- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for March 25, 2024!
How was everyone's weekend?
I know, I know, I know. It's Monday, and nobody really wants to talk about the weekend any longer because it's over. You just want to crawl back in bed for a few more minutes instead of buckling back down to what we have to do during the week to make the weekends possible. I'm sorry to each and every one of you for bringing it up, but it's kinda/sorta what I do every Monday, my friends. I give you a recap, and then I do try to set the stage for what's up'n'coming in our collective existence. It's the only way I know how to do what I do in this space, and I'm sorry if it's a slog in any measure for any of you.
So ... welcome back, whatever the case!
Quiet weekend for yours truly. Very quiet. The wifey had a few events she had to attend to all of her own, which left me with some open time on the schedule to putter, mostly. I did manage to squeeze in a few classic films that I had stored up on my DVR -- I'll likely pen a review on one or the other, not entirely sure which just yet -- and some relaxation. I also listened to a few podcasts for good measure, something I just don't do as much as I probably should. But I'm back into the business of looking at the week this morning, and I thought I'd pop by with a few items worthy of note for us to champion.
How was everyone's weekend?
I know, I know, I know. It's Monday, and nobody really wants to talk about the weekend any longer because it's over. You just want to crawl back in bed for a few more minutes instead of buckling back down to what we have to do during the week to make the weekends possible. I'm sorry to each and every one of you for bringing it up, but it's kinda/sorta what I do every Monday, my friends. I give you a recap, and then I do try to set the stage for what's up'n'coming in our collective existence. It's the only way I know how to do what I do in this space, and I'm sorry if it's a slog in any measure for any of you.
So ... welcome back, whatever the case!
Quiet weekend for yours truly. Very quiet. The wifey had a few events she had to attend to all of her own, which left me with some open time on the schedule to putter, mostly. I did manage to squeeze in a few classic films that I had stored up on my DVR -- I'll likely pen a review on one or the other, not entirely sure which just yet -- and some relaxation. I also listened to a few podcasts for good measure, something I just don't do as much as I probably should. But I'm back into the business of looking at the week this morning, and I thought I'd pop by with a few items worthy of note for us to champion.
Ay, carumba ...
Sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good, and -- for what it's worth -- one of Star Trek's all-time worst outings ever aired on this day all the way back in 1989 when a Season Two adventure better known as "The Royale" came to (cough cough) life.
This was one of those stories that honestly felt like it never quite had a chance with resonating, only because it was such a huge, huge, huge throwback to a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy was endlessly simplistic. The script from Tracy Torme saw Riker, Data, and Worf beaming down to the surface of a planet ... well ... we thought they were beaming down to the surface of a planet, anyway. In reality, what they were doing was beaming into a recreation of a very bad pulp novel; and they were trapped there basically while the events of the bad book have to play out so that they can leave.
I mean ... ouch.
Back in the days when Syfy was the SciFi Channel, they'd occasionally do these Star Trek TNG marathons of best and worst episodes, and The Royale almost always came in as one of the all-time low points in the Next Generation's history. "There are stinkers, and then there's The Royale" is what I'd always say about the hour. I think I've even read somewhere's that its writer -- Torme -- had completely disowned the installment ... and that's not a bad idea.
Why celebrate it?
Well, we don't often get chapters this obviously bad, and that's saying something. Know where the low bar is, folks, so that way we never ever get close to it again.
Sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good, and -- for what it's worth -- one of Star Trek's all-time worst outings ever aired on this day all the way back in 1989 when a Season Two adventure better known as "The Royale" came to (cough cough) life.
This was one of those stories that honestly felt like it never quite had a chance with resonating, only because it was such a huge, huge, huge throwback to a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy was endlessly simplistic. The script from Tracy Torme saw Riker, Data, and Worf beaming down to the surface of a planet ... well ... we thought they were beaming down to the surface of a planet, anyway. In reality, what they were doing was beaming into a recreation of a very bad pulp novel; and they were trapped there basically while the events of the bad book have to play out so that they can leave.
I mean ... ouch.
Back in the days when Syfy was the SciFi Channel, they'd occasionally do these Star Trek TNG marathons of best and worst episodes, and The Royale almost always came in as one of the all-time low points in the Next Generation's history. "There are stinkers, and then there's The Royale" is what I'd always say about the hour. I think I've even read somewhere's that its writer -- Torme -- had completely disowned the installment ... and that's not a bad idea.
Why celebrate it?
Well, we don't often get chapters this obviously bad, and that's saying something. Know where the low bar is, folks, so that way we never ever get close to it again.
There are a good number of readers who show up to the Daily Citation Pages solely to learn about obscure movies that have kinda/sorta been lost to history; and I occasionally get a charge out of highlighting a few of these for much the same reason.
That said, 1982's Turkey Shoot is a Dystopian/Thriller that comes up a good deal in my research into similar properties. It's a flick I've yet to see -- a fairly recent DVD release is still a bit pricey for this semi-retired blogger -- but hopefully I'll have a chance to dive into its dark goodness one day so that I can speak more intelligently about it. While I'll admit I've never read anything overly fond of the production, it still falls into a subject matter that interests me personally, so I do hope to see it.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"In a dystopian future where deviants are held in "re-education" camps, a freedom fighter and an innocent prisoner try to survive their decadent oppressors' game of kill-or-be-killed."
I want to say that, at one time, I'd read something about the film that suggested it was all actually based on a novel of some name that escapes me right now, but a quick look over at IMDB.com and Wikipedia.org doesn't support any such claim. In fact, most mentions in those spaces about the film and its subject matter suggest this one is a bit undercooked with poor performances ... but, hey, who doesn't like a good 'kill 'em if you got 'em' thriller every now and then to cleanse the palate?
I could sure use one right about now!
That said, 1982's Turkey Shoot is a Dystopian/Thriller that comes up a good deal in my research into similar properties. It's a flick I've yet to see -- a fairly recent DVD release is still a bit pricey for this semi-retired blogger -- but hopefully I'll have a chance to dive into its dark goodness one day so that I can speak more intelligently about it. While I'll admit I've never read anything overly fond of the production, it still falls into a subject matter that interests me personally, so I do hope to see it.
Here's the film's plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"In a dystopian future where deviants are held in "re-education" camps, a freedom fighter and an innocent prisoner try to survive their decadent oppressors' game of kill-or-be-killed."
I want to say that, at one time, I'd read something about the film that suggested it was all actually based on a novel of some name that escapes me right now, but a quick look over at IMDB.com and Wikipedia.org doesn't support any such claim. In fact, most mentions in those spaces about the film and its subject matter suggest this one is a bit undercooked with poor performances ... but, hey, who doesn't like a good 'kill 'em if you got 'em' thriller every now and then to cleanse the palate?
I could sure use one right about now!
Of course, there's more -- a good deal more -- and this is the point wherein I encourage you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 25 to check it all out. Do your own study. Make up your own mind about what's worth celebrating. This is why I bring you to this place -- so that you can now 'build your own adventure' -- and make something of it. Here's the link:
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
When 2012’s Skyfall first played theatrically, I was there with my butt in the seat, and – in all honesty – I didn’t much care for it.
I know, I know, I know: “why, it’s quintessential Bond – as are all the Daniel Craig flicks, right – so how could you possibly not love it?”
Characters matter. They always have, and they always will.
When storytellers tinker with characters, they run the risk of corroding the foundation that made these creations “quintessential” in the beginning. If not contextually corrected at some point in the course of the film or the franchise, then producers run the risk of not only alienating their core audience but also morphing the series into something it was perhaps never designed to be. With the great Ian Fleming long gone, there’s no way for us to know with any degree of certainty whether or not he’d be smitten with the latest and (cough cough) greatest iteration; but – as I often do – I’m going on record to suggest that those claiming to be ‘in the know’ really haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
How can I say that? How can I suggest those studio executives paying themselves millions upon millions of dollars to (cough cough) twerk archetypal heroes and heroines into all-new thematic directions – imbuing them with contemporary social justice ideas, rainbow-colors, and pronoun choices – could possibly know better than you or I?
Well, for starters, they’re paying themselves up front for their efforts, as I said, which means that they’re not willing to let their transformations stand for themselves, build an audience, and reap the appropriately earned rewards as did so many who came before. Gone are the days when a George Lucas, a Steven Spielberg, a Gene Roddenberry, a David Lynch, a Martin Scorsese, a Rockne O’Bannon, or even a Charles Band emerged on the landscape and tried to do something authentically original; and in is the era of those who’d shamelessly steal Lucas’s, Spielberg’s, Roddenberry’s, Lynch’s, Scorsese’s, O’Bannon’s, or Band’s intellectual properties, deconstruct what made originally them tick, and realign the mechanisms to suit whatever ‘cause du jour’ needs some celebrity attention today. Ratings are out, and award wins are in. Profits are so ‘last century’ when you can, instead, be liked and retweeted by the Kardashian Generation. Why get inducted into the National Film Registry when there’s instead an opening to sit in the first segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live? Why earn anything when not even getting ratioed gives the powers that be a cause to rethink a bad strategy?
In an era when crowdfunding has seen an emergence of new authors and auteurs willing to risk their own reputations and the capital they might earn, studios remain committed to the Jurassic age, shelling out buckets and buckets and buckets of cash for cinematic stinkery the likes of which used to be relegated to bargain bin straight-to-home-video trash or the bottom shelf space at the corner Blockbuster Video. In the final analysis, is there really all that much difference between 1989’s Cannibal Women In The Avocado Jungle Of Death and, say, 2023’s Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny? Both feel, look, and sound like flatulence captured on film, probably earning the same number of fans, so …? I’m at a loss to see the difference any longer, nor is it worth pondering.
How, oh how, does any of this apply to Skyfall, you ask?
Indeed, Skyfall was an immensely successful film; and I’m not bringing any of this up to even suggest it or any of its companion pieces aren’t worth your time and effort. So far as I care, the Craig series had its respective highs and lows, what with the actor playing the globe-trotting spy more like a petulant child who’d (finally) (and thankfully) grown into a fully-realized man by the last one; and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that … well, except for the fact that the films never felt like Bond movies in the eyes of this reviewer. Instead, they were more like bloated Bourne adventures, where international intrigue really played second fiddle to Bond’s personal issues always getting in the way so that he could find his way around them to, ultimately, do what’s right for Queen and Country in the last reel. He’d rise to the occasion in spite of his differences … and, sigh, that’s just not Bond in my book.
Bond – much like Captain James T. Kirk or Indiana Jones or Buck Roger or Flash Gordon or Luke Skywalker or any other prototypical hero that emerged onscreen before Hollywood sank its hooks into social justice – served a master, and that master usually took the shape of an organization that – at its core – was dedicated to making the world-at-large a better place for everyone. Starfleet? Yeah, Kirk broke a rule here and there, but Starfleet represented the very brightest and the very best that was available in the galaxy. Same thing with the Rebel Alliance, which took a stand against the evil Galactic Empire. Back in the Bond pictures of my youth, 007 was saving the planet for everyone and not just doing the right thing for the highly-personal goal of allowing his wife and daughter to live out their days unmolested.
So … at the beginning of Skyfall, Craig-Bond essentially quits his job because M had to make an uncomfortable decision – one tied to the stability of global alliances – and the agent thought he knew better. Take note: Bond turned his back on his duty … the very essence for which he was created. And, yes, he instead whiles away his time rather petulantly indulging in male fantasies that, quite frankly, Sean Connery and Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were man enough to do ‘on the clock.’ That was their collective ‘screw you’ to the establishment: “you want me to risk my life, then I’m achieving this orgasm as a perk of the job.” Yes, he eventually comes to his senses when duty calls, but gone are the days when selfless individuals committed themselves to selfless acts all because civilization and honor and duty expected it of them and that was the purpose of their existence.
Instead, modern audiences were given a ‘hero’ who’s happy to be one when it suits his schedule, not ours.
Take a look at the present condition of what used to be major motion entertainment series worth following.
Not one but all of these franchises – once powerful juggernauts thought too big to fail – have been inundated by brokers more interested in representation, deconstruction, and emasculation than they are theatrical celebration. We’re all heroes, you know; and when we’re all heroes then no one is truly heroic any longer. We don’t serve organizations with noble goals; and – instead – we’ve become a collective of narcissists all driven by our (cough cough) individual truths. When everyone gets a trophy, then no one performs at the level of true distinctiveness; and we’ve sadly let such a flawed and fatal philosophy propagate into that magical space that once produced heroes worth our time, attention, study, and emulation.
Indeed, the sky has fallen … and – in its current state – it not only can’t get back up but, likely, never will.
-- EZ
I know, I know, I know: “why, it’s quintessential Bond – as are all the Daniel Craig flicks, right – so how could you possibly not love it?”
Characters matter. They always have, and they always will.
When storytellers tinker with characters, they run the risk of corroding the foundation that made these creations “quintessential” in the beginning. If not contextually corrected at some point in the course of the film or the franchise, then producers run the risk of not only alienating their core audience but also morphing the series into something it was perhaps never designed to be. With the great Ian Fleming long gone, there’s no way for us to know with any degree of certainty whether or not he’d be smitten with the latest and (cough cough) greatest iteration; but – as I often do – I’m going on record to suggest that those claiming to be ‘in the know’ really haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
How can I say that? How can I suggest those studio executives paying themselves millions upon millions of dollars to (cough cough) twerk archetypal heroes and heroines into all-new thematic directions – imbuing them with contemporary social justice ideas, rainbow-colors, and pronoun choices – could possibly know better than you or I?
Well, for starters, they’re paying themselves up front for their efforts, as I said, which means that they’re not willing to let their transformations stand for themselves, build an audience, and reap the appropriately earned rewards as did so many who came before. Gone are the days when a George Lucas, a Steven Spielberg, a Gene Roddenberry, a David Lynch, a Martin Scorsese, a Rockne O’Bannon, or even a Charles Band emerged on the landscape and tried to do something authentically original; and in is the era of those who’d shamelessly steal Lucas’s, Spielberg’s, Roddenberry’s, Lynch’s, Scorsese’s, O’Bannon’s, or Band’s intellectual properties, deconstruct what made originally them tick, and realign the mechanisms to suit whatever ‘cause du jour’ needs some celebrity attention today. Ratings are out, and award wins are in. Profits are so ‘last century’ when you can, instead, be liked and retweeted by the Kardashian Generation. Why get inducted into the National Film Registry when there’s instead an opening to sit in the first segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live? Why earn anything when not even getting ratioed gives the powers that be a cause to rethink a bad strategy?
In an era when crowdfunding has seen an emergence of new authors and auteurs willing to risk their own reputations and the capital they might earn, studios remain committed to the Jurassic age, shelling out buckets and buckets and buckets of cash for cinematic stinkery the likes of which used to be relegated to bargain bin straight-to-home-video trash or the bottom shelf space at the corner Blockbuster Video. In the final analysis, is there really all that much difference between 1989’s Cannibal Women In The Avocado Jungle Of Death and, say, 2023’s Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny? Both feel, look, and sound like flatulence captured on film, probably earning the same number of fans, so …? I’m at a loss to see the difference any longer, nor is it worth pondering.
How, oh how, does any of this apply to Skyfall, you ask?
Indeed, Skyfall was an immensely successful film; and I’m not bringing any of this up to even suggest it or any of its companion pieces aren’t worth your time and effort. So far as I care, the Craig series had its respective highs and lows, what with the actor playing the globe-trotting spy more like a petulant child who’d (finally) (and thankfully) grown into a fully-realized man by the last one; and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that … well, except for the fact that the films never felt like Bond movies in the eyes of this reviewer. Instead, they were more like bloated Bourne adventures, where international intrigue really played second fiddle to Bond’s personal issues always getting in the way so that he could find his way around them to, ultimately, do what’s right for Queen and Country in the last reel. He’d rise to the occasion in spite of his differences … and, sigh, that’s just not Bond in my book.
Bond – much like Captain James T. Kirk or Indiana Jones or Buck Roger or Flash Gordon or Luke Skywalker or any other prototypical hero that emerged onscreen before Hollywood sank its hooks into social justice – served a master, and that master usually took the shape of an organization that – at its core – was dedicated to making the world-at-large a better place for everyone. Starfleet? Yeah, Kirk broke a rule here and there, but Starfleet represented the very brightest and the very best that was available in the galaxy. Same thing with the Rebel Alliance, which took a stand against the evil Galactic Empire. Back in the Bond pictures of my youth, 007 was saving the planet for everyone and not just doing the right thing for the highly-personal goal of allowing his wife and daughter to live out their days unmolested.
So … at the beginning of Skyfall, Craig-Bond essentially quits his job because M had to make an uncomfortable decision – one tied to the stability of global alliances – and the agent thought he knew better. Take note: Bond turned his back on his duty … the very essence for which he was created. And, yes, he instead whiles away his time rather petulantly indulging in male fantasies that, quite frankly, Sean Connery and Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were man enough to do ‘on the clock.’ That was their collective ‘screw you’ to the establishment: “you want me to risk my life, then I’m achieving this orgasm as a perk of the job.” Yes, he eventually comes to his senses when duty calls, but gone are the days when selfless individuals committed themselves to selfless acts all because civilization and honor and duty expected it of them and that was the purpose of their existence.
Instead, modern audiences were given a ‘hero’ who’s happy to be one when it suits his schedule, not ours.
Take a look at the present condition of what used to be major motion entertainment series worth following.
- When did audiences last cheer for Marvel heroes to save the day? Instead, box office returns suggest that these days will remain dark, indeed.
- When did viewers last clamor for a galaxy far, far away? The Force is no longer strong with these ones; and, instead, The Acolyte’s showrunner Leslye Headland wants Jedis to get into the business of informing mankind about her lesbian upbringing.
- When was the human adventure of going boldly where no one had gone before worth taking? Last I looked, Captain Pike and his learned crew were all dancing and singing, and Captain Burnham wanted to cry over just about everything.
Not one but all of these franchises – once powerful juggernauts thought too big to fail – have been inundated by brokers more interested in representation, deconstruction, and emasculation than they are theatrical celebration. We’re all heroes, you know; and when we’re all heroes then no one is truly heroic any longer. We don’t serve organizations with noble goals; and – instead – we’ve become a collective of narcissists all driven by our (cough cough) individual truths. When everyone gets a trophy, then no one performs at the level of true distinctiveness; and we’ve sadly let such a flawed and fatal philosophy propagate into that magical space that once produced heroes worth our time, attention, study, and emulation.
Indeed, the sky has fallen … and – in its current state – it not only can’t get back up but, likely, never will.
-- EZ
- Published on
Think what you will, but I've often thought of 'characters actors' as those men and women who aren't tasked with creating a fully-fledged screen persona in a full two-hour movie but instead are asked to do it in 5 or 10 or 15-minutes (at best) of film time ... and that, my friends, is a rare gift, indeed.
But M. Emmet Walsh was one of the screen's very best character actors. He'd show up faithfully for his 5 or 10 or 15-minutes of work, and -- within a matter of seconds -- slip into that person he was supposed to be up in the lights, elevating the work by his presence alone. Whether it was Drama or Comedy -- Mystery or Fantasy -- he could quite literally become a different person for the purposes of any number of projects; and I've no doubt his legacy -- well over an astonishing 200 different screen roles -- will be the subject of study for those who engage in such efforts for years to come.
Granted, he may not have been known for his appearances in the realms of the Fantastic -- that fragile space wherein I and my readers spend the bulk of our time -- but he did have a couple items worthy of mention. I'll list those of the greatest significance below.
In 1971, he enjoyed a background-style role in Escape From The Planet Of The Apes for 20th Century Fox.
In 1982, he played 'Bryant,' the presiding police presence who called Rick Deckard back onto active duty aboard Ridley Scott's SciFi/Drama Blade Runner for Warner Bros.
In 1985, he stepped into the rebooting TV world of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone for a single episode appearance.
In 1986, he faced off against one of the screen's deadliest smaller menaces when Critters came a'callin' for New Line Cinema.
Also that same year, another TV anthology gave him the call, and Walsh performed admirably for Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories.
Of course, there are a few more -- there always are -- but I don't want to dilute what could be your very own deep dive into the man's incredible resume. Take a gander at his profile on IMDB.com, and remember where you saw him last ... maybe even where you liked him most ... and cherish in the memory of a great talent who gave so much of himself to even the tiniest role. It's an incredible job he did.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Walsh.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
But M. Emmet Walsh was one of the screen's very best character actors. He'd show up faithfully for his 5 or 10 or 15-minutes of work, and -- within a matter of seconds -- slip into that person he was supposed to be up in the lights, elevating the work by his presence alone. Whether it was Drama or Comedy -- Mystery or Fantasy -- he could quite literally become a different person for the purposes of any number of projects; and I've no doubt his legacy -- well over an astonishing 200 different screen roles -- will be the subject of study for those who engage in such efforts for years to come.
Granted, he may not have been known for his appearances in the realms of the Fantastic -- that fragile space wherein I and my readers spend the bulk of our time -- but he did have a couple items worthy of mention. I'll list those of the greatest significance below.
In 1971, he enjoyed a background-style role in Escape From The Planet Of The Apes for 20th Century Fox.
In 1982, he played 'Bryant,' the presiding police presence who called Rick Deckard back onto active duty aboard Ridley Scott's SciFi/Drama Blade Runner for Warner Bros.
In 1985, he stepped into the rebooting TV world of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone for a single episode appearance.
In 1986, he faced off against one of the screen's deadliest smaller menaces when Critters came a'callin' for New Line Cinema.
Also that same year, another TV anthology gave him the call, and Walsh performed admirably for Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories.
Of course, there are a few more -- there always are -- but I don't want to dilute what could be your very own deep dive into the man's incredible resume. Take a gander at his profile on IMDB.com, and remember where you saw him last ... maybe even where you liked him most ... and cherish in the memory of a great talent who gave so much of himself to even the tiniest role. It's an incredible job he did.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Walsh.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and ... it's Friday! Woohoo!
Oh, yeah ... I almost forgot ... welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for March 22, 2024!
How's everyone's day going, eh?
Ok, ok, ok ... let's try as much as possible to put the issue of The Acolyte to bed. I bring this up (again) only because I'm both seeing some lingering controversy online regarding the reception of the show's recently-released trailer (which, frankly, isn't a very good trailer, in my humble opinion), the present state of Star Wars, and a bit of other associated items that I'm honestly not going to go into because they're d-i-s-t-r-a-c-t-i-o-n-s. Nothing more. Does this relate to the current battle Bob Iger is fighting to keep control of the Walt Disney board? Meh. It could, but I'm not in the know. Could it be part and parcel of why Disney+ -- as a streaming platform -- is mired in financial loss? Well, that seems reasonable, but again it's a determination best left to accountants. Might it in some way intersect with the whole Gina Carano and Kathleen Kennedy pending legal throwdown? Sigh. Again, there's honestly no way for any of us out here to know ... despite what some web and/or YouTube.com pundits might be trying to tell you.
Folks, I don't deal with media spies. Honestly, my contacts in the industry is a slim assortment of smilers who've reached out to me over issues with my own content and not to share any insider information with me. (In fact, I'd probably tell anyone who offered that there are far better outlets than mine to offer those blurbs to, and I'd possibly even point them in a direction.) Again, this isn't to say that they're unreliable sources of information because -- once more -- I've no possible means to know that. But as I've always explained that isn't what I do in this space. SciFiHistory.Net exists to celebrate milestones and the like. Occasionally, I might do an interview. Sometimes, I might pend an opinion column for the MainPage. But the bulk of what I do is informational entertainment, not commentary, so those of you coming here in hopes that I'm going to spill something are going to be continually disappointed. I sound off on what interests me. I might answer the possible inquiry here or there, but that's really about it.
Where I'm going with all this is that I think fandom does need desperately to return to a greater sense of civility. This isn't restricted to either side of any issue because -- and here it comes, people -- the only way civility works is when all parties are invested in it. You're allowed to like what you want, and I'm allowed to like what I want. You're allowed to speak your mind on a released trailer, and I'm allowed to do the same from my point of view. You can go all-in on Disney Star Wars if you like, and everyone else is entitled to go in whatever direction he, she, it, they, we, them, those, or others choose. That's just life, and -- REALLY -- it shouldn't need to be said.
Now ... if you know anything about Leslye Headland or if you've followed anything she's had to say about what influences and/or ideas and/or predilections and/or preferences and/or experiences she's used to FEED THE NARRATIVE of her personal Star Wars project, then you should also understand why there might be others you meet in life and online who don't want to give the lady or anything she touches the time of day. They'll not support it in any respect because to do so might violate whatever personal covenant they have with their own choices. And they're entitled to do that, just as you're entitled to your take. That is the nature of life. It's the nature of existence. It uniquely shows what separates us from the animals; and once you accept that basic premise then life gets a lot more livable. I assure you.
Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things.
I'm not inclined to really say anything else further about The Acolyte at this point because, frankly, all we've been given is a trailer, a plot description, and some interview statements that may or may not have been taken or presented without the proper context. I will say that -- from what I've heard -- I seriously don't think I'm the target demographic sought for the show, but not everything is made for me. I watch what I watch. I like what I like. I dislike what I dislike. I'll wait to see an episode -- at this point -- to decide if I want to have any further investment with it. There REALLY is nothing more to be said. Though the debate will continue to rage in the meantime, just TRY to remain civil. Not everyone likes what you like. Not everyone thinks what you think. We're all unique individuals, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Oh, yeah ... I almost forgot ... welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for March 22, 2024!
How's everyone's day going, eh?
Ok, ok, ok ... let's try as much as possible to put the issue of The Acolyte to bed. I bring this up (again) only because I'm both seeing some lingering controversy online regarding the reception of the show's recently-released trailer (which, frankly, isn't a very good trailer, in my humble opinion), the present state of Star Wars, and a bit of other associated items that I'm honestly not going to go into because they're d-i-s-t-r-a-c-t-i-o-n-s. Nothing more. Does this relate to the current battle Bob Iger is fighting to keep control of the Walt Disney board? Meh. It could, but I'm not in the know. Could it be part and parcel of why Disney+ -- as a streaming platform -- is mired in financial loss? Well, that seems reasonable, but again it's a determination best left to accountants. Might it in some way intersect with the whole Gina Carano and Kathleen Kennedy pending legal throwdown? Sigh. Again, there's honestly no way for any of us out here to know ... despite what some web and/or YouTube.com pundits might be trying to tell you.
Folks, I don't deal with media spies. Honestly, my contacts in the industry is a slim assortment of smilers who've reached out to me over issues with my own content and not to share any insider information with me. (In fact, I'd probably tell anyone who offered that there are far better outlets than mine to offer those blurbs to, and I'd possibly even point them in a direction.) Again, this isn't to say that they're unreliable sources of information because -- once more -- I've no possible means to know that. But as I've always explained that isn't what I do in this space. SciFiHistory.Net exists to celebrate milestones and the like. Occasionally, I might do an interview. Sometimes, I might pend an opinion column for the MainPage. But the bulk of what I do is informational entertainment, not commentary, so those of you coming here in hopes that I'm going to spill something are going to be continually disappointed. I sound off on what interests me. I might answer the possible inquiry here or there, but that's really about it.
Where I'm going with all this is that I think fandom does need desperately to return to a greater sense of civility. This isn't restricted to either side of any issue because -- and here it comes, people -- the only way civility works is when all parties are invested in it. You're allowed to like what you want, and I'm allowed to like what I want. You're allowed to speak your mind on a released trailer, and I'm allowed to do the same from my point of view. You can go all-in on Disney Star Wars if you like, and everyone else is entitled to go in whatever direction he, she, it, they, we, them, those, or others choose. That's just life, and -- REALLY -- it shouldn't need to be said.
Now ... if you know anything about Leslye Headland or if you've followed anything she's had to say about what influences and/or ideas and/or predilections and/or preferences and/or experiences she's used to FEED THE NARRATIVE of her personal Star Wars project, then you should also understand why there might be others you meet in life and online who don't want to give the lady or anything she touches the time of day. They'll not support it in any respect because to do so might violate whatever personal covenant they have with their own choices. And they're entitled to do that, just as you're entitled to your take. That is the nature of life. It's the nature of existence. It uniquely shows what separates us from the animals; and once you accept that basic premise then life gets a lot more livable. I assure you.
Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things.
I'm not inclined to really say anything else further about The Acolyte at this point because, frankly, all we've been given is a trailer, a plot description, and some interview statements that may or may not have been taken or presented without the proper context. I will say that -- from what I've heard -- I seriously don't think I'm the target demographic sought for the show, but not everything is made for me. I watch what I watch. I like what I like. I dislike what I dislike. I'll wait to see an episode -- at this point -- to decide if I want to have any further investment with it. There REALLY is nothing more to be said. Though the debate will continue to rage in the meantime, just TRY to remain civil. Not everyone likes what you like. Not everyone thinks what you think. We're all unique individuals, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Now ... you William Shatner haters?
Well ... you can just go straight to Hell today (just kidding, just kidding) because I, for one, have always thought he was a master talent at the top of his form when he brought Starfleet Captain James T. Kirk to bold, bold, bold life on screens big and small. Yes, I'll concede that occasionally his line delivery might defy Vulcan logic, but his unique signature verbal cadence works so wonderfully well with the highs and lows of Fantasy/Drama that I'll willing to look the other way when he screams "Khan!" for good measure.
And kudos to the man for his pervasive willingness to think outside the box. While I've come to understand that he may not exactly have been behind each and every novel he's written, I've still no doubt he was in on the creative process; and he's given life to a few other lesser characters and franchises along the way, even leaving an indelible imprint on the traditional courtroom drama with a big role on the Boob Tube.
Even at his advanced age, Big Bill remains a force to be reckoned with ... and I'll always give up the center seat to one who deserves it as much as he does.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Shatner! You keep boldly going as long as you will!
Well ... you can just go straight to Hell today (just kidding, just kidding) because I, for one, have always thought he was a master talent at the top of his form when he brought Starfleet Captain James T. Kirk to bold, bold, bold life on screens big and small. Yes, I'll concede that occasionally his line delivery might defy Vulcan logic, but his unique signature verbal cadence works so wonderfully well with the highs and lows of Fantasy/Drama that I'll willing to look the other way when he screams "Khan!" for good measure.
And kudos to the man for his pervasive willingness to think outside the box. While I've come to understand that he may not exactly have been behind each and every novel he's written, I've still no doubt he was in on the creative process; and he's given life to a few other lesser characters and franchises along the way, even leaving an indelible imprint on the traditional courtroom drama with a big role on the Boob Tube.
Even at his advanced age, Big Bill remains a force to be reckoned with ... and I'll always give up the center seat to one who deserves it as much as he does.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Shatner! You keep boldly going as long as you will!
If I've learned anything about fandom over the years, then it would be that we love to court our own respective controversies.
As an example, I recall a time when I was amongst a small group, and we were debating franchises that lost their way earliest in their run. Well, as you can imagine (knowing me), I created a stir when I said that I didn't think any other SciFi or Fantasy program in TV history losts its path as quickly as did Sliders, which premiered on this day all the way back in 1995. This didn't mean that I hated the show or its ideas or its cast in any way: it was just that I thought the narrative truly wasted its creative potential by falling so quickly into the 'what other way can we twist reality this week' formula too predictable. (Mind you: others insisted that was the point of the show all along!)
Now, hear me out: yes, having an infinite expanse of parallel Earths (or universes) to play in understandably means that there are going to be whole worlds with huge, huge, huge differences ... but what about the nuance of little things? Little changes here and there? Just some minorly tweaked timelines showing us how our lives might've been twisted if we went left instead of right? Honestly, I thought there was some truly great potential there as opposed to some of the more formulaic adventures we got; and I just wish calmer minds had prevailed and given us less big ideas and maybe a bit more psychological alternatives.
Still, kudos to this one for having sea legs strong enough to hang on for a few seasons, even if that meant it had to change to a different network. I'd rather have more SciFi and Fantasy than less, and Sliders remains a show I've love to see dusted off and recusitated with some bigger ideas and a better budget.
As an example, I recall a time when I was amongst a small group, and we were debating franchises that lost their way earliest in their run. Well, as you can imagine (knowing me), I created a stir when I said that I didn't think any other SciFi or Fantasy program in TV history losts its path as quickly as did Sliders, which premiered on this day all the way back in 1995. This didn't mean that I hated the show or its ideas or its cast in any way: it was just that I thought the narrative truly wasted its creative potential by falling so quickly into the 'what other way can we twist reality this week' formula too predictable. (Mind you: others insisted that was the point of the show all along!)
Now, hear me out: yes, having an infinite expanse of parallel Earths (or universes) to play in understandably means that there are going to be whole worlds with huge, huge, huge differences ... but what about the nuance of little things? Little changes here and there? Just some minorly tweaked timelines showing us how our lives might've been twisted if we went left instead of right? Honestly, I thought there was some truly great potential there as opposed to some of the more formulaic adventures we got; and I just wish calmer minds had prevailed and given us less big ideas and maybe a bit more psychological alternatives.
Still, kudos to this one for having sea legs strong enough to hang on for a few seasons, even if that meant it had to change to a different network. I'd rather have more SciFi and Fantasy than less, and Sliders remains a show I've love to see dusted off and recusitated with some bigger ideas and a better budget.
Is that all there is?
Is there nothing more?
C'mon, man! You folks should know me well enough by now to know that I'm not going to leave you hanging, and the Daily Citation Page for March 22, 2024 is a veritable cornucopia of what you've come to expect from SciFiHistory.Net. All that's waiting is a simply little click ...
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- 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:
“Deep in the Dovre Mountain, something gigantic wakes up after a thousand years in captivity. The creature destroys everything in its path and quickly approaches Oslo.”
Folks, I don’t stream properties nearly as much as others who chat up films as much as I do.
Now, this isn’t to say that I don’t like it because nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a diehard cineaste – have been for several decades now – and I’ll likely remain so until my dying breath. The point is that I just don’t expend an awful lot of time scrolling through online libraries – I’m not prone to rifle through selections and choices, no matter how user friendly their construction – so I take a good deal of that which I invest my time with based on my own research. This is largely accomplished by following certain sites online. As a consequence, a little film like Troll (2022) that may’ve enjoyed wider coverage in mainstream press went completely past me without a mention.
I wish I’d known of it back when it first screened (I believe that was always via Netflix) as I certainly would’ve talked it up on SciFiHistory.Net’s Main Page mostly because it’s exactly the type of feature I’d like to promote to the readership. As a somewhat traditional Fantasy – the likes of which we don’t often see set in our world in present times – it may not interest everyone, but the production has the right performances, some good effects sequences, and a story interesting enough to appeal across audiences; so pardon me if I’m playing a bit of ‘catch up’ highlighting its goodness in this space for you today.
Paleontologist Nora Tidemann (played by the fetching Ine Marie Wilmann) has finally begun realizing her own professional dreams: as a researcher, she’s taken with searching the unexplored regions of Norway in pursuit of dinosaur fossils. Estranged from her father Tobias (Gard B. Eidsvold), she’s “buried” herself in her career … but when a nearby construction mishap ultimately releases something hidden beneath the ground that the government and military experts can’t quite comprehend, she’s called into service owed to her expertise on creatures lost to history. Lo and behold, the lady is the first to suspect that what’s been unearthed is, in fact, a troll – the likes of which her native country hasn’t seen for millennia. Her prognosis requires her to team-up with her dad – one of Norway’s last remaining experts on the elusive subject – and, together, they’re tasked with stopping the lumbering behemoth before it destroys the capital city.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Deep in the Dovre Mountain, something gigantic wakes up after a thousand years in captivity. The creature destroys everything in its path and quickly approaches Oslo.”
Folks, I don’t stream properties nearly as much as others who chat up films as much as I do.
Now, this isn’t to say that I don’t like it because nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a diehard cineaste – have been for several decades now – and I’ll likely remain so until my dying breath. The point is that I just don’t expend an awful lot of time scrolling through online libraries – I’m not prone to rifle through selections and choices, no matter how user friendly their construction – so I take a good deal of that which I invest my time with based on my own research. This is largely accomplished by following certain sites online. As a consequence, a little film like Troll (2022) that may’ve enjoyed wider coverage in mainstream press went completely past me without a mention.
I wish I’d known of it back when it first screened (I believe that was always via Netflix) as I certainly would’ve talked it up on SciFiHistory.Net’s Main Page mostly because it’s exactly the type of feature I’d like to promote to the readership. As a somewhat traditional Fantasy – the likes of which we don’t often see set in our world in present times – it may not interest everyone, but the production has the right performances, some good effects sequences, and a story interesting enough to appeal across audiences; so pardon me if I’m playing a bit of ‘catch up’ highlighting its goodness in this space for you today.
Paleontologist Nora Tidemann (played by the fetching Ine Marie Wilmann) has finally begun realizing her own professional dreams: as a researcher, she’s taken with searching the unexplored regions of Norway in pursuit of dinosaur fossils. Estranged from her father Tobias (Gard B. Eidsvold), she’s “buried” herself in her career … but when a nearby construction mishap ultimately releases something hidden beneath the ground that the government and military experts can’t quite comprehend, she’s called into service owed to her expertise on creatures lost to history. Lo and behold, the lady is the first to suspect that what’s been unearthed is, in fact, a troll – the likes of which her native country hasn’t seen for millennia. Her prognosis requires her to team-up with her dad – one of Norway’s last remaining experts on the elusive subject – and, together, they’re tasked with stopping the lumbering behemoth before it destroys the capital city.
Mind you – as is always the case – there’s a bit more to the film’s synopsis, but this services much more succinctly than what little IMDB.com has to say about the picture. Essentially, what you get with Troll is an old-fashioned monster movie made reasonably vibrant and new for the modern age. The central goblin is a dandy of a thing – not all that unlike what Treebeard was in Peter Jackson’s stellar The Lord Of The Rings adaptation but vastly more defined with Earth and stone – and it moves about the countryside as any great goliath would, leaving a trail of destruction in its path. And just like those classic monsters of the bygone era, the script from Espan Aukan and director Roar Uthaug imbues its creature with a delightful sense of sympathy: it didn’t ask to be born, it didn’t ask to be released and create so much chaos, and it just wants a return to the bygone era where things were simpler.
Alas, you can already hear me warning, “That, my friend, was never meant to be …”
Uthaug stages his big screen Fantasy with great efficiency. While some might take issue with some obviousness of a few CGI sequences (FYI: there were likely no trolls available in central casting), this picture and its degree of wholesome charm sticks close to a kinda/sorta loose ‘fairy tale’ sensibility, invoking a measure of simplicity to solve each successive dilemma. (It ain’t rocket science, but – because it’s grounded in mythology – some of its been forgotten by today’s society.) Thankfully, little moss grows on any of this – creature included – and Troll keeps plodding forward, step by step, never quite allowing a cynical viewer’s creeping skepticism to get in the way. As a tidy and adventurous day in the mountains, it excels at a lean-and-mean 100 minutes.
As its director, Uthaug deserves a good deal of credit for keeping things in motion. His 2015 effort – The Wave – is a surprisingly stylish disaster flick that, to some extent, really put his ability to juxtapose action against human drama in the spotlight; and – for what’s it worth – I think I’m one of the few who actually enjoyed his 2018 re-introduction of Tomb Raider to the theatrical marketplace. (I’d still love to see a sequel to that one, folks.) Clearly, he’s comfortable martialing the behind-the-scenes pieces of film production – especially when it’s all about thrills, chills, and spills – and I’ve no doubt he squeezed every penny he could to get the best onscreen that was possible. Troll works, even when you think it shouldn’t.
Wilmann is quite good as a lesser action-female lead. While the story doesn’t require her to have the rough-and-tumble skills Lara Croft did, her Nora Tidemann is no lightweight. Digging around the mud, she’s used to getting dirty, and she’s definitely willing to roll up her sleeves and show what she’s made of if it’s required. The script pairs her up with Kim Falck – as the Prime Minister’s assistant – and the two muster a respectable amount of screen chemistry (entirely platonic) though he gets hamstrung here and there as little more than comic relief. There’s also a military attache – Captain Kristoffer Holm (Mads Sjøgård Pettersen) – wherein I suspect some personal entanglement may’ve been intended; but thankfully none of it really gets in the way as the focus remains on the main mission … which is to save life as we know it before all Hells breaks loose.
My only issue with Troll has to do with its formulaic predictability.
Alas, you can already hear me warning, “That, my friend, was never meant to be …”
Uthaug stages his big screen Fantasy with great efficiency. While some might take issue with some obviousness of a few CGI sequences (FYI: there were likely no trolls available in central casting), this picture and its degree of wholesome charm sticks close to a kinda/sorta loose ‘fairy tale’ sensibility, invoking a measure of simplicity to solve each successive dilemma. (It ain’t rocket science, but – because it’s grounded in mythology – some of its been forgotten by today’s society.) Thankfully, little moss grows on any of this – creature included – and Troll keeps plodding forward, step by step, never quite allowing a cynical viewer’s creeping skepticism to get in the way. As a tidy and adventurous day in the mountains, it excels at a lean-and-mean 100 minutes.
As its director, Uthaug deserves a good deal of credit for keeping things in motion. His 2015 effort – The Wave – is a surprisingly stylish disaster flick that, to some extent, really put his ability to juxtapose action against human drama in the spotlight; and – for what’s it worth – I think I’m one of the few who actually enjoyed his 2018 re-introduction of Tomb Raider to the theatrical marketplace. (I’d still love to see a sequel to that one, folks.) Clearly, he’s comfortable martialing the behind-the-scenes pieces of film production – especially when it’s all about thrills, chills, and spills – and I’ve no doubt he squeezed every penny he could to get the best onscreen that was possible. Troll works, even when you think it shouldn’t.
Wilmann is quite good as a lesser action-female lead. While the story doesn’t require her to have the rough-and-tumble skills Lara Croft did, her Nora Tidemann is no lightweight. Digging around the mud, she’s used to getting dirty, and she’s definitely willing to roll up her sleeves and show what she’s made of if it’s required. The script pairs her up with Kim Falck – as the Prime Minister’s assistant – and the two muster a respectable amount of screen chemistry (entirely platonic) though he gets hamstrung here and there as little more than comic relief. There’s also a military attache – Captain Kristoffer Holm (Mads Sjøgård Pettersen) – wherein I suspect some personal entanglement may’ve been intended; but thankfully none of it really gets in the way as the focus remains on the main mission … which is to save life as we know it before all Hells breaks loose.
My only issue with Troll has to do with its formulaic predictability.
The reason I tend to prefer smaller (independent) and foreign releases is because they’re typically void of what feels like any possible studio influence. In other words, their stories feel a bit more organic – a bit more natural – and there isn’t this big money high-tech veneer over every element of film production. Some blockbusters these days sadly feel like they’re the invention of a room full of executives who went to great pains to tick off every box on the list, including plot details, shooting locations, costumes, and (cough cough) diversity issues. Foreign properties – as has been my experience – haven’t felt as though they were assembled by blueprint … and, yet, Troll does. It feels very much like it could’ve been a Hollywood vehicle, especially with some rather obvious inclusivity issues that rear their ugly head in the last reel.
Now, maybe that’s just a one-off. Maybe I’m seeing a little something there that wasn’t a studio invention but was, instead, just a little minor political statement included by a savvy director. I’m hoping it isn’t a trend – it felt very out of place, and no I’m not gonna say what it is – and I’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, I’m going to enjoy Troll for what it ultimately was … a solid popcorn movie – not to be taken seriously – with just enough spit polish to make for a good evening in front of the television.
Troll (2022) was produced by Motion Blur Films. Presently, the film shows available for streaming on Netflix. As for the technical specifications? Wowza. While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that its provided sights-and-sounds were nothing short of spectacular: a few sequences might be a tad underwhelming, but they work just fine for the audience intended.
Strongly recommended.
Troll (2022) is the old monster movie made new again. It has some solid special effects. It has a cast you can care about but, perhaps, not build an entire world around. It has the kind of idea one doesn’t want to think too deeply about for fear of having it fall apart at the seams. But … charm? It has that in spades; and it even ends with the promise of a possible sequel … though if none ever develops that’s perfectly fine as well. An evenly paced adventure … the kind studios used to make routinely but rarely find the light of day in these modern times.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Troll (2022). In point of fact, I streamed it as part of my very own subscription to Netflix … so take that, readers!
-- EZ
Now, maybe that’s just a one-off. Maybe I’m seeing a little something there that wasn’t a studio invention but was, instead, just a little minor political statement included by a savvy director. I’m hoping it isn’t a trend – it felt very out of place, and no I’m not gonna say what it is – and I’ll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, I’m going to enjoy Troll for what it ultimately was … a solid popcorn movie – not to be taken seriously – with just enough spit polish to make for a good evening in front of the television.
Troll (2022) was produced by Motion Blur Films. Presently, the film shows available for streaming on Netflix. As for the technical specifications? Wowza. While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that its provided sights-and-sounds were nothing short of spectacular: a few sequences might be a tad underwhelming, but they work just fine for the audience intended.
Strongly recommended.
Troll (2022) is the old monster movie made new again. It has some solid special effects. It has a cast you can care about but, perhaps, not build an entire world around. It has the kind of idea one doesn’t want to think too deeply about for fear of having it fall apart at the seams. But … charm? It has that in spades; and it even ends with the promise of a possible sequel … though if none ever develops that’s perfectly fine as well. An evenly paced adventure … the kind studios used to make routinely but rarely find the light of day in these modern times.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of Troll (2022). In point of fact, I streamed it as part of my very own subscription to Netflix … so take that, readers!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History!
How's your Thursday goin' thus far? Mine is off to a pretty decent start. Got a reasonable night's sleep. Feeling a bit sore from my visit to the health club yesterday. Now I'm turning my sights to the blog, and I wanted to get something up in celebration of the day. So I hope you're here and ready to jump right in because that's what we're going to do.
Last night, I watched a little something-something on the Netflix called Troll (2022). (It's one that a reader had recommended to me a little while back.) It was ... erm ... interesting. I'm putting together my thoughts on it for a review on the site, so keep your eyes peeled for that. The short skinny is that it was pretty good -- not a fabulous flick but definitely had its own sense of fun. Have you seen it? Apparently, it was a bit of a sensation globally, but I'm not sure it experienced any real breakout here in the U.S. Maybe amongst diehard Netflix enthusiasts. Whatever the case is, I'll have something up on it reasonably soon.
How's your Thursday goin' thus far? Mine is off to a pretty decent start. Got a reasonable night's sleep. Feeling a bit sore from my visit to the health club yesterday. Now I'm turning my sights to the blog, and I wanted to get something up in celebration of the day. So I hope you're here and ready to jump right in because that's what we're going to do.
Last night, I watched a little something-something on the Netflix called Troll (2022). (It's one that a reader had recommended to me a little while back.) It was ... erm ... interesting. I'm putting together my thoughts on it for a review on the site, so keep your eyes peeled for that. The short skinny is that it was pretty good -- not a fabulous flick but definitely had its own sense of fun. Have you seen it? Apparently, it was a bit of a sensation globally, but I'm not sure it experienced any real breakout here in the U.S. Maybe amongst diehard Netflix enthusiasts. Whatever the case is, I'll have something up on it reasonably soon.
Sigh.
I know, I know, I know. "But but but but but ... Flash Gordon? That was done in the 1930's! It had garbage special effects! It had garbage costumes! It had garbage this and garbage that!"
Oh, you folks have no respect for your elders.
Folks, take note: if we didn't have the Flash Gordon serials, then there's a very solid chance that we might not have Science Fiction and Fantasy on the silver screen as prevalently as we do today. These serials -- the good, the bad, and the ugly of them -- served as inspiration to a whole generation of storytellers, and it's the resulting love and respect for them that brought a great many other feature films to life. George Lucas has credited them as inspirations. Steven Spielberg has credited them as inspirations. Need I mention any other directors who've pursued their respective careers to provide the same?
Sigh.
In any event, yes, I've seen the original Gordon serials -- saw them in my youth, and I revisit them whenever I find them on Turner Classic Movies -- and they delight me to my core. Flash Gordon's Trip To Mars was the second one, and it first launched into outer space theatrically on this day all the way back in 1938.
I know, I know, I know. "But but but but but ... Flash Gordon? That was done in the 1930's! It had garbage special effects! It had garbage costumes! It had garbage this and garbage that!"
Oh, you folks have no respect for your elders.
Folks, take note: if we didn't have the Flash Gordon serials, then there's a very solid chance that we might not have Science Fiction and Fantasy on the silver screen as prevalently as we do today. These serials -- the good, the bad, and the ugly of them -- served as inspiration to a whole generation of storytellers, and it's the resulting love and respect for them that brought a great many other feature films to life. George Lucas has credited them as inspirations. Steven Spielberg has credited them as inspirations. Need I mention any other directors who've pursued their respective careers to provide the same?
Sigh.
In any event, yes, I've seen the original Gordon serials -- saw them in my youth, and I revisit them whenever I find them on Turner Classic Movies -- and they delight me to my core. Flash Gordon's Trip To Mars was the second one, and it first launched into outer space theatrically on this day all the way back in 1938.
And while we're on the topic of Flash Gordon?
Yes, yes, and yes: you can happily count me amongst the contingent of fans who worship the 1980 theatrical incarnation of the great space hero. I realize that it isn't everyone's cup o'tea, but for those of us who got it the film remains a camp sensation, one that deserves to be rediscovered every so often by audiences who can appreciate Science Fiction and Fantasy for what it is in its purest form: unadulterated pulp.
Actor Timothy Dalton -- as 'Prince Baron' -- was an incredible addition to the cast, giving the space saga a bit of gravitas with his performance as one of Ming the Merciless' closest foils. He rather begrudgingly sided with the earthman Gordon only after the hero proved himself, and it made for some rather delightful screen magic to the colorful interpretation, indeed.
Plus ... dare I forget that Dalton himself cleaned up nicely only a few years later to take one of the screen's most coveted jobs ever, that of Secret Agent 007 serving on her Majesty's Secret Service? Granted, the man's turn in the role may not have been as celebrated as others were -- what with the state of that franchise in the 1980's -- but he rather forcefully made his presence known in two cinematic outings. I've read online some fan speculation that suggests future Bond films might even bring him aboard -- not as the singular agent -- as the next player for M. While I don't put a lot of credence into web rumors, I'll concede that -- snicker snicker -- that might be fun for purists who can't wait for Bond to return to the screen again.
Happy birthday, Mr. Dalton!
Yes, yes, and yes: you can happily count me amongst the contingent of fans who worship the 1980 theatrical incarnation of the great space hero. I realize that it isn't everyone's cup o'tea, but for those of us who got it the film remains a camp sensation, one that deserves to be rediscovered every so often by audiences who can appreciate Science Fiction and Fantasy for what it is in its purest form: unadulterated pulp.
Actor Timothy Dalton -- as 'Prince Baron' -- was an incredible addition to the cast, giving the space saga a bit of gravitas with his performance as one of Ming the Merciless' closest foils. He rather begrudgingly sided with the earthman Gordon only after the hero proved himself, and it made for some rather delightful screen magic to the colorful interpretation, indeed.
Plus ... dare I forget that Dalton himself cleaned up nicely only a few years later to take one of the screen's most coveted jobs ever, that of Secret Agent 007 serving on her Majesty's Secret Service? Granted, the man's turn in the role may not have been as celebrated as others were -- what with the state of that franchise in the 1980's -- but he rather forcefully made his presence known in two cinematic outings. I've read online some fan speculation that suggests future Bond films might even bring him aboard -- not as the singular agent -- as the next player for M. While I don't put a lot of credence into web rumors, I'll concede that -- snicker snicker -- that might be fun for purists who can't wait for Bond to return to the screen again.
Happy birthday, Mr. Dalton!
But as long as we're still on the subject of Flash ...
How about we celebrate the birthday of famed illustrator Al Williamson?
Born on this day all the way back in 1931, Williamson really shot to the forefront of the illustration business in the 1960's when he went to work in helping to bring to colorful life on Alex Raymond's creation -- Flash -- for a whole new generation of readers. A decade or so later, he was tapped to bring yet one other huge star saga to illustrated life when Marvel Comics hired him to work on their licensed releases of Star Wars. But the artist's work wasn't limited to just Science Fiction and Fantasy: a quick reading of his Wikipedia.org summation shows that he also worked on such properties as Superman, Swamp Thing, and Daredevil.
Granted, his name might not be as well known today as are some of this contemporaries, but anyone who has followed the comics scene knows just how much influence the talented man's style had on others along the way. The fact that he's inspired so many others with his drawings and professional acumen speaks volumes, and I, for one, will always appreciate him for being just one more artist who brought Flash into the mainstream of entertainment.
Happy birthday, Mr. Williamson.
How about we celebrate the birthday of famed illustrator Al Williamson?
Born on this day all the way back in 1931, Williamson really shot to the forefront of the illustration business in the 1960's when he went to work in helping to bring to colorful life on Alex Raymond's creation -- Flash -- for a whole new generation of readers. A decade or so later, he was tapped to bring yet one other huge star saga to illustrated life when Marvel Comics hired him to work on their licensed releases of Star Wars. But the artist's work wasn't limited to just Science Fiction and Fantasy: a quick reading of his Wikipedia.org summation shows that he also worked on such properties as Superman, Swamp Thing, and Daredevil.
Granted, his name might not be as well known today as are some of this contemporaries, but anyone who has followed the comics scene knows just how much influence the talented man's style had on others along the way. The fact that he's inspired so many others with his drawings and professional acumen speaks volumes, and I, for one, will always appreciate him for being just one more artist who brought Flash into the mainstream of entertainment.
Happy birthday, Mr. Williamson.
Lo and behold, readers, we've reached that point in the daily blog post wherein I encourage each of you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 21 and perform your own bit of research ... well, research into my research, that is ... and find something worthy of tickling your fancy. There's plenty there for you to rummage through, and it deserves a bit of attention.
So don't delay, folks. I promise that there's something in there for everyone -- not just the most faithful fans of Flash -- and I encourage you to step into the realms of the Fantastic because adventure awaits.
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- 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:
“A mother and her 6-year-old daughter move into a creepy apartment whose every surface is permeated by water.”
Folks, confession time: I feel old this afternoon.
No, no, and no: I’m not letting it get me down. But the whole reason that I raise this self-reflection is that I’ve been writing about film and media so long that I’m finally getting around to revisiting re-releases that I penned reviews on the first time I saw them promotionally … and that really hasn’t been all that long. What this means is that back in the day when a little something-something like Dark Water enjoyed its first U.S. release on home video, I was there. I was offered a complimentary DVD by a distributor. And I happily watched and wrote my observations down for posterity’s sake. Although they might be presently lost to history (curse you, Amazon.com), I do recall a bit of what I said back then, and – to my credit – I’m pretty much standing by those original impressions.
That said, Dark Water is a very, very, very good atmospheric Horror/Fantasy.
Directed for the screen by the award-winning Hideo Nakata – the talented director and writer and producer who has some of the finest contemporary frights to emerge from Japan – Water is a slow-moving meditation on life, the universe, what’s in between, and what very well could lie beyond. As a storyteller, he’s quite possibly forgotten more about scaring audiences silly than some ever learn; and it’s his technical proficiency as both taking his sweet time to set the stage and then successfully deliver on the resulting promise that gives this film so much of its beating heart. Mind you: it’s imperfect – some sequences just simply stretch on languorously for no significant reason – but that doesn’t even remotely reduce its effectiveness as a thriller.
In the middle of a complicated divorce, Yoshimi Matsubara (played by the lovely Hitomi Kuroki) is doing everything she possibly can to keep sole custody of her young daughter Ikuko (Rio Kanno). Barely winning out in the custody fight, she’s forced to enroll her child in a new school while also navigating the work world, returning back to employment after leaving her job as a publishing editor in order to start the family. Now, all she can afford is a two-bedroom apartment in a rundown part of the big city.
How can matters get worse?
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A mother and her 6-year-old daughter move into a creepy apartment whose every surface is permeated by water.”
Folks, confession time: I feel old this afternoon.
No, no, and no: I’m not letting it get me down. But the whole reason that I raise this self-reflection is that I’ve been writing about film and media so long that I’m finally getting around to revisiting re-releases that I penned reviews on the first time I saw them promotionally … and that really hasn’t been all that long. What this means is that back in the day when a little something-something like Dark Water enjoyed its first U.S. release on home video, I was there. I was offered a complimentary DVD by a distributor. And I happily watched and wrote my observations down for posterity’s sake. Although they might be presently lost to history (curse you, Amazon.com), I do recall a bit of what I said back then, and – to my credit – I’m pretty much standing by those original impressions.
That said, Dark Water is a very, very, very good atmospheric Horror/Fantasy.
Directed for the screen by the award-winning Hideo Nakata – the talented director and writer and producer who has some of the finest contemporary frights to emerge from Japan – Water is a slow-moving meditation on life, the universe, what’s in between, and what very well could lie beyond. As a storyteller, he’s quite possibly forgotten more about scaring audiences silly than some ever learn; and it’s his technical proficiency as both taking his sweet time to set the stage and then successfully deliver on the resulting promise that gives this film so much of its beating heart. Mind you: it’s imperfect – some sequences just simply stretch on languorously for no significant reason – but that doesn’t even remotely reduce its effectiveness as a thriller.
In the middle of a complicated divorce, Yoshimi Matsubara (played by the lovely Hitomi Kuroki) is doing everything she possibly can to keep sole custody of her young daughter Ikuko (Rio Kanno). Barely winning out in the custody fight, she’s forced to enroll her child in a new school while also navigating the work world, returning back to employment after leaving her job as a publishing editor in order to start the family. Now, all she can afford is a two-bedroom apartment in a rundown part of the big city.
How can matters get worse?
Well, that would involve the building being haunted by the ghost of a young girl … but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
Clearly, this failed low-rise apartment building has seen better days. From the outside, it’s obviously not been kept up; and rarely are we shown the residents coming and going about their daily tasks, heavily implying that perhaps smarter minds have sought refuge elsewhere. It’s empty. It’s poorly lit. It’s decrepit. And – most importantly – there’s water everywhere. Dripping from the ceilings. Lining the corners of the hallway. Even resting in small puddles in the solitary elevator.
From what I’ve read, the presence of water has been used symbolically to tie in with a good deal of Japanese ghost stories. Though it’s often been used to represent purification, Dark Water employs it as a metaphor for ‘the unholy,’ often times depicting it mildly discolored or even secretly hiding hair, mud, and general muck. Instead of flowing freely as it might in nature, these streams bubble and wretch when required; and it’s often shown drip, drip, dripping from discolored patches of mold-infested ceilings. Because it exists seemingly everywhere, it’s a pitch perfect symbolization of the supernatural presence of a ghost that can go anywhere and do anything … as audiences are about to see at the end of its 100-minute running time.
With a slim cast all wrapped up in about as dour an atmosphere that’s even represented Japanese suburbia, Dark Water establishes its own spiritual trinity of the Mother (Yoshimi), the Daughter (Ikuko), and the Unholy Ghost (the spectral remains of Mitsuko Kawai). These three souls – two living, one dead – are wrapped together in existential peril, all of it revolving around ideas of parental responsibility, social stability, privacy rights, gender roles, and even a smattering more. Granted, some of that may sound a bit absurd for a conventional Horror film, but that’s where Water is its own sleight of hand: it winds up being more about a mother’s love than it is a roller coaster ride of ghostly delights.
As Fate would have it, Yoshimi grew up with her own issues, not the least of which involved some absent parents, and she’s emerged as a broken woman as a consequence. Whether from her own actions or not, her marriage has failed; and she clings to her daughter more so out of a desire to give her a childhood unlike hers more than (perhaps) out of authentic love. The deceased Mitsuko shares this in common with Yoshimi (there are suggestions that she was abandoned), and – despite how vigorously the grown woman tries to fend for her own flesh-and-blood Ikuko – it eventually becomes clear that Mitsuko desires a mother more than she does another of her own age. This misdirection holds until the last reel at which point Yoshimi is forced to choose between the two worlds, and – dare I say? – it might not be that which most viewers expect.
As good as Dark Water is at times, it’s equally a slog, not unlike dragging one’s legs through a dirty lakebed. Nakata packs the film with long and slow-moving sequences – unnecessarily slow at a lot of times – all because he’s likely convinced that it’s building more and more atmosphere despite the fact that … well … we already get it. These folks are cursed, respectively, and a bit of doom – even one with a seemingly happy ending – awaits them all. While the flick is thankfully light on jump scares, the director does cleverly slip in sections that heavily imply something more is taking place, leaving the viewer to decide whether or not it’s applicable or merely a bit of creative misdirection. There’s probably a vastly more appreciated cut of this one out there – one that would trim at least ten minutes of quiet times – but, if this is all we get, it’ll have to do for the time being.
Perhaps the best device in all of this is the fact that the long absent Mitsuko had a prized red knapsack – the kind of things young girls carry everywhere – that keeps showing up where it’s expected least. Like a constant reminder that not everything we see is real, that pack helps to guide Yoshimi and her daughter on this journey. Like any living thing, it refuses to disappear into the ether. It can’t be thrown out. It can’t be destroyed. Until it’s back where it was always supposed to be, it’ll be as constant as the setting sun … a pervasive reminder that nothing is ever truly lost if we keep looking for it.
Clearly, this failed low-rise apartment building has seen better days. From the outside, it’s obviously not been kept up; and rarely are we shown the residents coming and going about their daily tasks, heavily implying that perhaps smarter minds have sought refuge elsewhere. It’s empty. It’s poorly lit. It’s decrepit. And – most importantly – there’s water everywhere. Dripping from the ceilings. Lining the corners of the hallway. Even resting in small puddles in the solitary elevator.
From what I’ve read, the presence of water has been used symbolically to tie in with a good deal of Japanese ghost stories. Though it’s often been used to represent purification, Dark Water employs it as a metaphor for ‘the unholy,’ often times depicting it mildly discolored or even secretly hiding hair, mud, and general muck. Instead of flowing freely as it might in nature, these streams bubble and wretch when required; and it’s often shown drip, drip, dripping from discolored patches of mold-infested ceilings. Because it exists seemingly everywhere, it’s a pitch perfect symbolization of the supernatural presence of a ghost that can go anywhere and do anything … as audiences are about to see at the end of its 100-minute running time.
With a slim cast all wrapped up in about as dour an atmosphere that’s even represented Japanese suburbia, Dark Water establishes its own spiritual trinity of the Mother (Yoshimi), the Daughter (Ikuko), and the Unholy Ghost (the spectral remains of Mitsuko Kawai). These three souls – two living, one dead – are wrapped together in existential peril, all of it revolving around ideas of parental responsibility, social stability, privacy rights, gender roles, and even a smattering more. Granted, some of that may sound a bit absurd for a conventional Horror film, but that’s where Water is its own sleight of hand: it winds up being more about a mother’s love than it is a roller coaster ride of ghostly delights.
As Fate would have it, Yoshimi grew up with her own issues, not the least of which involved some absent parents, and she’s emerged as a broken woman as a consequence. Whether from her own actions or not, her marriage has failed; and she clings to her daughter more so out of a desire to give her a childhood unlike hers more than (perhaps) out of authentic love. The deceased Mitsuko shares this in common with Yoshimi (there are suggestions that she was abandoned), and – despite how vigorously the grown woman tries to fend for her own flesh-and-blood Ikuko – it eventually becomes clear that Mitsuko desires a mother more than she does another of her own age. This misdirection holds until the last reel at which point Yoshimi is forced to choose between the two worlds, and – dare I say? – it might not be that which most viewers expect.
As good as Dark Water is at times, it’s equally a slog, not unlike dragging one’s legs through a dirty lakebed. Nakata packs the film with long and slow-moving sequences – unnecessarily slow at a lot of times – all because he’s likely convinced that it’s building more and more atmosphere despite the fact that … well … we already get it. These folks are cursed, respectively, and a bit of doom – even one with a seemingly happy ending – awaits them all. While the flick is thankfully light on jump scares, the director does cleverly slip in sections that heavily imply something more is taking place, leaving the viewer to decide whether or not it’s applicable or merely a bit of creative misdirection. There’s probably a vastly more appreciated cut of this one out there – one that would trim at least ten minutes of quiet times – but, if this is all we get, it’ll have to do for the time being.
Perhaps the best device in all of this is the fact that the long absent Mitsuko had a prized red knapsack – the kind of things young girls carry everywhere – that keeps showing up where it’s expected least. Like a constant reminder that not everything we see is real, that pack helps to guide Yoshimi and her daughter on this journey. Like any living thing, it refuses to disappear into the ether. It can’t be thrown out. It can’t be destroyed. Until it’s back where it was always supposed to be, it’ll be as constant as the setting sun … a pervasive reminder that nothing is ever truly lost if we keep looking for it.
Dark Water (2002) was produced by Kadokawa Shoten Publishing Co., Nippon Television Network (NTN), Video Audio Project (VAP), Nikkatsu, Office Augusta Co. Ltd., and Oz Company. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights-and-sounds to this reported restoration were quite good. As for the special features? Because this is Arrow, it’s about the best there is … and I’m doing the dutiful copy-and-paste from their press materials over at Blu-ray.com:
Recommended.
At the heart of Dark Water (2002), there’s a great ghost story. However, the narrative is structured with bookends involving some flawed mother/daughter relationships that, debatably, slows the picture down to a crawl in a few inopportune moments. While my opinion over how well (or how poorly) the human drama is handled might be in the minority, I’m still perfectly okay with suggesting Water crafts solid atmosphere as a spectral chiller – maybe even more than was necessary – and deserves the praise its received over the years. I just wish it moved a bit faster, especially given the fact that its true theatrical scares are few and far between.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Dark Water (2002) 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
- DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM
- Original lossless 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio
- Optional English subtitles
- Ghosts, Rings and Water - interview with director Hideo Nakata
- Family Terrors - interview with author Koji Suzuki
- Visualizing Horror - interview with cinematographer Junichiro Hayashi
- Archive interviews with actors Hitomi Kuroki & Asami Mizukawa and theme song artist Shikao Suga
- Original 'making-of' documentary
- Trailers and TV Spots
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Peter Strain
- Illustrated collector's booklet featuring writing on the film by David Kalat and Michael Gingold
Recommended.
At the heart of Dark Water (2002), there’s a great ghost story. However, the narrative is structured with bookends involving some flawed mother/daughter relationships that, debatably, slows the picture down to a crawl in a few inopportune moments. While my opinion over how well (or how poorly) the human drama is handled might be in the minority, I’m still perfectly okay with suggesting Water crafts solid atmosphere as a spectral chiller – maybe even more than was necessary – and deserves the praise its received over the years. I just wish it moved a bit faster, especially given the fact that its true theatrical scares are few and far between.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Dark Water (2002) 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
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for Wednesday, March 20, 2024.
Ooooh ... it's Hump Day, people! Get those hands up in the air! Woop! Woop!
I kid, I kid. Leave your hands right where they are.
First off: apologies for no Daily tweet yesterday. I could've had one up -- I really should've -- but adulting took a whole lot of steam out of me yesterday. I won't trouble you with the details. It's all financial crud, and I learned that some companies -- for whatever reason -- just are garbage companies. They're bastard companies. They change their policies to fit their specific needs, and they don't even bother telling the customers that the policies have changed. All I can say is it made for a huge headache that isn't yet solved, and I'm not quite sure how to solve it. But ... I'll soldier on. 'Nuff said.
As for (cough cough) The Acolyte trailer?
Yes, yes, and yes: I saw it. No, no, no: I'm not going to do a post about it.
Again, folks, for those of you who might be new to the place: generally speaking, trailers do not excite me. Sure, I might get a charge of adrenaline from anything I watch -- I'm really no different from any other fan on that count -- but I learned long ago that trailers usually are not made by the same folks who make the film. As a consequence, I've watched a great many trailers that are functionally misleading. They're advertising; and -- as such -- they're meant to separate you from your dollars, so I just don't put a whole lot of stake in them.
But, yes, I did watch it ... and -- the short answer -- no, I'm not impressed.
Folks, Star Wars isn't karate or judo or any other kind of martial arts fighting. Yes, it's great to see a lightsaber here and there, but -- the last I checked -- under Walt Disney's reign of terror the lightsaber isn't even lethal any longer. So ... ? Yes, I realize that might sound a bit cynical (momma raised a cynic), and I think that's warranted. While I'm certainly no hater, I've not been all that impressed with Lucasfilm's direction in some time. That shouldn't come as any surprise, and The Acolype -- which springs from the mind of Harvey Weinstein's assistant Leslye Headland -- doesn't look to be any course correction.
Now, I'll watch its premiere, yes. I might even review it, depending upon my thoughts on the whole affair. But ... no. Trailers don't excite me. So ... let's leave it at that.
Ooooh ... it's Hump Day, people! Get those hands up in the air! Woop! Woop!
I kid, I kid. Leave your hands right where they are.
First off: apologies for no Daily tweet yesterday. I could've had one up -- I really should've -- but adulting took a whole lot of steam out of me yesterday. I won't trouble you with the details. It's all financial crud, and I learned that some companies -- for whatever reason -- just are garbage companies. They're bastard companies. They change their policies to fit their specific needs, and they don't even bother telling the customers that the policies have changed. All I can say is it made for a huge headache that isn't yet solved, and I'm not quite sure how to solve it. But ... I'll soldier on. 'Nuff said.
As for (cough cough) The Acolyte trailer?
Yes, yes, and yes: I saw it. No, no, no: I'm not going to do a post about it.
Again, folks, for those of you who might be new to the place: generally speaking, trailers do not excite me. Sure, I might get a charge of adrenaline from anything I watch -- I'm really no different from any other fan on that count -- but I learned long ago that trailers usually are not made by the same folks who make the film. As a consequence, I've watched a great many trailers that are functionally misleading. They're advertising; and -- as such -- they're meant to separate you from your dollars, so I just don't put a whole lot of stake in them.
But, yes, I did watch it ... and -- the short answer -- no, I'm not impressed.
Folks, Star Wars isn't karate or judo or any other kind of martial arts fighting. Yes, it's great to see a lightsaber here and there, but -- the last I checked -- under Walt Disney's reign of terror the lightsaber isn't even lethal any longer. So ... ? Yes, I realize that might sound a bit cynical (momma raised a cynic), and I think that's warranted. While I'm certainly no hater, I've not been all that impressed with Lucasfilm's direction in some time. That shouldn't come as any surprise, and The Acolype -- which springs from the mind of Harvey Weinstein's assistant Leslye Headland -- doesn't look to be any course correction.
Now, I'll watch its premiere, yes. I might even review it, depending upon my thoughts on the whole affair. But ... no. Trailers don't excite me. So ... let's leave it at that.
Fifteen years ago today, the modern era update of Battlestar Galactica came to its bittersweet ending.
As is kinda/sorta customary when shows end, I think there was some good and bad with it. I don't recall fan reaction, though I suspect there were some who were disappointed and some that were elated, not in seeing it end but in giving it a suitable finale. It's funny how all of us want our favorite shows to go out on a high note; and -- while I'll admit that isn't always possible -- I think Ron Moore and his co-conspirators did what they could with the property. No, I wasn't a huge fan of it -- sorry, kids, but I miss the simpler good-vs-evil mentality of the original -- but it kept my interest once it built up a head of steam. I just think it meandered a bit in seasons three and four, almost like it was trying to go somewhere but they weren't sure how to get there.
Yes, I've seen that some producers are toiling away to create yet one more incarnation of the beloved property. Honestly, I'm unsure if it's a continuation or not -- the press reports are a bit confusing, some saying it is, some saying it's a 'spiritual continuation' -- so we'll just have to wait and see what comes of the journey next.
So say we all ... am I right?
As is kinda/sorta customary when shows end, I think there was some good and bad with it. I don't recall fan reaction, though I suspect there were some who were disappointed and some that were elated, not in seeing it end but in giving it a suitable finale. It's funny how all of us want our favorite shows to go out on a high note; and -- while I'll admit that isn't always possible -- I think Ron Moore and his co-conspirators did what they could with the property. No, I wasn't a huge fan of it -- sorry, kids, but I miss the simpler good-vs-evil mentality of the original -- but it kept my interest once it built up a head of steam. I just think it meandered a bit in seasons three and four, almost like it was trying to go somewhere but they weren't sure how to get there.
Yes, I've seen that some producers are toiling away to create yet one more incarnation of the beloved property. Honestly, I'm unsure if it's a continuation or not -- the press reports are a bit confusing, some saying it is, some saying it's a 'spiritual continuation' -- so we'll just have to wait and see what comes of the journey next.
So say we all ... am I right?
Those of you who like Apocalypses might be well to check out The Last Day, an Apocalypse/Drama that turns an incredible 11 years young with its premiere on this day back in 2013.
I've seen this one -- I received a promotional DVD during its home video release run -- and I do recall being quite smitten with it. It involves an epidemic that essentially forces mankind indoors and/or underground, and those circumstances are paired with the somewhat typical 'search for a lost loved one' premise. It surprisingly doesn't have a claustrophobic feel that I anticipated it would, and the performers were all quite good in developing their characters and 'fleshing out' what survival might look like in their uncertain future.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was a bit of a sensation in its native country (Spain), winning a great deal of acolades across the board. That isn't easy to do -- what with the subject matter being somewhat dark and dour -- but as I recall there was a good deal of hope in the big finale; and I suspect that lifting of spirits, too, helped propel this one to the heights it achieved.
A thoughtful rumination on what could be 'The Last Days,' indeed. Check it out.
I've seen this one -- I received a promotional DVD during its home video release run -- and I do recall being quite smitten with it. It involves an epidemic that essentially forces mankind indoors and/or underground, and those circumstances are paired with the somewhat typical 'search for a lost loved one' premise. It surprisingly doesn't have a claustrophobic feel that I anticipated it would, and the performers were all quite good in developing their characters and 'fleshing out' what survival might look like in their uncertain future.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was a bit of a sensation in its native country (Spain), winning a great deal of acolades across the board. That isn't easy to do -- what with the subject matter being somewhat dark and dour -- but as I recall there was a good deal of hope in the big finale; and I suspect that lifting of spirits, too, helped propel this one to the heights it achieved.
A thoughtful rumination on what could be 'The Last Days,' indeed. Check it out.
Naturally, there's more -- a great deal more -- and we've reached the part wherein I encourage you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 20, 2024, and check it out for yourself. I've gathered a good portion of material -- birthdays, movie releases, and more -- and this is the time to perform your own 'deep dive' in search of the buried treasure.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to On This Day In Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror History for Monday, March 18, 2024!
And ... while I'm at it ... let me be one of the first to say "Happy Monday!"
How was everyone's weekend? I know, I know, I know ... you'd rather not talk about that. It's Monday, after all, and that's generally the source of a lot of frustration and dismay. But, folks, you've gotta buck up and carry on, you know. That's what is best for all of us, after all, and it's what I expect from you.
Me?
Well, the weekend was pretty good. Nothing too crazy. We had a few errands to run, and we had Chinese at one of our favorite buffets in the Valley, so that was definitely good. Otherwise, it was a mostly lazy weekend, which we all need from time-to-time in order to properly rejuvenate. So there's that.
We also binged a non-SciFi show called Berlin. It's a kinda/sorta sequel to Netflix's Money Heist. The sequel was good, a bit different than its original inspiration, so that's nice, though. Interesting and fast-paced, for the most part. A good caper series. Some of you might wanna check it out.
But ... now? Let's get down to business.
And ... while I'm at it ... let me be one of the first to say "Happy Monday!"
How was everyone's weekend? I know, I know, I know ... you'd rather not talk about that. It's Monday, after all, and that's generally the source of a lot of frustration and dismay. But, folks, you've gotta buck up and carry on, you know. That's what is best for all of us, after all, and it's what I expect from you.
Me?
Well, the weekend was pretty good. Nothing too crazy. We had a few errands to run, and we had Chinese at one of our favorite buffets in the Valley, so that was definitely good. Otherwise, it was a mostly lazy weekend, which we all need from time-to-time in order to properly rejuvenate. So there's that.
We also binged a non-SciFi show called Berlin. It's a kinda/sorta sequel to Netflix's Money Heist. The sequel was good, a bit different than its original inspiration, so that's nice, though. Interesting and fast-paced, for the most part. A good caper series. Some of you might wanna check it out.
But ... now? Let's get down to business.
We often define our existence by the goodness or badness of our memories, and my high school years had a bit of both, probably not all that unlike everyone's. Still, I have nothing but fond memories for some of the shows I sat through, and one of the finer ones -- even with all of its blemishes -- was TV's The Greatest American Hero.
This Superhero/Comedy premiered on this day all the way back in 1981, and it told the story of High School teacher Ralph Hinckley who -- by a twist of Fate -- gets gifted with a suit that grants him a whole host of superpowers. He gets paired up with an aging FBI agent Bill Maxwell -- a guy who really has his own set of problems already -- and the two of them go about putting the suit to the best use they can in the pursuit of whatever justice shows up in a weekly procedural. Some of it was big, and some of it was small, but it was all done with a great deal of 'heart,' something the Mouse House and Marvel seem to have lost sight of these days.
Now, the show experienced a bit of controversy at one point: real-life baddie John Hinckley tried to impress actress Jodie Foster with his attempt at assassinating U.S. President Ronald Reagan ... so -- for a time -- producers of the show thought it best to change Ralph Hinckley's name to Ralph Hanley, a move that may've confused folks in the audience watching closely. If I remember correctly, the change didn't last all that long -- I believe they eventually changed it back -- and history was made, influenced by reality.
Again, I'm not going to even try convincing readers that this was a great show by any estimation. It was, however, a fun show ... and that's something in short supply on the Boob Tube these days. Check it out, if you're so inclined.
This Superhero/Comedy premiered on this day all the way back in 1981, and it told the story of High School teacher Ralph Hinckley who -- by a twist of Fate -- gets gifted with a suit that grants him a whole host of superpowers. He gets paired up with an aging FBI agent Bill Maxwell -- a guy who really has his own set of problems already -- and the two of them go about putting the suit to the best use they can in the pursuit of whatever justice shows up in a weekly procedural. Some of it was big, and some of it was small, but it was all done with a great deal of 'heart,' something the Mouse House and Marvel seem to have lost sight of these days.
Now, the show experienced a bit of controversy at one point: real-life baddie John Hinckley tried to impress actress Jodie Foster with his attempt at assassinating U.S. President Ronald Reagan ... so -- for a time -- producers of the show thought it best to change Ralph Hinckley's name to Ralph Hanley, a move that may've confused folks in the audience watching closely. If I remember correctly, the change didn't last all that long -- I believe they eventually changed it back -- and history was made, influenced by reality.
Again, I'm not going to even try convincing readers that this was a great show by any estimation. It was, however, a fun show ... and that's something in short supply on the Boob Tube these days. Check it out, if you're so inclined.
Unlike so many others who worship various storytellers these days, I tend to just try to be honest about what I like and/or dislike. Even the very best directors and screenwriters can let fans down -- especially when they get a bit too up close and personal with their respective vanity projects -- so I try to keep creatives at an arm's length, allowing them to simply be who they are and then sound off on their efforts. It just helps keep me grounded.
That said, I'm not of the contingent who thinks everything writer/director Luc Besson has done is "the best ever." In fact, I'm really hard-pressed to think of anything I've seen of his twice. Usually, I find it visually interesting, but the chacacters just don't do all that much for me. I realize that there's a cult built up around his 1997 effort -- The Fifth Element -- but, again, I'm off the mind that it's more hype than it is hard true. Sure, it's fun ... I just don't think it's all that great. But to each his own.
I think it was his 2012 flick Lockout -- an effort which saw him largely kinda/sorta disgraced for basically stealing the idea behind 1981's Escape From New York but setting it on a space station -- and I'm not certain he's ever really recovered. (I know, I know, I know: I don't know what I'm talking about.) But stylish visuals just can't overcome the flat ideas he runs with so much of the time, so I take him in small doses.
Now, I will admit that I love his stylish crime thrillers. His command of dialogue along with characters and situations in those efforts have been pretty top notch though occasionally a bit repetitive. He pretty much re-invigorated action flicks for a time with the Taken franchise, so I can still give credit where credit is due ... as should all of us. So say we all ... am I right?
Happy Birthday, Mr. Besson. Here's hoping you've got many years in the business still ahead of you.
That said, I'm not of the contingent who thinks everything writer/director Luc Besson has done is "the best ever." In fact, I'm really hard-pressed to think of anything I've seen of his twice. Usually, I find it visually interesting, but the chacacters just don't do all that much for me. I realize that there's a cult built up around his 1997 effort -- The Fifth Element -- but, again, I'm off the mind that it's more hype than it is hard true. Sure, it's fun ... I just don't think it's all that great. But to each his own.
I think it was his 2012 flick Lockout -- an effort which saw him largely kinda/sorta disgraced for basically stealing the idea behind 1981's Escape From New York but setting it on a space station -- and I'm not certain he's ever really recovered. (I know, I know, I know: I don't know what I'm talking about.) But stylish visuals just can't overcome the flat ideas he runs with so much of the time, so I take him in small doses.
Now, I will admit that I love his stylish crime thrillers. His command of dialogue along with characters and situations in those efforts have been pretty top notch though occasionally a bit repetitive. He pretty much re-invigorated action flicks for a time with the Taken franchise, so I can still give credit where credit is due ... as should all of us. So say we all ... am I right?
Happy Birthday, Mr. Besson. Here's hoping you've got many years in the business still ahead of you.
Well, holy mother of dragons!
It was on this day all the way back in the year 1910 that the immortal character of Frankenstein -- that singular Mary Shelley creation -- was first brought to the silver screen by no less that inventor Thomas Edison. This incarnation of ol' Frank was actually believed to have been lost for decades: I think I read that a copy for finally discovered in the mid-1970's, so it's good that it's been available for study along with celebration.
But ... wow. The original theatrical adaptation of Frankenstein turns an incredible 114 years young today ... and that's saying something, indeed.
It was on this day all the way back in the year 1910 that the immortal character of Frankenstein -- that singular Mary Shelley creation -- was first brought to the silver screen by no less that inventor Thomas Edison. This incarnation of ol' Frank was actually believed to have been lost for decades: I think I read that a copy for finally discovered in the mid-1970's, so it's good that it's been available for study along with celebration.
But ... wow. The original theatrical adaptation of Frankenstein turns an incredible 114 years young today ... and that's saying something, indeed.
With an astonishing 67 different genre trivia bits and blurbs for you to celebrate, it's pretty clear that there's an awful lot more waiting for you to ponder; and this is the point wherein I encourage you to head on over and check out the deets. Here's the helpful link:
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to The Daily Grindhouse for Friday, March 15, 2024. Here's hoping that your Friday puts you in the happiest of possible moods, ready for your weekend, and raring to read what trivia I've found and put in front of you on the Daily Citation Page.
Well, well, well ... it's a bit overcast here in the Other Land Down Under (aka Arizona) this morning. I got up a bit early, found myself a bit tuckered, went back to bed for a little extra, then ran a few errands out and about. When I left the house, it actually looked like it was clearing up, thank you very much, but now that I'm back home it's definitely all clouded over again. It definitely looks like rain, but I'm not seeing anything in the local forecast. Weird. Maybe I'll check again later.
Honing in on the task at hand ... wowza. There's a good deal of birthdays, movie releases, and whatnot worthy of attention this morning. In fact, there's so many I'm having some minor trouble picking and choosing which to highlight, but maybe I'll do something a bit different and draw some focus to more as opposed to less. You know me: normally, I try to bring you just what I feel are the biggest and brightest anniversaries ... but, seriously, there's a good deal catching my eye.
So ... buckle up, folks. This is gonna be fun.
Well, well, well ... it's a bit overcast here in the Other Land Down Under (aka Arizona) this morning. I got up a bit early, found myself a bit tuckered, went back to bed for a little extra, then ran a few errands out and about. When I left the house, it actually looked like it was clearing up, thank you very much, but now that I'm back home it's definitely all clouded over again. It definitely looks like rain, but I'm not seeing anything in the local forecast. Weird. Maybe I'll check again later.
Honing in on the task at hand ... wowza. There's a good deal of birthdays, movie releases, and whatnot worthy of attention this morning. In fact, there's so many I'm having some minor trouble picking and choosing which to highlight, but maybe I'll do something a bit different and draw some focus to more as opposed to less. You know me: normally, I try to bring you just what I feel are the biggest and brightest anniversaries ... but, seriously, there's a good deal catching my eye.
So ... buckle up, folks. This is gonna be fun.
I know, I know, I know ... but who you gonna call, right?
On this day in all the way back in the year of 1957, genre auteur Edward Wood Jr. delivered one of his singular efforts to the cinema: Plan 9 From Outer Space may not have ruffled as many feathers back in the day as it could've, but somehow -- against all hope -- it has endured, rising like a Phoenix from the ashes to the height of being christened one of the worst motion pictures ever made.
Woof!
I know, I know, I know. I hear you. It's bad, right? Why are we celebrating bad?
Well, that's a very convoluted question, and it could bring a reasonably convoluted answers; and yet I'll keep it simple: even such cinematic stinkery as Plan 9 has brought folks into the realms of the Fantastic. Audiences have shown up to see this one on the silver screen at festivals, special screenings, and the like; and if even one of those airings has helped to put Science Fiction and Fantasy in the minds of potential fans then it's done at the very least what any genre production could, should, and would do.
Yes, it's awful ... but it's OUR awful.
Embrace it. Celebrate it for what it is on this day ... and tell it 'Happy Birthday.'
On this day in all the way back in the year of 1957, genre auteur Edward Wood Jr. delivered one of his singular efforts to the cinema: Plan 9 From Outer Space may not have ruffled as many feathers back in the day as it could've, but somehow -- against all hope -- it has endured, rising like a Phoenix from the ashes to the height of being christened one of the worst motion pictures ever made.
Woof!
I know, I know, I know. I hear you. It's bad, right? Why are we celebrating bad?
Well, that's a very convoluted question, and it could bring a reasonably convoluted answers; and yet I'll keep it simple: even such cinematic stinkery as Plan 9 has brought folks into the realms of the Fantastic. Audiences have shown up to see this one on the silver screen at festivals, special screenings, and the like; and if even one of those airings has helped to put Science Fiction and Fantasy in the minds of potential fans then it's done at the very least what any genre production could, should, and would do.
Yes, it's awful ... but it's OUR awful.
Embrace it. Celebrate it for what it is on this day ... and tell it 'Happy Birthday.'
There is a contingent of fans who worship at the trough of Hammer Films.
I may not exactly be one of them, but that's not to say that I don't have an incredible amount of respect and admiration for what Hammer Studios accomplished and continues to do years after their prominence in the marketplace of cinema. I do, but I'll also admit that the films are fueled by more ideas than they might be money; and still those blood, sweat, and tears deserves a bit of extra attention when their efforts come up in our rotation.
That said, one of the studios' more revered efforts -- Frankenstein Created Woman -- first came to the silver screen on this day back in 1967. The feature starred the legendary Peter Cushing, the luminous Susan Denberg, and Thorley Walters, Robert Morris, and Duncan Lamont in key roles. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"After being reanimated, Baron Frankenstein transfers the soul of an executed young man into the body of his lover, prompting her to kill the men who wronged them."
Though I can't say with absolute certainty, I believe strongly that I've seen this one. I think I caught it when it was broadcast on Turner Classic Movies, but I'll also say I could be confusing it with another of Hammer's output. Honestly, a few of the prominent ones kinda/sorta blend together in my mind, so I'm hesitant to say much about it. However, I'll always give it a shout because -- quite frankly -- that's my day job.
I may not exactly be one of them, but that's not to say that I don't have an incredible amount of respect and admiration for what Hammer Studios accomplished and continues to do years after their prominence in the marketplace of cinema. I do, but I'll also admit that the films are fueled by more ideas than they might be money; and still those blood, sweat, and tears deserves a bit of extra attention when their efforts come up in our rotation.
That said, one of the studios' more revered efforts -- Frankenstein Created Woman -- first came to the silver screen on this day back in 1967. The feature starred the legendary Peter Cushing, the luminous Susan Denberg, and Thorley Walters, Robert Morris, and Duncan Lamont in key roles. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"After being reanimated, Baron Frankenstein transfers the soul of an executed young man into the body of his lover, prompting her to kill the men who wronged them."
Though I can't say with absolute certainty, I believe strongly that I've seen this one. I think I caught it when it was broadcast on Turner Classic Movies, but I'll also say I could be confusing it with another of Hammer's output. Honestly, a few of the prominent ones kinda/sorta blend together in my mind, so I'm hesitant to say much about it. However, I'll always give it a shout because -- quite frankly -- that's my day job.
There are those who say that Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five is one of the best ever written. Having not read it myself, I can't say. I did start it one time, and -- for whatever reason -- I set it aside and picked up something else. Maybe I'll get back to it one day for posterity's sake ... but I have seen the flick that was first screened theatrically on this day all the way back in 1972 ... and, yes, it's a pretty solid winner.
For those unfamiliar with the work, here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Billy Pilgrim has mysteriously become unstuck in time. He goes on an uncontrollable trip back and forth from his birth in New York to life on a distant planet and back again to the horrors of the 1945 fire-bombing of Dresden."
I'd suggest that -- as is often the case with adaptations -- it might not be the most accessible for all audiences. Essentially, it's a heavily anti-war film (in my opinion as well as that of others), and I realize that topic alone might not strike a chord with discerning moviegoers. Still, it boasts some great ideas and some winning performers so I'm happy to give it an enthusiastic thumbs up to my readership. I've even reviewed it for SciFiHistory.Net, so those inclined to know more can head on over to the Reviews Section.
For those unfamiliar with the work, here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Billy Pilgrim has mysteriously become unstuck in time. He goes on an uncontrollable trip back and forth from his birth in New York to life on a distant planet and back again to the horrors of the 1945 fire-bombing of Dresden."
I'd suggest that -- as is often the case with adaptations -- it might not be the most accessible for all audiences. Essentially, it's a heavily anti-war film (in my opinion as well as that of others), and I realize that topic alone might not strike a chord with discerning moviegoers. Still, it boasts some great ideas and some winning performers so I'm happy to give it an enthusiastic thumbs up to my readership. I've even reviewed it for SciFiHistory.Net, so those inclined to know more can head on over to the Reviews Section.
It should go without saying that 2023 wasn't all that long ago. In fact, checking the calendar on my desk, it was only just last year ... but history is made each and every day, my friends, so I'll occasionally point you in a winning direction if I think it's worthy of your undivided attention.
Now, that said, I'm not gaga over the whole Evil Dead franchise as are so many fanboys and fangirls. The truth is I'm very familiar with the original films and the Starz Network TV show as well; while it has elements I enjoy, the fact remains that it's something I can take or leave depending upon my mood. I was hesistant, indeed, to even watch 2023's Evil Dead Rise -- which premiered on this day just a year ago -- but I'm glad I did. I had a helluva lot of fun with it, and I thought the flick feverishly re-invigorated the franchise for the modern era.
Dare I add?
I think it was -- without a doubt -- one of the bloodiest features I've ever come across; and that's certainly saying something. You have to be OK with seeing blood, folks, and that's my bottom line ... because the blood is PERVASIVE from start-to-finish. Granted, it isn't only about the blood, but I don't want to mislead any of you. This one is about as bloody as was humanly and inhumanly possible. Yes, it's that wet and sticky.
You've been warned.
Now, that said, I'm not gaga over the whole Evil Dead franchise as are so many fanboys and fangirls. The truth is I'm very familiar with the original films and the Starz Network TV show as well; while it has elements I enjoy, the fact remains that it's something I can take or leave depending upon my mood. I was hesistant, indeed, to even watch 2023's Evil Dead Rise -- which premiered on this day just a year ago -- but I'm glad I did. I had a helluva lot of fun with it, and I thought the flick feverishly re-invigorated the franchise for the modern era.
Dare I add?
I think it was -- without a doubt -- one of the bloodiest features I've ever come across; and that's certainly saying something. You have to be OK with seeing blood, folks, and that's my bottom line ... because the blood is PERVASIVE from start-to-finish. Granted, it isn't only about the blood, but I don't want to mislead any of you. This one is about as bloody as was humanly and inhumanly possible. Yes, it's that wet and sticky.
You've been warned.
Respectfully, there's a great deal more; and you've now reached the point wherein I encourage each and every one of you to head on over to the Daily Citation Page for March 15th to check out its SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror goodness. I give you my word: there's something for everyone over there, so please check it out.
As always, thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ