose. Of course, I did stumble across a few authors in my youth whose works I enjoyed; but it really wasn’t until (maybe) junior high school or thereabouts when a really good teacher took the time to actually get to know his students and make recommendations about what he thought they’d like that I discovered a whole new world. The books I found then were really dynamic – the kind of characters and stories and universes that made me tick – and I do go back and reread some of them when time permits. But because I missed out on a good number of years at truly foundational experience, I have found that my taste in creativity is a bit off the beaten path, especially when compared with true book critics.
However, my love of Star Trek – which I discovered in television syndication – did have me picking up just about anything that came out back in those days. After those wonderful Star Trek photonovels, the first authentic Trek book I remember picking up and reading was 1981’s The Klingon Gambit by Robert E. Vardeman. Those ‘in the know’ might chuckle at that confession because – ahem – Gambit is kinda/sorta justly maligned at being one of the worst in all of Trek literature; and, yet, those of us who grew up wanting more Trek instead of less were willing to spend cold cash on it. No, I didn’t much care for it; but to my young soul it was always grand to see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy – the original trio – back in action … even when it was bad action.
Like so many Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts, I’ve picked up many more over the years. And – for what it’s worth – the current state of Trek generally – namely that it’s mostly dead creatively – has had me hungry for those days of classic adventure. It was for this reason – and this reason alone – that I picked up a copy of David Mack’s Harm’s Way, published in 2022 and widely praised as being one of the better novels to hit shelves in some time. After finishing it just yesterday evening, I wanted to put out a few thoughts: this won’t be anything groundbreaking as my book reviews never are, but I still had a bit of something I wanted to say for posterity’s sake.
Without getting to deeply into the plot – basically, Harm’s Way is and isn’t a standalone adventure, one that pits the crew of the original Enterprise and members of the somewhat like-minded Vanguard series – there’s this megalomaniacal alien entity that’s on the cusp of returning to existence and changing life as we know it. As tends to happen in Starfleet under such circumstances, only the best – Kirk and company – can respond in such a crisis; and they’re joined by the crew of this sister ship along with (I won’t spoil it) a handful of Klingon warriors who find themselves in a particular place and particular time requiring they cooperate with their sworn galactic enemies in order to facilitate a resolution. Mind you, this is all thrillingly told; and Mack – a favorite amongst many diehard Trek readers – clearly has a grasp on characterization and canon that makes much of it ring pitch perfect.
But …
Well, I started the book about a month ago; and even at my slow reading pace it never takes me that long to sort through a respectable 350 pages. After devouring the first half of the novel, I started losing interest more and more, so much so that I had to set the thing down for a few days at a clip before coming back to it. Honestly, these late 150 pages took real and recognizable effort … mostly because I didn’t see it as anything resembling a Star Trek story for a handful of reasons.
Structurally, Harm’s Way uses roughly its front half to both establish the people and places and things required to weave this yarn as well as Mack does. In doing so, the author does a masterful job of incorporating the bits and pieces within the broader Trek fictional timeline in order to cast how Kirk and Spock especially are dealing with the psychological aftermath of recent affairs. Set not all that long after the second season outings of Amok Time and The Doomsday Machine (definitely two of the series’ best episodes), he shows us that two of Starfleet’s best may be “feeling their oats” with where they are in their careers at the time. This characterization matters because it affects precisely how they try to manage what unfolds within Harm’s pages, so Mack’s efforts really give a good portion of this tale some winning exposition.
Still, it’s what that goes on down of the surface of Kolasi III that caused this book to unravel for me as a reader as so very little of it resembles anything I’ve ever seen in all of Trekdom. Of course, I realize that may seem a stretch to some, but this old dog is just hitting his sixties (in age) so that statement comes with a greater deal of water having run under the bridge.
Putting my disappointment as simply as I can, Harm’s Way devolves into what might be more fitting as an Aliens story. There’s an incredible amount of grim and bloody violence – something Trek uses rather sparingly even in its prose – and the body count is easily in the hundreds if not the low thousands. This isn’t to say that Mack gives no purpose for such a campaign because that’s patently false: there is plenty of substantiation, and yet the whole expansion of the well-written action just never feels to me like anything that would, could, or should take place in a fictional universe predicated on optimism. Instead, it’s a big, bold, bloody affair; and I really didn’t see any of it as being similar to so much of what this franchise has done before.
I don’t fault Mack for any of this. With his voluminous work in Trek literature, he’s built a following that, no doubt, likes what he does. (Otherwise, one can only assume he wouldn’t be asked back as often has he has been.) While I don’t appreciate what story he told here, I can still say that his use of these characters and the world as established is possibly peerless; but I can’t help but add that it just didn’t coalesce in any way I think demonstrates what mindset has made Trek the big success it has been for decades. It just … doesn’t fit … at least for me.
Now, I’ve read some of what the previous head of the Trek book lines has said he looked for in submissions back in the day; and I can say that – even though Harm’s Way didn’t feel authentic for me – it definitely aligned with what the publisher had stated. Essentially, his premise was that he looks for something that likely couldn’t be accomplished in film or on television – mostly due to budgetary restraints – and those were the novels he bumped up the chain for others to evaluate. Clearly, he wanted something that the Trek packaging but ‘swung for the fences’ with respect to what was possible in prose, not film. On that count, who could argue against Harm’s Way? It balanced those variables perfectly.
Because this was written by Mack and it utilizes some characters and elements he’d established previously (in the aforementioned Vanguards books), I might also add that, sadly, I’ve got absolutely zero desire to reach and explore those tales. This isn’t because I wound up disliking so much of Harm’s Way but rather because his personnel don’t in any way act like Starfleet officers of old. In fact, they look a great deal like what’s played out in Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Lower Decks, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Mack’s players look and sound like modern people – people from our time period, people who might be sitting right beside you right now – and that broke the whole milieu for me. Using modern slang in the 22nd, 23rd, or 24th century (or beyond) shatters the fictional universe in ways it can’t be put back together … and that makes Harm’s Way – much like these other modern Treks – just not for me.
Me? I'll be boldly going somewhere else.
-- EZ
- Published on
Once, I made a group mad when – in offering my opinion of 1991’s The Silence Of The Lambs – I simply said that I wished we had spent more time alone with serial killer Buffalo Bill and his captive, young Catherine Martin.
Now, based on their response, you’d think I had deliberately run over someone’s puppy. When something as benign as wondering what the time spent by captive and captor might’ve looked like almost brings a crowd to blows, you know that something was seriously amiss. It wasn’t as if I said that I didn’t like the picture – nothing could be further from the truth – and, yet, here I was having my character assassinated for merely suggesting that there was ample room for even greater examination of what makes people tick in a two-hour motion picture. Of course, I realized that wasn’t what the film was about on a textual level; but all I wondered was how these two individuals might’ve related to one another in those darkest of times. Did they constantly bicker? Or might there have been moments of misplaced affection?
I bring this up today because 2025’s Blood Shine reminded me of my curiosity that went uninvestigated in 1991’s Silence, a sentiment that would likely rile up the same people but, likely, for many different reasons. For example, how can a virtually unheard of 2025 independent chiller that was probably conceived and shot on a negligible budget in any way resemble an Academy Award-winning event picture – a film even preserved for the ages in the U.S.’s National Film Registry since 2011 – from over three decades ago? (Can you hear their disdain for me? I can.) My response would be, “Well, that’s not what I said. Dummies.”
To be blunt, I am saying that Shine – for better or for worse – had moments of authenticity that conjured up what I found was previously absent from Silence; and maybe – just maybe – some good can come from such an association.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In her remote country home, a religious zealot takes a young filmmaker captive, claiming her sadistic rituals will change him into a god.”
The point of any story – good or bad – is to resonate with viewers.
This effect can be achieved in multiple ways. Firstly, the storytellers present something which reminds us of ourselves or something we’ve been through. This connection between fictional people and us easily evokes the same feelings we experienced when we did it on our own. Second, the tale spinners give us faces who are enduring trials, tragedies or traumas not so much like ours but ones relatable enough that we connect with how the sufferers might feel, what they might do, and how they might respond. Life is a process, and how folks endure it means something. Lastly, as viewers watch the players grow and achieve results against the odds, the audience empathizes with how the journey led to this specific destination. We take trip in unison – we walk together – and both the characters and the audience realize fulfillment – again, good or bad – as a consequence of the time spent together.
Well … 2025’s Blood Shine – a creative collaboration between Emily Bennett (who also stars) and Justin Brooks – offers little to none of the above in my humble opinion. That isn’t a complaint, but it is an observation founded in criticism. At no time did I see anything of myself in it. At no time could I directly relate to these characters, other than to say that I was still interested in them as creations. (Characters matter to me but never quite as much as the central story.) And, frankly, I was more than befuddled with a goodly portion of where and how it all ended up in the manner in which I did … yet I walked away somehow surprisingly engaged and impressed with nearly the whole affair.
Confused? So was I.
The point I’m making here is that while I may have no laudable traits that might lead me to feel sympathy for a pair of closeted sado-masochists magically or mystically finding balance in their shared epiphanies, I can still see the value in the story being told and the two folks telling it. In fact, the performances here from Bennett and David Call (as aspiring screenwriter Brighton West) are almost eerily pitch perfect, so much so that I’m damn worried about how they might live their private lives now. (I’m kidding … but a little serious.) Both manage to intimately undress their characters in ways other than removing their clothes –that, too, does inevitably happen, with even bloodier reveals – and I’m absolutely astounded that I haven’t seen them in more work. To her credit, Bennett evokes an almost 40’s noirish composure in a place where even the most ardent femme fatales would necessarily flee for their lives; and she strategically balances this smoldering against West – who has a vastly deeper professional profile – in his guise of a budding Hollywood narcissist who couldn’t see a bad idea if it were staring him right in the face.
Yes, yes, yes: I get that it sounds like I’m complaining. I’m not. Far from it. I found a good deal of their 90-minute film downright intoxicating … and I rarely drink. Blood Shine is filled to the brim with A-C-T-I-N-G, and it was very, very, very good. That doesn’t often happen in Horror much less Horror-adjacent works – and it’s even rarer when the project is certifiably independent – but when I see it I get almost goddam giddy. I want to see professionals work in these films, and both deserve a nod for what they accomplish together in this.
Structurally, Blood Shine works as a lock box story. In this world, its characters are entirely off the grid and left to their own devices, which here amounts to little more than locks and chains, one well-sharpened kitchen knife, and some old school videotapes. The obvious advantage is that such a assembly paves the way for actors to collaborate on moments big, medium, and small without there being space available for distractions. It enhances the intimacy of their words and actions – i.e. insults sting more, slaps sound louder, a simple touch speaks volumes, silence is damned deafening, etc. – and directors Bennett and Brooks monopolize a handful of settings to keep everything focused on people, not so much the spoken prose. (Words matter, yes, but we see that deeds matter more.) About the time audiences realize that both principles have kinda/sorta fallen under the spell of some unnamed cult televangelist who preaches his messages via a series of VHS cartridges (ask your grandparents, kids), you can see where it’s headed … and that rarely ends with happily ever after.
And if there ever were a face perfect for an outdated cult televangelist? Why, it would belong to Larry Fessenden. Thankfully, he was available, and he’s in the film. It might be little more than an extended cameo, but it’s handled brilliantly.
Where the difficulties arise with Blood Shine is that it’s a film whose makers didn’t quite know how to begin or end. (I know, I know, I know. Shut up and hear me out.) As much violence and blood and intimacy are packed in between those two end posts, Bennett and Brooks’ script flails about trying to both set and leave its dangerous stage. In a perfect world, there might be a brilliant but occasionally gruesome 60 minute episode of some unappreciated anthology series in here. As the released cut stands (at 90 minutes), I just can’t make heads or tails of its head or its tail, a shame when so much of what rests within is so damn compelling.
Unless I’m bad at math, there’s not one but two faux beginnings – an opening sequence which amounts to little more than a body being dragged, followed up with a second one which may or may not be a short film masquerading as a clumsy but clever ‘gotcha’ insert – before Brighton West truly takes the stage. While I can appreciate one false start, two seems inflated; and perhaps more of this screen time should’ve gone elsewhere. Frankly, Brighton’s set-up was spot on; but I would’ve loved to know a bit more about Clara (Bennett). We get little background on her besides what’s absolutely necessary here (there’s little to glean from her moments of dancing in the woodlands, too), and I can’t help but wonder about the true inciting incident that put her on a path to seeking solace in isolation. I can speculate, but I hate doing that. If there was more, then apologies because I missed it.
Additionally, Blood Shine’s destination leaves much, much, much more to the imagination than I feel it should. So much of the Horror is grounded in the visible chess match between these two players – what Clara asks of Brighton, what he does as a response, how this inevitably pushes the two into each other’s arms, etc. – so dumping viewers off in the realms of the Fantastic seems like a ploy in search of a motivation. Were all of these cult members who showed up real? Were they figments of our couple’s imagination? Fessenden’s arrival was plausible enough, but am I to believe that every other character in the film was part of some grand videotape cabal? Good grief! How about a little clarity, writers? That finale was the type of scene that, frankly, would have me plucking my eyes out … and, if you’ve made it this far you’ll understand why I logically can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t say more.
Definitively, what Blood Shine did best was offer up a creepily brilliant extrapolation of Stockholm Syndrome in the real world (as opposed to what Hollywood might make of it).
Both Clara and Brighton look the part of intelligent and attractive normies on the outside. So, as happens in film and life, it’s entirely natural for them to be increasingly drawn to one another. The twist here is that the attraction isn’t owed to those obvious superficial looks – which are good – but precisely because of these unstated inner flaws, these unconfessed hungers, these unrealized desires. Both are seeking to fill the respective holes in the souls; so both can’t resist the sultry chemistry as it manifests in viciously uncharacteristic ways.
Seeking an escape from her fear of not-so-much attack as much as it is the threat of subjugation, Clara has grown fixated on a cultish religious sect which promises delivery from nothing specific but a deliverance, nonetheless. On video, all Fessenden promises is ‘the Light,’ and it’s an oath so nebulous it can be anything the true believer wants or needs it to be. In contrast, Brighton has found himself immersed in the lecherous Hollywood lifestyle, one where penning the latest and greatest shock films means playing ‘casting couch’ with the loveliest emerging scream queens of a generation. So neither is chasing redemption – as most religions offer – so much as they’re wanting release; and release – in whatever form it takes – oft times comes at a much higher cost than redemption.
In this universe, these two have no other choice but to find one another as that’s the only means for which they can reach fulfillment. Both eventually wear the captor’s hat. Both surrender to the requirements of captivity. Where some might dismiss this as little more than Clara being ‘the Yin’ to Brighton’s ‘Yang,’ I’d argue that – while true – what’s left out in that observation is the fact that both have found equilibrium under the banner of a cult, both have surrendered to their Stockholm Syndrome. They’re living gloriously as a result of that singular yet shared embrace.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Blood Shine is not going to be for everyone. Its central story involves a tremendous focus on self-harm; and there’s no denying the obvious embrace of a sado-masochistic existence. Of course, these moments – while bloody and disturbing – are directly linked to the characters; so though some could argue such moments are gratuitous, I’d push back, insisting that their exhibition is entirely predicated on the characterizations. It’s never treated as a glamorous choice but rather an extension of what two people need to find connection and closure. Consider yourself suitably warned: this isn’t for the faint of heart.
Blood Shine (2025) was produced by Paper Street Pictures and Zeus Pictures. According to the supplied press materials, the film will be available widely on digital platforms beginning on August 21, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds were very, very good. (Screenwriter Brooks does double-duty here as cinematographer, and I will say that there were a few scenes with some curious framing choices – not sure I’d agree – but only one – the opening sequence – felt entirely unnecessary.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I saw this one via streaming, so there were no special features to consider.
Recommended, but – once more – this will likely be a bit divisive with some … much like my observation regarding The Silence Of The Lambs was received by a few. (See above)
The problem with stories structured like Blood Shine (2025) is (A) they dangerously take you nowhere or (B) they put you where somewhat self-aggrandizing storytellers drop you off so you can speak amongst your friends and make what you want out of an ambiguous closing scene. (Don’t even try to tell me you know definitely anything because there’s far too much wiggle room, and I’ll damn well suggest the contrary.) After a flawed set-up, this tale purrs solidly right up until its ‘Make Your Own Adventure’ ending – a misstep that damn near spoils it in much the same way M. Night Shyamalan has been ruining films for years – and I’ll forever curse Bennett and Brooks for fumbling the ball when they could’ve (and should’ve) crossed the goal line.
When everything else was this good, there’s no excuse for leaving anyone else in the dark.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Blood Shine (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Now, based on their response, you’d think I had deliberately run over someone’s puppy. When something as benign as wondering what the time spent by captive and captor might’ve looked like almost brings a crowd to blows, you know that something was seriously amiss. It wasn’t as if I said that I didn’t like the picture – nothing could be further from the truth – and, yet, here I was having my character assassinated for merely suggesting that there was ample room for even greater examination of what makes people tick in a two-hour motion picture. Of course, I realized that wasn’t what the film was about on a textual level; but all I wondered was how these two individuals might’ve related to one another in those darkest of times. Did they constantly bicker? Or might there have been moments of misplaced affection?
I bring this up today because 2025’s Blood Shine reminded me of my curiosity that went uninvestigated in 1991’s Silence, a sentiment that would likely rile up the same people but, likely, for many different reasons. For example, how can a virtually unheard of 2025 independent chiller that was probably conceived and shot on a negligible budget in any way resemble an Academy Award-winning event picture – a film even preserved for the ages in the U.S.’s National Film Registry since 2011 – from over three decades ago? (Can you hear their disdain for me? I can.) My response would be, “Well, that’s not what I said. Dummies.”
To be blunt, I am saying that Shine – for better or for worse – had moments of authenticity that conjured up what I found was previously absent from Silence; and maybe – just maybe – some good can come from such an association.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In her remote country home, a religious zealot takes a young filmmaker captive, claiming her sadistic rituals will change him into a god.”
The point of any story – good or bad – is to resonate with viewers.
This effect can be achieved in multiple ways. Firstly, the storytellers present something which reminds us of ourselves or something we’ve been through. This connection between fictional people and us easily evokes the same feelings we experienced when we did it on our own. Second, the tale spinners give us faces who are enduring trials, tragedies or traumas not so much like ours but ones relatable enough that we connect with how the sufferers might feel, what they might do, and how they might respond. Life is a process, and how folks endure it means something. Lastly, as viewers watch the players grow and achieve results against the odds, the audience empathizes with how the journey led to this specific destination. We take trip in unison – we walk together – and both the characters and the audience realize fulfillment – again, good or bad – as a consequence of the time spent together.
Well … 2025’s Blood Shine – a creative collaboration between Emily Bennett (who also stars) and Justin Brooks – offers little to none of the above in my humble opinion. That isn’t a complaint, but it is an observation founded in criticism. At no time did I see anything of myself in it. At no time could I directly relate to these characters, other than to say that I was still interested in them as creations. (Characters matter to me but never quite as much as the central story.) And, frankly, I was more than befuddled with a goodly portion of where and how it all ended up in the manner in which I did … yet I walked away somehow surprisingly engaged and impressed with nearly the whole affair.
Confused? So was I.
The point I’m making here is that while I may have no laudable traits that might lead me to feel sympathy for a pair of closeted sado-masochists magically or mystically finding balance in their shared epiphanies, I can still see the value in the story being told and the two folks telling it. In fact, the performances here from Bennett and David Call (as aspiring screenwriter Brighton West) are almost eerily pitch perfect, so much so that I’m damn worried about how they might live their private lives now. (I’m kidding … but a little serious.) Both manage to intimately undress their characters in ways other than removing their clothes –that, too, does inevitably happen, with even bloodier reveals – and I’m absolutely astounded that I haven’t seen them in more work. To her credit, Bennett evokes an almost 40’s noirish composure in a place where even the most ardent femme fatales would necessarily flee for their lives; and she strategically balances this smoldering against West – who has a vastly deeper professional profile – in his guise of a budding Hollywood narcissist who couldn’t see a bad idea if it were staring him right in the face.
Yes, yes, yes: I get that it sounds like I’m complaining. I’m not. Far from it. I found a good deal of their 90-minute film downright intoxicating … and I rarely drink. Blood Shine is filled to the brim with A-C-T-I-N-G, and it was very, very, very good. That doesn’t often happen in Horror much less Horror-adjacent works – and it’s even rarer when the project is certifiably independent – but when I see it I get almost goddam giddy. I want to see professionals work in these films, and both deserve a nod for what they accomplish together in this.
Structurally, Blood Shine works as a lock box story. In this world, its characters are entirely off the grid and left to their own devices, which here amounts to little more than locks and chains, one well-sharpened kitchen knife, and some old school videotapes. The obvious advantage is that such a assembly paves the way for actors to collaborate on moments big, medium, and small without there being space available for distractions. It enhances the intimacy of their words and actions – i.e. insults sting more, slaps sound louder, a simple touch speaks volumes, silence is damned deafening, etc. – and directors Bennett and Brooks monopolize a handful of settings to keep everything focused on people, not so much the spoken prose. (Words matter, yes, but we see that deeds matter more.) About the time audiences realize that both principles have kinda/sorta fallen under the spell of some unnamed cult televangelist who preaches his messages via a series of VHS cartridges (ask your grandparents, kids), you can see where it’s headed … and that rarely ends with happily ever after.
And if there ever were a face perfect for an outdated cult televangelist? Why, it would belong to Larry Fessenden. Thankfully, he was available, and he’s in the film. It might be little more than an extended cameo, but it’s handled brilliantly.
Where the difficulties arise with Blood Shine is that it’s a film whose makers didn’t quite know how to begin or end. (I know, I know, I know. Shut up and hear me out.) As much violence and blood and intimacy are packed in between those two end posts, Bennett and Brooks’ script flails about trying to both set and leave its dangerous stage. In a perfect world, there might be a brilliant but occasionally gruesome 60 minute episode of some unappreciated anthology series in here. As the released cut stands (at 90 minutes), I just can’t make heads or tails of its head or its tail, a shame when so much of what rests within is so damn compelling.
Unless I’m bad at math, there’s not one but two faux beginnings – an opening sequence which amounts to little more than a body being dragged, followed up with a second one which may or may not be a short film masquerading as a clumsy but clever ‘gotcha’ insert – before Brighton West truly takes the stage. While I can appreciate one false start, two seems inflated; and perhaps more of this screen time should’ve gone elsewhere. Frankly, Brighton’s set-up was spot on; but I would’ve loved to know a bit more about Clara (Bennett). We get little background on her besides what’s absolutely necessary here (there’s little to glean from her moments of dancing in the woodlands, too), and I can’t help but wonder about the true inciting incident that put her on a path to seeking solace in isolation. I can speculate, but I hate doing that. If there was more, then apologies because I missed it.
Additionally, Blood Shine’s destination leaves much, much, much more to the imagination than I feel it should. So much of the Horror is grounded in the visible chess match between these two players – what Clara asks of Brighton, what he does as a response, how this inevitably pushes the two into each other’s arms, etc. – so dumping viewers off in the realms of the Fantastic seems like a ploy in search of a motivation. Were all of these cult members who showed up real? Were they figments of our couple’s imagination? Fessenden’s arrival was plausible enough, but am I to believe that every other character in the film was part of some grand videotape cabal? Good grief! How about a little clarity, writers? That finale was the type of scene that, frankly, would have me plucking my eyes out … and, if you’ve made it this far you’ll understand why I logically can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t say more.
Definitively, what Blood Shine did best was offer up a creepily brilliant extrapolation of Stockholm Syndrome in the real world (as opposed to what Hollywood might make of it).
Both Clara and Brighton look the part of intelligent and attractive normies on the outside. So, as happens in film and life, it’s entirely natural for them to be increasingly drawn to one another. The twist here is that the attraction isn’t owed to those obvious superficial looks – which are good – but precisely because of these unstated inner flaws, these unconfessed hungers, these unrealized desires. Both are seeking to fill the respective holes in the souls; so both can’t resist the sultry chemistry as it manifests in viciously uncharacteristic ways.
Seeking an escape from her fear of not-so-much attack as much as it is the threat of subjugation, Clara has grown fixated on a cultish religious sect which promises delivery from nothing specific but a deliverance, nonetheless. On video, all Fessenden promises is ‘the Light,’ and it’s an oath so nebulous it can be anything the true believer wants or needs it to be. In contrast, Brighton has found himself immersed in the lecherous Hollywood lifestyle, one where penning the latest and greatest shock films means playing ‘casting couch’ with the loveliest emerging scream queens of a generation. So neither is chasing redemption – as most religions offer – so much as they’re wanting release; and release – in whatever form it takes – oft times comes at a much higher cost than redemption.
In this universe, these two have no other choice but to find one another as that’s the only means for which they can reach fulfillment. Both eventually wear the captor’s hat. Both surrender to the requirements of captivity. Where some might dismiss this as little more than Clara being ‘the Yin’ to Brighton’s ‘Yang,’ I’d argue that – while true – what’s left out in that observation is the fact that both have found equilibrium under the banner of a cult, both have surrendered to their Stockholm Syndrome. They’re living gloriously as a result of that singular yet shared embrace.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Blood Shine is not going to be for everyone. Its central story involves a tremendous focus on self-harm; and there’s no denying the obvious embrace of a sado-masochistic existence. Of course, these moments – while bloody and disturbing – are directly linked to the characters; so though some could argue such moments are gratuitous, I’d push back, insisting that their exhibition is entirely predicated on the characterizations. It’s never treated as a glamorous choice but rather an extension of what two people need to find connection and closure. Consider yourself suitably warned: this isn’t for the faint of heart.
Blood Shine (2025) was produced by Paper Street Pictures and Zeus Pictures. According to the supplied press materials, the film will be available widely on digital platforms beginning on August 21, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds were very, very good. (Screenwriter Brooks does double-duty here as cinematographer, and I will say that there were a few scenes with some curious framing choices – not sure I’d agree – but only one – the opening sequence – felt entirely unnecessary.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Alas, I saw this one via streaming, so there were no special features to consider.
Recommended, but – once more – this will likely be a bit divisive with some … much like my observation regarding The Silence Of The Lambs was received by a few. (See above)
The problem with stories structured like Blood Shine (2025) is (A) they dangerously take you nowhere or (B) they put you where somewhat self-aggrandizing storytellers drop you off so you can speak amongst your friends and make what you want out of an ambiguous closing scene. (Don’t even try to tell me you know definitely anything because there’s far too much wiggle room, and I’ll damn well suggest the contrary.) After a flawed set-up, this tale purrs solidly right up until its ‘Make Your Own Adventure’ ending – a misstep that damn near spoils it in much the same way M. Night Shyamalan has been ruining films for years – and I’ll forever curse Bennett and Brooks for fumbling the ball when they could’ve (and should’ve) crossed the goal line.
When everything else was this good, there’s no excuse for leaving anyone else in the dark.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Sky Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Blood Shine (2025) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After a Monsignor accidentally brings Count Dracula back from the dead while exorcising his castle, the vampire preys on the holy man's beautiful niece and her friends.”
It’s interesting to note that – among the Hammer catalogue – Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) is considered a direct sequel to 1966’s Dracula: Prince Of Darkness; but this isn’t to say that anyone necessarily run out, secure a copy of that film, screen it, and then sit down to enjoy Grave. The truth is that while these Hammer productions were all intended to function in the same cinematic universe – definitely predating what Marvel has been doing in the 2000’s – each installment works well enough on its own. (I say this having seen a few entries but not all.) Essentially, Grave’s script – attributed to Anthony Hinds and Bram Stoker (of course!) – includes an expository line or two that mostly clarifies anything needing to be known from the earlier flick and then sets its own course and forges right ahead.
That said, I can also say that – having seen a good number of Hammer’s horror-themed output – I do have a love/hate relationship with them. A few of them feel as though they were somewhat quickly conceived and made – this one definitely lacks a bit of nuance as it revolves around rather thinly drawn characters and circumstances, its plot running almost as if on auto-pilot most of the time – and rarely have I stumbled onto one with so unimpressive and unengaging characters. Hell, even Dracula (as played by the great Christopher Lee) isn’t really given much to do here vacillate between theatrical menace or standing around looking at something or something with a crude but pensive stare. One would think that the revered actor might even have asked for a bit more substance, what with this being his third time dressing up for the role.
Potentially, the biggest problem in the Freddie Francis directed effort is that the big fanger really has no charismatic opposition here … but let me not get ahead of myself …
Monsignor Ernst Mueller (Rupert Davies) travels to a distant mountain village to ascertain how the business of churching is progressing. He’s somewhat aghast to find an empty house of worship and its local unnamed priest (Ewan Hooper) ‘living it up’ with townies in the corner pub. When Mueller learns that these locals refuse to enter the church because they believe it possessed by the spirit of Dracula (not sure how that works exactly), he takes it upon himself to travel further up the mountain, properly exorcise the Count’s castle, and ceremonially seal it shut with a big gold-ensconced cross. Believing he’s done the Lord’s work, the monsignor retreats for home, curiously oblivious to the fact that his priest he thought was with him has fallen, cracked his head open, and bled into a pit of cracked ice that contains – you guessed it – the body of the presumed dead Dracula!
Of course, this awakens the immortal bloodsucker. (Vampires do love their blood, don’t they?) Feeling himself again, the count immediately mesmerizes the priest into his service; and this basically sets up the narrative trajectory of Grave. Angry over being locked out of his natural habitat, Dracula commits himself to the task of vengeance on Mueller and any who might stand in his way.
Travelling to the village of Kleinenberg, Dracula somewhat effortlessly dispatches the monsignor – actually, it’s the priest who does the dead but only after the three come together in a rooftop chase sequence that’s rather underwhelming – and is then delighted to discover that the aged man leaves behind a fetching, virginal niece named Maria (Veronica Carlson). Naturally, seducing the fair maiden to become one of his undead wives tickles the count’s fancy. While it would appear that she’s easy prey, the same cannot be said for her beau Paul (Barry Andrews), a local college boy and practicing atheist whom the monsignor has forbidden her from seeing. Once Ernst is out of the picture (literally), the task falls to Paul to save both Maria and her immortal soul from the philandering Nosferatu.
Of course, there’s a bit more to all of the action, most of which involves Kleinenberg’s celebrated barmaid Zena (Barbara Ewing) who manages to steal every scene she’s in. Sadly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or an aspiring critic) to see the writing on the wall: Zena isn’t long for this world – she’s no figurative match for Dracula once she’s fallen under his spell – and she’s gone much too soon in the second half to have made a bigger impact. As interesting as is the circumstance that it’ll take a man of no faith to fix what the men of faith have screwed up, Hinds’ script never does much more than point out the construct, leaving Paul an otherwise forgettable creation in an otherwise forgettable film. When everything feels as if constructed to resurrect a villain for the sole purpose of killing him off again, there’s little room for magic from any collected talent, leaving Grave to end largely as it began … with the screen’s most charismatic baddy trapped in limbo.
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) was produced by Hammer Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at the Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are solid: there’s some obvious post-production trickery rendered on Lee’s eyes to make them all bloodshot and ominous, and it works as well as intended. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Sadly, this is a bare bones release, so you’ll have to go looking elsewhere.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
Over the years, I’ve learned that every Dracula picture works best when it has a similarly interesting Van Helsing; and that’s what’s missing from Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968). While Lee makes the most of the limited pressures put on him there (the unnamed priest does most of the dirty work), he just doesn’t share the screen with a notable adversary. What few nice bits there are – i.e. a disposable barkeep turns in stronger work than the film’s female lead, Paul’s speeches about faith and free will, etc. – just don’t mean much because they’re not balanced against any signature evil. Here, Dracula just is. He’s mildly defanged (if you can excuse the metaphor), so everything here resonates like it was all afterthought instead of centerstage. Albeit well made (as Hammer flicks go), it’s still a bit of a miss.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After a Monsignor accidentally brings Count Dracula back from the dead while exorcising his castle, the vampire preys on the holy man's beautiful niece and her friends.”
It’s interesting to note that – among the Hammer catalogue – Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) is considered a direct sequel to 1966’s Dracula: Prince Of Darkness; but this isn’t to say that anyone necessarily run out, secure a copy of that film, screen it, and then sit down to enjoy Grave. The truth is that while these Hammer productions were all intended to function in the same cinematic universe – definitely predating what Marvel has been doing in the 2000’s – each installment works well enough on its own. (I say this having seen a few entries but not all.) Essentially, Grave’s script – attributed to Anthony Hinds and Bram Stoker (of course!) – includes an expository line or two that mostly clarifies anything needing to be known from the earlier flick and then sets its own course and forges right ahead.
That said, I can also say that – having seen a good number of Hammer’s horror-themed output – I do have a love/hate relationship with them. A few of them feel as though they were somewhat quickly conceived and made – this one definitely lacks a bit of nuance as it revolves around rather thinly drawn characters and circumstances, its plot running almost as if on auto-pilot most of the time – and rarely have I stumbled onto one with so unimpressive and unengaging characters. Hell, even Dracula (as played by the great Christopher Lee) isn’t really given much to do here vacillate between theatrical menace or standing around looking at something or something with a crude but pensive stare. One would think that the revered actor might even have asked for a bit more substance, what with this being his third time dressing up for the role.
Potentially, the biggest problem in the Freddie Francis directed effort is that the big fanger really has no charismatic opposition here … but let me not get ahead of myself …
Monsignor Ernst Mueller (Rupert Davies) travels to a distant mountain village to ascertain how the business of churching is progressing. He’s somewhat aghast to find an empty house of worship and its local unnamed priest (Ewan Hooper) ‘living it up’ with townies in the corner pub. When Mueller learns that these locals refuse to enter the church because they believe it possessed by the spirit of Dracula (not sure how that works exactly), he takes it upon himself to travel further up the mountain, properly exorcise the Count’s castle, and ceremonially seal it shut with a big gold-ensconced cross. Believing he’s done the Lord’s work, the monsignor retreats for home, curiously oblivious to the fact that his priest he thought was with him has fallen, cracked his head open, and bled into a pit of cracked ice that contains – you guessed it – the body of the presumed dead Dracula!
Of course, this awakens the immortal bloodsucker. (Vampires do love their blood, don’t they?) Feeling himself again, the count immediately mesmerizes the priest into his service; and this basically sets up the narrative trajectory of Grave. Angry over being locked out of his natural habitat, Dracula commits himself to the task of vengeance on Mueller and any who might stand in his way.
Travelling to the village of Kleinenberg, Dracula somewhat effortlessly dispatches the monsignor – actually, it’s the priest who does the dead but only after the three come together in a rooftop chase sequence that’s rather underwhelming – and is then delighted to discover that the aged man leaves behind a fetching, virginal niece named Maria (Veronica Carlson). Naturally, seducing the fair maiden to become one of his undead wives tickles the count’s fancy. While it would appear that she’s easy prey, the same cannot be said for her beau Paul (Barry Andrews), a local college boy and practicing atheist whom the monsignor has forbidden her from seeing. Once Ernst is out of the picture (literally), the task falls to Paul to save both Maria and her immortal soul from the philandering Nosferatu.
Of course, there’s a bit more to all of the action, most of which involves Kleinenberg’s celebrated barmaid Zena (Barbara Ewing) who manages to steal every scene she’s in. Sadly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or an aspiring critic) to see the writing on the wall: Zena isn’t long for this world – she’s no figurative match for Dracula once she’s fallen under his spell – and she’s gone much too soon in the second half to have made a bigger impact. As interesting as is the circumstance that it’ll take a man of no faith to fix what the men of faith have screwed up, Hinds’ script never does much more than point out the construct, leaving Paul an otherwise forgettable creation in an otherwise forgettable film. When everything feels as if constructed to resurrect a villain for the sole purpose of killing him off again, there’s little room for magic from any collected talent, leaving Grave to end largely as it began … with the screen’s most charismatic baddy trapped in limbo.
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) was produced by Hammer Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at the Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are solid: there’s some obvious post-production trickery rendered on Lee’s eyes to make them all bloodshot and ominous, and it works as well as intended. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Sadly, this is a bare bones release, so you’ll have to go looking elsewhere.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
Over the years, I’ve learned that every Dracula picture works best when it has a similarly interesting Van Helsing; and that’s what’s missing from Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968). While Lee makes the most of the limited pressures put on him there (the unnamed priest does most of the dirty work), he just doesn’t share the screen with a notable adversary. What few nice bits there are – i.e. a disposable barkeep turns in stronger work than the film’s female lead, Paul’s speeches about faith and free will, etc. – just don’t mean much because they’re not balanced against any signature evil. Here, Dracula just is. He’s mildly defanged (if you can excuse the metaphor), so everything here resonates like it was all afterthought instead of centerstage. Albeit well made (as Hammer flicks go), it’s still a bit of a miss.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (1968) 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
Because they are art, films have a way of occasionally polarizing audiences.
Of course, there’s a lot of evaluate in any individual production. Clearly, there’s the work done by the actors and actresses; and even then there are variables like how well they mesh together as an ensemble which might work differently with casual viewers. Of course, there’s all the supporting production details – the sets, the effects, the props, etc. – and it isn’t uncommon for some small little artifact to kill the overall effectiveness of a scene’s aesthetics. Furthermore, the entirety of the visual affair is often times influenced by a particular director’s style: some auteurs truly like to ‘flood the zone’ with the proper framing and colors and techniques while others stick to an almost simple utilitarian approach. Having all of these pieces come together and achieve the level of appreciation from learned members of the audience all the way down to the casual watchers is never easy; and a good number of pictures even have to endure a bit of cultural downtime before being more accurately re-evaluated by those who discover a picture in a later time.
You’ve heard about ‘being ahead of the curve?’ That happens with films, too, so just because the general public and/or their cultural betters didn’t find something laudable in its initial release timeframe may not amount to a hill of beans years or decades later. For example, 1941’s Citizen Kane was largely dismissed by audiences of the day only to have critics time and time again argue that it deserved better than it got. (Critics liked it, but even back then there were some holdouts.) Today, the title is often cited as the best a motion picture that’s ever been made, but you wouldn’t have known that all those many years ago.
However, 1996’s Mars Attacks! – a somewhat goofy Science Fiction satire from the theatrical catalogue of Tim Burton – largely divided audiences three decades ago. Culturally, it emerged somewhat on the heels of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin’s patriotic box office hit Independence Day; and I don’t think folks knew what to make of it in comparison to that award-winning, crowd-pleasing effort. Despite having a similar central premise – i.e. our big blue marble is overrun with vicious, scheming aliens – they likely couldn’t be further apart in the way they handle the topic head-on and throughout the various subplots. Whereas Independence Day racked up millions in ticket sales, Mars Attacks! mostly languished in indifference; and even those who found it were split on whether it deserved to be considered one of Burton’s best or his absolute worst.
Well … I’m with the former, not the latter; and I’m happy to explain why now that I’ve seen it once again in this glorious 4K Ultra-HD update.
(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 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:
“Earth is invaded by Martians with unbeatable weapons and a cruel sense of humor.”
Undoubtedly, there have been a great many films that have explored the prospect of our world being greeted horrifically by galactic invaders from afar; and – for what it’s worth – I think most of them were produced in the 1950’s, an era many consider the Golden Age of Science Fiction. A growing number of UFO sightings from the late 1940’s that fueled our collective fascination with the idea of life out there coming down here; and Hollywood storytellers couldn’t help but latch onto the idea both as literal threats as well as figurative ones that could be tied to other fears of the time. Atomic power was finally here, you see, and certainly these aliens knew more about it than we did. Would they take kindly to our dabbling in science they considered theirs? And what of those saber-rattling Communists on the other side of the globe? When audiences turned their noses up at the humdrum every day political situation, a screenwriter could easily substitute some alien species in place of the Russkies in order to get his latest and greatest theatrical effort into production. Who would notice the difference?
One needs to understand this working mentality – this core foundation – in order to appreciate what Mars Attacks achieves in its furious yet efficient 106 minutes.
Director Tim Burton and screenwriter Jonathan Gems likely grew up on a diet of these 50’s films; and they tirelessly went to great lengths to preserve so much of the social naivety that makes the best and worst of them function the way they do. An event so monumental as aliens arriving on Earth should take center stage and yet career military hack General Casey (played by Paul Winfield) is only concerned about what effect his greeting them will have on his career. Over the prospect of breaking bread these alien dignitaries at the White House, First Lady Marsha Dale (Glenn Close) refuses to use the good china. And President Dale (Jack Nicholson)? Well, he’s doing the best he can to handle this looming interstellar crisis by constantly accepting only the advice his lackies believe will make his administration look good in the eyes of the voting public.
Even Danny Elfman’s score tries to mimic the artistic sensibilities of those days gone by – sounding downright campy and grossly overstated in just the right measure – ignoring the big budget sentiments that fueled the aforementioned Independence Day. All of Attacks’ biggest characters are, by comparison, simpletons or stock caricatures discarded because we’d grown culturally beyond their employment. General Decker (Rod Steiger) is constantly harping for war with the invaders so much so that he’d definitely look more at home in Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant war satire Dr. Strangelove (1964), something that worked wonderfully three decades ago … so why would Gems and Burton want them back now? Precisely because these fictional folks existed in the temporal mindscape they wanted for their mid-1990’s revisitation, a point methinks lost entirely on audiences of the day.
Now, I’ve long suspected that this was part and parcel of why so many in the viewing public rejected Mars Attacks: they simply couldn’t relate to characters that were a narrative throwback to a time when things were simpler. Definitely having this flick coming out in the wake of Independence Day – a blockbuster supercharged with modern awareness – it likely looked quaint, old-fashioned, if not downright curious by comparison. The fact that it was overwhelmed with camp elements – art deco flying saucers, hyper-realized Martian gadgetry, acting that relied heavily on tongue-in-cheek comedy, etc. – already meant that it likely wasn’t destined to be any mainstream hit; and it understandably failed to chart in any appreciable way at the box office. Those are just the cold hard truths as I see it, and I’m sticking to them.
But even though I consider myself among the class who ‘got it’ and downright loved it, I’ll admit that Mars Attacks has a few weaknesses that could’ve been alleviated with different choices.
As good as an actor as Jack Nicholson is, he never should have appeared in two roles in the film. While I can grasp what Gems, Burton, and Nicholson were going for here (I’ve read that it was, in fact, the actor’s idea to do so because he loved the script), the Thespian’s grasp of real estate mogul Art Land just fell flat even as parody. It was too broad and too centered on hyperbole while the rest of Attacks relied more on some subversive humor. Naturally, displaying how the careers of a land baron and a sitting American President really aren’t all that different was nice; and yet it debatably had little to nothing to do with the picture’s core aesthetic, namely being a send-up of 50’s era Science Fiction tropes. Someone should’ve seen this at the time and pushed back.
Additionally, I’m not convinced that Gems’ script truly accomplished anything all that revelatory with its almost voluminous subplots. Mind you, I believe that the premise here was to blatantly skewer the disaster films of the 1970’s, the kind of features that built their bona fides on casting respectable marquee names by the dozens and giving them something to do somewhere in the script, essentially filling time before they were ceremoniously eliminated by whatever catastrophe had befallen society in the film. That’s all well and good; but, at some point, dialing back a familiar face or two and giving the work to some secondary player might’ve eliminated some of the narrative weight holding down the pace along the way. Danny DeVito’s gambling-addicted lawyer isn’t even given a name (that I’m aware of) in the script; so, ultimately, was his presence narratively necessary? I’d argue against it.
Lastly (and some might find this a bit controversial), the use of Slim Whitman’s memorable vocals being used to facilitate our world’s weapon against those nihilistic Martians truly comes out of nowhere. Though it ties to the character of Grandma Norris (Sylvia Sidney) and gives her a bit more importance in the overall development, it might have been better served if it had been hinted at in some way earlier. Audiences already had to accept the fact that these invaders had some unexplainable triggers associated to birds (a trait with zero explanation), so would it have been so dire to actually commit a few seconds of screen time to some expository dump underscoring why Whitman’s vocals – in all of human history – were so destructive to alien ears? With as much talent as was already in the flick, I can’t accept that a plausible justification was beyond reach. (Yes, yes, yes: I get that it’s meant to be a joke, but even jokes work best when they’re grounded in fact.)
Do not let a few criticisms confuse you: I find Mars Attacks a delight. It’s the kind of experience which allows me to switch off the prefrontal cortex and just giggle unabashedly. As I said above, I proudly consider myself amongst those who were in on the joke – like some, I grew up on the films skewered in its lunacy – and I’ll be forever grateful that Burton and company took time out of the day to deliver such a genre-inspired classic. Cult or otherwise, Attacks deserves a place in my home video library.
Mars Attacks! (1996) was produced by Warner Bros. and Tim Burton Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Home Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that – on most points – this 4K update is superb: it looks and sounds incredible with the exception that there’s one sequence (the eventual destruction of the Galaxy Hotel and Casino) where the audio mix is muddling at best. Nicholson’s speech is a bit garbled before his mogul character’s demise; and it’s surprisingly much better on the alternate original track. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well … it’s a bit disappointing to get only two reasonable short ‘retrospective’ style glances back at the project; and yet given the film’s underperformance at the box office I’m quite certain that the WB wasn’t willing to invest much to produce any new bells and whistles.
Highest Recommendation Possible.
Even when a blemish or two, Mars Attacks! (1996) is about as tonally perfect a blend of Science Fiction and Comedy one could expect. While pacing in a few instances could’ve been quickened, the film overall retains a quirky freshness for the material; and screenwriter Gems very cleverly manages to skewer everything about genre tropes – especially those introduced in SciFi’s Golden Age of 1950 – one could shake a stick at. That and the fact that the film mirrors the fabulous disaster flicks of bygone storyteller Irwin Allen at each opportunity makes this one a winner that continues to resonate with fandom to this day. Its central audience may never be greater than a cult one, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Bros. provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Mars Attacks! (1996) 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
Of course, there’s a lot of evaluate in any individual production. Clearly, there’s the work done by the actors and actresses; and even then there are variables like how well they mesh together as an ensemble which might work differently with casual viewers. Of course, there’s all the supporting production details – the sets, the effects, the props, etc. – and it isn’t uncommon for some small little artifact to kill the overall effectiveness of a scene’s aesthetics. Furthermore, the entirety of the visual affair is often times influenced by a particular director’s style: some auteurs truly like to ‘flood the zone’ with the proper framing and colors and techniques while others stick to an almost simple utilitarian approach. Having all of these pieces come together and achieve the level of appreciation from learned members of the audience all the way down to the casual watchers is never easy; and a good number of pictures even have to endure a bit of cultural downtime before being more accurately re-evaluated by those who discover a picture in a later time.
You’ve heard about ‘being ahead of the curve?’ That happens with films, too, so just because the general public and/or their cultural betters didn’t find something laudable in its initial release timeframe may not amount to a hill of beans years or decades later. For example, 1941’s Citizen Kane was largely dismissed by audiences of the day only to have critics time and time again argue that it deserved better than it got. (Critics liked it, but even back then there were some holdouts.) Today, the title is often cited as the best a motion picture that’s ever been made, but you wouldn’t have known that all those many years ago.
However, 1996’s Mars Attacks! – a somewhat goofy Science Fiction satire from the theatrical catalogue of Tim Burton – largely divided audiences three decades ago. Culturally, it emerged somewhat on the heels of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin’s patriotic box office hit Independence Day; and I don’t think folks knew what to make of it in comparison to that award-winning, crowd-pleasing effort. Despite having a similar central premise – i.e. our big blue marble is overrun with vicious, scheming aliens – they likely couldn’t be further apart in the way they handle the topic head-on and throughout the various subplots. Whereas Independence Day racked up millions in ticket sales, Mars Attacks! mostly languished in indifference; and even those who found it were split on whether it deserved to be considered one of Burton’s best or his absolute worst.
Well … I’m with the former, not the latter; and I’m happy to explain why now that I’ve seen it once again in this glorious 4K Ultra-HD update.
(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 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:
“Earth is invaded by Martians with unbeatable weapons and a cruel sense of humor.”
Undoubtedly, there have been a great many films that have explored the prospect of our world being greeted horrifically by galactic invaders from afar; and – for what it’s worth – I think most of them were produced in the 1950’s, an era many consider the Golden Age of Science Fiction. A growing number of UFO sightings from the late 1940’s that fueled our collective fascination with the idea of life out there coming down here; and Hollywood storytellers couldn’t help but latch onto the idea both as literal threats as well as figurative ones that could be tied to other fears of the time. Atomic power was finally here, you see, and certainly these aliens knew more about it than we did. Would they take kindly to our dabbling in science they considered theirs? And what of those saber-rattling Communists on the other side of the globe? When audiences turned their noses up at the humdrum every day political situation, a screenwriter could easily substitute some alien species in place of the Russkies in order to get his latest and greatest theatrical effort into production. Who would notice the difference?
One needs to understand this working mentality – this core foundation – in order to appreciate what Mars Attacks achieves in its furious yet efficient 106 minutes.
Director Tim Burton and screenwriter Jonathan Gems likely grew up on a diet of these 50’s films; and they tirelessly went to great lengths to preserve so much of the social naivety that makes the best and worst of them function the way they do. An event so monumental as aliens arriving on Earth should take center stage and yet career military hack General Casey (played by Paul Winfield) is only concerned about what effect his greeting them will have on his career. Over the prospect of breaking bread these alien dignitaries at the White House, First Lady Marsha Dale (Glenn Close) refuses to use the good china. And President Dale (Jack Nicholson)? Well, he’s doing the best he can to handle this looming interstellar crisis by constantly accepting only the advice his lackies believe will make his administration look good in the eyes of the voting public.
Even Danny Elfman’s score tries to mimic the artistic sensibilities of those days gone by – sounding downright campy and grossly overstated in just the right measure – ignoring the big budget sentiments that fueled the aforementioned Independence Day. All of Attacks’ biggest characters are, by comparison, simpletons or stock caricatures discarded because we’d grown culturally beyond their employment. General Decker (Rod Steiger) is constantly harping for war with the invaders so much so that he’d definitely look more at home in Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant war satire Dr. Strangelove (1964), something that worked wonderfully three decades ago … so why would Gems and Burton want them back now? Precisely because these fictional folks existed in the temporal mindscape they wanted for their mid-1990’s revisitation, a point methinks lost entirely on audiences of the day.
Now, I’ve long suspected that this was part and parcel of why so many in the viewing public rejected Mars Attacks: they simply couldn’t relate to characters that were a narrative throwback to a time when things were simpler. Definitely having this flick coming out in the wake of Independence Day – a blockbuster supercharged with modern awareness – it likely looked quaint, old-fashioned, if not downright curious by comparison. The fact that it was overwhelmed with camp elements – art deco flying saucers, hyper-realized Martian gadgetry, acting that relied heavily on tongue-in-cheek comedy, etc. – already meant that it likely wasn’t destined to be any mainstream hit; and it understandably failed to chart in any appreciable way at the box office. Those are just the cold hard truths as I see it, and I’m sticking to them.
But even though I consider myself among the class who ‘got it’ and downright loved it, I’ll admit that Mars Attacks has a few weaknesses that could’ve been alleviated with different choices.
As good as an actor as Jack Nicholson is, he never should have appeared in two roles in the film. While I can grasp what Gems, Burton, and Nicholson were going for here (I’ve read that it was, in fact, the actor’s idea to do so because he loved the script), the Thespian’s grasp of real estate mogul Art Land just fell flat even as parody. It was too broad and too centered on hyperbole while the rest of Attacks relied more on some subversive humor. Naturally, displaying how the careers of a land baron and a sitting American President really aren’t all that different was nice; and yet it debatably had little to nothing to do with the picture’s core aesthetic, namely being a send-up of 50’s era Science Fiction tropes. Someone should’ve seen this at the time and pushed back.
Additionally, I’m not convinced that Gems’ script truly accomplished anything all that revelatory with its almost voluminous subplots. Mind you, I believe that the premise here was to blatantly skewer the disaster films of the 1970’s, the kind of features that built their bona fides on casting respectable marquee names by the dozens and giving them something to do somewhere in the script, essentially filling time before they were ceremoniously eliminated by whatever catastrophe had befallen society in the film. That’s all well and good; but, at some point, dialing back a familiar face or two and giving the work to some secondary player might’ve eliminated some of the narrative weight holding down the pace along the way. Danny DeVito’s gambling-addicted lawyer isn’t even given a name (that I’m aware of) in the script; so, ultimately, was his presence narratively necessary? I’d argue against it.
Lastly (and some might find this a bit controversial), the use of Slim Whitman’s memorable vocals being used to facilitate our world’s weapon against those nihilistic Martians truly comes out of nowhere. Though it ties to the character of Grandma Norris (Sylvia Sidney) and gives her a bit more importance in the overall development, it might have been better served if it had been hinted at in some way earlier. Audiences already had to accept the fact that these invaders had some unexplainable triggers associated to birds (a trait with zero explanation), so would it have been so dire to actually commit a few seconds of screen time to some expository dump underscoring why Whitman’s vocals – in all of human history – were so destructive to alien ears? With as much talent as was already in the flick, I can’t accept that a plausible justification was beyond reach. (Yes, yes, yes: I get that it’s meant to be a joke, but even jokes work best when they’re grounded in fact.)
Do not let a few criticisms confuse you: I find Mars Attacks a delight. It’s the kind of experience which allows me to switch off the prefrontal cortex and just giggle unabashedly. As I said above, I proudly consider myself amongst those who were in on the joke – like some, I grew up on the films skewered in its lunacy – and I’ll be forever grateful that Burton and company took time out of the day to deliver such a genre-inspired classic. Cult or otherwise, Attacks deserves a place in my home video library.
Mars Attacks! (1996) was produced by Warner Bros. and Tim Burton Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Home Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that – on most points – this 4K update is superb: it looks and sounds incredible with the exception that there’s one sequence (the eventual destruction of the Galaxy Hotel and Casino) where the audio mix is muddling at best. Nicholson’s speech is a bit garbled before his mogul character’s demise; and it’s surprisingly much better on the alternate original track. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well … it’s a bit disappointing to get only two reasonable short ‘retrospective’ style glances back at the project; and yet given the film’s underperformance at the box office I’m quite certain that the WB wasn’t willing to invest much to produce any new bells and whistles.
Highest Recommendation Possible.
Even when a blemish or two, Mars Attacks! (1996) is about as tonally perfect a blend of Science Fiction and Comedy one could expect. While pacing in a few instances could’ve been quickened, the film overall retains a quirky freshness for the material; and screenwriter Gems very cleverly manages to skewer everything about genre tropes – especially those introduced in SciFi’s Golden Age of 1950 – one could shake a stick at. That and the fact that the film mirrors the fabulous disaster flicks of bygone storyteller Irwin Allen at each opportunity makes this one a winner that continues to resonate with fandom to this day. Its central audience may never be greater than a cult one, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Bros. provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Mars Attacks! (1996) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
in memoriam
Very sad news to report this morning from the SciFiHistory.Net News Desk that it was reported late yesterday evening that actress Hayden Panettiere had suddenly passed away. I did see this morning that authorities had acknowledged that there was no foul play involved, and they are listing the woman's passing of natural causes.
Like so many in fandom, I was a bit starstruck with the lady's breakout work aboard NBC's Heroes when it premiered. Granted, the show really lost direction and steam fairly quickly -- in my humble estimation it might be one of those rare projects that would've worked better as a one-off series or maybe two seasons -- but Hayden's whipsmart cheerleader 'Claire Bennet' was a force to be reckoned with among the heroic lot. I believe I did catch her work as well in that Nashville series, but it just wasn't something I stuck with over any reasonable duration because it really didn't interest me.
A quick rundown of her professional profile shows that she definitely had a few others entries deserving of mention. She got her professional start in a TV sitcom that incorporated extraterrestrials in everyday life -- Aliens In The Family -- back in 1996; and then she slowly evolved her skills across some mainstream efforts. In 1998, she voiced 'Dot' from Walt Disney and Pixar's A Bug's Life -- a property that gave her opportunities to return to the character a few times -- and, in 1999, she visited the work of TV's Touched By An Angel.
With the turn of the century, she continued to impress critics and casual viewers alike. In 2000, she supplied the voice for 'Suri' in Dinosaur. As well as continuing to act, she began exploring a career in singing, only then to eventually answer the call coming from the realms of the Fantastic to play the cheerleader whose saving meant saving the world. (If you've seen the show, then you understand the reference.)
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Hayden Panettiere.
May she forever rest in peace ...
-- EZ
Like so many in fandom, I was a bit starstruck with the lady's breakout work aboard NBC's Heroes when it premiered. Granted, the show really lost direction and steam fairly quickly -- in my humble estimation it might be one of those rare projects that would've worked better as a one-off series or maybe two seasons -- but Hayden's whipsmart cheerleader 'Claire Bennet' was a force to be reckoned with among the heroic lot. I believe I did catch her work as well in that Nashville series, but it just wasn't something I stuck with over any reasonable duration because it really didn't interest me.
A quick rundown of her professional profile shows that she definitely had a few others entries deserving of mention. She got her professional start in a TV sitcom that incorporated extraterrestrials in everyday life -- Aliens In The Family -- back in 1996; and then she slowly evolved her skills across some mainstream efforts. In 1998, she voiced 'Dot' from Walt Disney and Pixar's A Bug's Life -- a property that gave her opportunities to return to the character a few times -- and, in 1999, she visited the work of TV's Touched By An Angel.
With the turn of the century, she continued to impress critics and casual viewers alike. In 2000, she supplied the voice for 'Suri' in Dinosaur. As well as continuing to act, she began exploring a career in singing, only then to eventually answer the call coming from the realms of the Fantastic to play the cheerleader whose saving meant saving the world. (If you've seen the show, then you understand the reference.)
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Hayden Panettiere.
May she forever rest in peace ...
-- EZ
- Published on
so many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 1939 (in the U.S.), The Man They Could Not Hang hung it up in theatres. Directed by Nick Grinde from a story by Karl Brown, Leslie T. White, George Wallace Sayre, the feature starred Boris Karloff, Robert Wilcox, Lorna Gray, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When Dr. Savaard's experiment in cryonics is interrupted by the short-sighted authorities, his volunteer dies, and he is condemned to death. He vows vengeance if he can survive his own hanging."
Want to help SciFiHistory.Net stay afloat?:
As an Amazon associate, I earn commissions from qualifying purchases. To help SciFiHistory.Net's bottom line, please consider clicking this link if you're interested in purchasing a copy of The Man They Could Not Hang (as part of a Boris Karloff collection) on home video:
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When Dr. Savaard's experiment in cryonics is interrupted by the short-sighted authorities, his volunteer dies, and he is condemned to death. He vows vengeance if he can survive his own hanging."
Want to help SciFiHistory.Net stay afloat?:
As an Amazon associate, I earn commissions from qualifying purchases. To help SciFiHistory.Net's bottom line, please consider clicking this link if you're interested in purchasing a copy of The Man They Could Not Hang (as part of a Boris Karloff collection) on home video:
From Google.com:
The Man They Could Not Hang is a 1939 American science fiction horror film starring Boris Karloff as a pioneering scientist driven to madness by injustice. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Plot Overview
The Experiment: Dr. Henryk Savaard (Karloff) develops an artificial heart and a procedure for suspended animation to bring the dead back to life.
Background and Legacy
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031614/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_They_Could_Not_Hang
[3] https://archive.org/details/the.-man.-they.-could.-not.-hang.-1939
[4] https://scifist.net/2019/09/01/the-man-they-could-not-hang/
[5] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TheManTheyCouldNotHang
[6] https://www.tcm.com/articles/253076/the-man-they-could-not-hang
[7] https://www.classic-monsters.com/the-man-they-could-not-hang-columbia-1939/
[8] https://letterboxd.com/film/the-man-they-could-not-hang/
[9] https://www.elvisdvdcollector.com/products/the-man-they-could-not-hang-1939-boris-karloff
[10] https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Horror-Collection-Karloff-Boogie/dp/B000HEVZ7G
The Man They Could Not Hang is a 1939 American science fiction horror film starring Boris Karloff as a pioneering scientist driven to madness by injustice. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Plot Overview
The Experiment: Dr. Henryk Savaard (Karloff) develops an artificial heart and a procedure for suspended animation to bring the dead back to life.
- The Arrest: A medical student volunteers to be temporarily killed for a test, but a panicked nurse calls the police before Savaard can revive him.
- The Execution: Arrested and wrongfully convicted of murder, Savaard is sentenced to hang, delivering a furious parting speech vowing revenge.
- The Return: Savaard's loyal assistant recovers his body after the execution and uses the doctor's own reanimation device to bring him back.
- The Vengeance: Alive and embittered, Savaard traps the judge, jury, and officials responsible for his conviction in his home to exact a deadly, calculated revenge. [3, 5]
Background and Legacy
- The "Mad Doctor" Cycle: Directed by Nick Grinde, the film was the very first in a series of four Columbia Pictures B-horror films starring Karloff that explored mad science and ethics.
- The Sequels: It was followed by The Man with Nine Lives and Before I Hang in 1940, and The Devil Commands in 1941.
- Reception: Running at a brisk 64 to 65 minutes, it is widely regarded by classic horror fans as one of the strongest and most literate entries in Karloff's Columbia programmer era. [2, 4, 9, 10]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031614/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_They_Could_Not_Hang
[3] https://archive.org/details/the.-man.-they.-could.-not.-hang.-1939
[4] https://scifist.net/2019/09/01/the-man-they-could-not-hang/
[5] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TheManTheyCouldNotHang
[6] https://www.tcm.com/articles/253076/the-man-they-could-not-hang
[7] https://www.classic-monsters.com/the-man-they-could-not-hang-columbia-1939/
[8] https://letterboxd.com/film/the-man-they-could-not-hang/
[9] https://www.elvisdvdcollector.com/products/the-man-they-could-not-hang-1939-boris-karloff
[10] https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Horror-Collection-Karloff-Boogie/dp/B000HEVZ7G
- Published on
So many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 1996 (in the U.S.), the SciFi/Telefilm Last Exit To Earth dropped into the exit lane and aired on television. Written (in part) and directed by Katt Shea (with writing contributions also from Katherine Martin and Rachel Samuels), the feature starred Kim Greist, Costas Manydylor, Amy Hathaway, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"It is the year 2500 and women are sent back in time to kidnap men to help repopulate the future."
Editor's Note:
Alas, it would appear that 1996's Last Exit To Earth never had an official home video release in the U.S., though Google.com suggests that there may be unofficial bootlegs available online. There are indicates that -- after the project's premiere on the pay cable network Showtime -- it enjoyed a VHS release in America compliments of New Concorde Home Video. (Source: Google.com)
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"It is the year 2500 and women are sent back in time to kidnap men to help repopulate the future."
Editor's Note:
Alas, it would appear that 1996's Last Exit To Earth never had an official home video release in the U.S., though Google.com suggests that there may be unofficial bootlegs available online. There are indicates that -- after the project's premiere on the pay cable network Showtime -- it enjoyed a VHS release in America compliments of New Concorde Home Video. (Source: Google.com)
-- EZ
From Google.com:
Last Exit to Earth is a 1996 sci-fi television movie about women from the year 2500 traveling back in time to kidnap men to repopulate the future. [1, 2]
Movie Overview
Main Cast
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116829/
[2] https://watch.plex.tv/movie/last-exit-to-earth
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Exit_to_Earth
[4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116829/fullcredits/
[5] https://screenrant.com/db/movie/last-exit-to-earth/
[6] https://watch.plex.tv/en-GB/movie/last-exit-to-earth
Last Exit to Earth is a 1996 sci-fi television movie about women from the year 2500 traveling back in time to kidnap men to repopulate the future. [1, 2]
Movie Overview
- Release Date: August 17, 1996
- Director: Katt Shea
- Producer: Roger Corman (Executive Producer)
- Network: Showtime
- Runtime: 1 hour and 26 minutes (86 minutes)
- Rating: R [1, 3, 4, 5]
Main Cast
- Kim Greist as Eve
- Costas Mandylor as Jaid
- Amy Hathaway as Kali
- David Groh as Bendix
- Michael Cudlitz as Hardester [6]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116829/
[2] https://watch.plex.tv/movie/last-exit-to-earth
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Exit_to_Earth
[4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116829/fullcredits/
[5] https://screenrant.com/db/movie/last-exit-to-earth/
[6] https://watch.plex.tv/en-GB/movie/last-exit-to-earth
- Published on
so many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 2000 (in the U.S.), the good people of Century City, California were treated to an exclusive premiere engagement of The Cell. Directed by Tarsem Singh from a story by Mark Protosevich, the SciFi/Fantasy starred Jennifer Lopez, Vince Vaughn, and Vincent D'Onofrio.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"An F.B.I. Agent persuades a social worker, who is adept with a new experimental technology, to enter the mind of a comatose serial killer in order to learn where he has hidden his latest kidnap victim."
For the record:
ExtraExtra Alert:
In early 2025, I received an all-new promotional copy of The Cell (2000) from a distributor in exchange for review coverage on SciFiHistory.Net. Interested readers can find my review right here.
-- EZ
Want to help SciFiHistory.Net stay afloat?:
As an Amazon associate, I earn commissions from qualifying purchases. To help SciFiHistory.Net's bottom line, please consider clicking this link if you're interested in purchasing a copy of The Cell (2000) on home video:
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"An F.B.I. Agent persuades a social worker, who is adept with a new experimental technology, to enter the mind of a comatose serial killer in order to learn where he has hidden his latest kidnap victim."
For the record:
- At the 2001 Academy Awards, The Cell received a nomination in the category of 'Best Make-Up.'
- At the 2001 Saturn Awards, The Cell received nominations in the categories of 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Costumes,' 'Best Actress,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
- At the 2001 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, The Cell received nominations in the categories of 'Best Make-Up/Creature FX,' 'Best Score,' 'Best Screenplay,' 'Best Supporting Actor,' and 'Best Wide-Release Film.' At the end of the evening, the film did go home with the Score, Make-Up, and Supporting Actor trophies.
ExtraExtra Alert:
In early 2025, I received an all-new promotional copy of The Cell (2000) from a distributor in exchange for review coverage on SciFiHistory.Net. Interested readers can find my review right here.
-- EZ
Want to help SciFiHistory.Net stay afloat?:
As an Amazon associate, I earn commissions from qualifying purchases. To help SciFiHistory.Net's bottom line, please consider clicking this link if you're interested in purchasing a copy of The Cell (2000) on home video:
From Google.com:
The Cell is a 2000 sci-fi psychological horror film directed by Tarsem Singh that combines a tense FBI manhunt with a surreal, nightmarish journey inside a serial killer's mind. [1, 2]
Plot and Premise
Visual Style and Reception
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-yPOCCTOhU
[2] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TheCell
[3] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209958/plotsummary/
[4] https://www.facebook.com/horrorsyndicate/posts/we-never-talk-about-the-bizarre-2000-horror-film-the-cellwhat-do-you-think-of-th/1561265656009485/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Q1A-48fUM
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HWWKbM4hWc
[7] https://www.facebook.com/PrinceCharlesCinema/posts/tarsem-singhs-directorial-debut-the-cell-2000-shows-fri-23rd-may-in-our-big-scre/1126896699475983/
The Cell is a 2000 sci-fi psychological horror film directed by Tarsem Singh that combines a tense FBI manhunt with a surreal, nightmarish journey inside a serial killer's mind. [1, 2]
Plot and Premise
- The Killer: Carl Stargher is a disturbed serial killer who traps his victims in a hidden underground glass cell that slowly fills with water.
- The Coma: Stargher is captured by the FBI, but he immediately falls into an irreversible catatonic coma before revealing where his final victim is hidden.
- The Mission: Child psychologist Catherine Deane uses an experimental virtual reality technology to enter Stargher's subconscious mind to find clues to save the captive victim before time runs out. [2, 3, 4]
Visual Style and Reception
- Artistic Influence: Directed by famous music video director Tarsem Singh, the movie is celebrated for its breathtaking, bizarre dream sequences inspired by artists like H.R. Giger and Damien Hirst.
- Tone: The film mixes gorgeous, avant-garde art design with heavy psychological horror and unsettling body imagery.
- Legacy: While critics were mixed on its thin character dialogue, it became a cult classic remembered for its unmatched visual ambition and unique dream-world design. [1, 2, 6, 7]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-yPOCCTOhU
[2] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/TheCell
[3] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209958/plotsummary/
[4] https://www.facebook.com/horrorsyndicate/posts/we-never-talk-about-the-bizarre-2000-horror-film-the-cellwhat-do-you-think-of-th/1561265656009485/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Q1A-48fUM
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HWWKbM4hWc
[7] https://www.facebook.com/PrinceCharlesCinema/posts/tarsem-singhs-directorial-debut-the-cell-2000-shows-fri-23rd-may-in-our-big-scre/1126896699475983/
- Published on
so many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 2018 (in Russia), the good people of Moscow were treated to an exclusive theatrical premiere event of Guardians Of The Night. Directed by Emilis Velyvis from a story by Oleg Malovichko, the Horror/Fantasy starred Ivan Yankovskiy, Leonid Yarmolnik, Lyubov Aksyonova, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Contemporary Moscow. When eighteen-year-old Pasha rescues a beautiful young woman from a band of strangely powerful attackers, he discovers an underworld of supernatural beings living among us."
Editor's Note:
Alas, my research has shown me that there is presently no Region 1 (USA) release of Guardians Of The Night (2016) on home video.
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Contemporary Moscow. When eighteen-year-old Pasha rescues a beautiful young woman from a band of strangely powerful attackers, he discovers an underworld of supernatural beings living among us."
Editor's Note:
Alas, my research has shown me that there is presently no Region 1 (USA) release of Guardians Of The Night (2016) on home video.
-- EZ
From Google.com:
Guardians of the Night (Russian: Nochnye strazhi) is a 2016 Russian action, fantasy, and thriller film directed by Emilis Velyvis. [1]
Plot Overview
Key Cast and Production
Reception
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://baike.baidu.com/en/item/Guardians%20of%20the%20Night/3069408
[2] https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film124572.html
[3] http://taliesinttlg.blogspot.com/2018/03/guardians-of-night-review.html
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjBNSqGYAo0
[5] https://vampirefilmreviews.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/guardians-of-the-night-2016/
[6] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5487524/
[7] https://tv.apple.com/gb/movie/guardians-of-the-night/umc.cmc.4ihvr977z37lw2qo8vxv48yu
Guardians of the Night (Russian: Nochnye strazhi) is a 2016 Russian action, fantasy, and thriller film directed by Emilis Velyvis. [1]
Plot Overview
- The Hero: Eighteen-year-old Pasha works as a low-level courier in Moscow. He has strange recurring nightmares about flying and rooftops.
- The Incident: Pasha rescues a young woman named Dana from powerful attackers.
- The Discovery: This rescue pulls Pasha into a secret underworld in Moscow where supernatural creatures—referred to in the film as ghouls rather than traditional Hollywood vampires—live hidden among humans. He gets caught up in a crisis managed by a special security department. [1, 3, 5]
Key Cast and Production
- Pasha: Played by Ivan Yankovskiy
- Dana: Played by Lyubov Aksyonova
- Gamayun: Played by Leonid Yarmolnik
- Director: Emilis Velyvis
- Writer: Oleg Malovichko
- Release Date: August 25, 2016 (Russia)
- Runtime: 97 minutes [1, 6, 7]
Reception
- The film received mixed to negative reviews for its heavily derivative plot, which draws inspiration from urban fantasy and sci-fi tropes found in movies like Night Watch, Blade, and Men in Black. It holds a 4.4/10 rating on IMDb. [3, 5, 6]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://baike.baidu.com/en/item/Guardians%20of%20the%20Night/3069408
[2] https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film124572.html
[3] http://taliesinttlg.blogspot.com/2018/03/guardians-of-night-review.html
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjBNSqGYAo0
[5] https://vampirefilmreviews.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/guardians-of-the-night-2016/
[6] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5487524/
[7] https://tv.apple.com/gb/movie/guardians-of-the-night/umc.cmc.4ihvr977z37lw2qo8vxv48yu