- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers!
You really didn't think you were going to get out of January 16th without some genre trivia citations, did you? For shame, for shame!
Nah, I'm here. I had a few items I had to take care of this morning, and that's the reason why it's mid-morning, and I'm just getting to the blog. I had a correction to the day I had to make -- perish the thought! -- and I was performing a bit of extra research to make absolutely certain that my original posting was in error. It was. It's now corrected. Let's not make a big deal about it. I can't be perfect all of the time, but I do -- like so many -- strive for perfection. That's about as noble a goal as anyone in the modern age can have, so it's what I'm happy to do.
What's on tap for the day, you wonder?
Well, I have a flick I need to watch this morning, and I very well might try to squeeze another one in this afternoon. Fortunately, that afternoon choice is a bit slim -- it's an older film, and they tend to not run as long as today's blowhards -- but we'll see. I have some items I might actually add to the Daily Citation Page for January 16th as well; I did some more searching last night and discovered a few Horror features missing from it. My graphics are all prepared. I just have to -- as always -- find the time.
But on to today's wonderful highlights ...
You really didn't think you were going to get out of January 16th without some genre trivia citations, did you? For shame, for shame!
Nah, I'm here. I had a few items I had to take care of this morning, and that's the reason why it's mid-morning, and I'm just getting to the blog. I had a correction to the day I had to make -- perish the thought! -- and I was performing a bit of extra research to make absolutely certain that my original posting was in error. It was. It's now corrected. Let's not make a big deal about it. I can't be perfect all of the time, but I do -- like so many -- strive for perfection. That's about as noble a goal as anyone in the modern age can have, so it's what I'm happy to do.
What's on tap for the day, you wonder?
Well, I have a flick I need to watch this morning, and I very well might try to squeeze another one in this afternoon. Fortunately, that afternoon choice is a bit slim -- it's an older film, and they tend to not run as long as today's blowhards -- but we'll see. I have some items I might actually add to the Daily Citation Page for January 16th as well; I did some more searching last night and discovered a few Horror features missing from it. My graphics are all prepared. I just have to -- as always -- find the time.
But on to today's wonderful highlights ...
Unquestionably, genre entertainment includes a bunch of names, big and small, but one of the biggest across his entire storied career in none other than the master himself, John Carpenter.
Over the years, I've taken an awful lot of flack for saying -- buckle up -- that 1981's Escape From New York is Carpenter's single greatest theatrical accomplishment. (I know, I know, I know ... and shut up.) This is why I don't often argue for choices and/or lists when writing posts on the MainPage and/or debating the merits of a particular director's or screenwriter's or writer's catalogue: at some point, it all boils down to matters of one's particular tastes. It's easy to compare the technical merits of picture to picture, but there's always that influence of which film just downright tickled a critic's fancy ... and, for me, that'll always be Escape. (Sorry, I hated the follow-up for reasons far too numerous to mention.) It's just one of those rare perfect features, and I'll always see it as such ... even with the blemishes that get pointed out to me.
Fans gotta give Carpenter a helluva lot of credit because -- since his earliest days up until his latest projects (which have been a bit slim) -- he's always dabbled in the realms of the Fantastic. While not of all his pictures have flirted with the biggest ideas, he's rather consistently etched out a path that enthusiasts have been happy to follow, no matter if it takes the shape of Halloween, The Thing, or They Live. He's pushed the entertainment envelope, and I've got nothing but respect for his entire library of projects.
Happy birthday, Mr. Carpenter! You're a true original!
Over the years, I've taken an awful lot of flack for saying -- buckle up -- that 1981's Escape From New York is Carpenter's single greatest theatrical accomplishment. (I know, I know, I know ... and shut up.) This is why I don't often argue for choices and/or lists when writing posts on the MainPage and/or debating the merits of a particular director's or screenwriter's or writer's catalogue: at some point, it all boils down to matters of one's particular tastes. It's easy to compare the technical merits of picture to picture, but there's always that influence of which film just downright tickled a critic's fancy ... and, for me, that'll always be Escape. (Sorry, I hated the follow-up for reasons far too numerous to mention.) It's just one of those rare perfect features, and I'll always see it as such ... even with the blemishes that get pointed out to me.
Fans gotta give Carpenter a helluva lot of credit because -- since his earliest days up until his latest projects (which have been a bit slim) -- he's always dabbled in the realms of the Fantastic. While not of all his pictures have flirted with the biggest ideas, he's rather consistently etched out a path that enthusiasts have been happy to follow, no matter if it takes the shape of Halloween, The Thing, or They Live. He's pushed the entertainment envelope, and I've got nothing but respect for his entire library of projects.
Happy birthday, Mr. Carpenter! You're a true original!
I forget exactly where I'd read this little factoid, but I remember it very specifically. This film historian went on-the-record stating that one of the literary classics most adapted in the history of pictures and television remains Robert Louis Stevenson's "Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde." And that seemingly insignificant blurb forced me to do a quick search of my own (back at the time that I read it). Well, lo and behold, it certainly looked as if it might be true. (I'd previously suspected that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein has to be up there, but a final accounting between the two probably needs to be conducted.)
Entirely from a dramatic standpoint, why wouldn't it be?
There are very few works of this kind that affords a talented actor with the opportunity to embody not one but two distinctly different personaes. Thespians being what they are, I'd imagine the whole gaggle of them would be champing at the bit to give the dual identity their respective attempts at justice. And, yes, for the record, it's been gender-swapped a bit here and there for posterity's sake, giving the ladies the chance to show -- on screen -- that they can be just as evil as men can. How's that for equality?
At some point in the future of SciFiHistory.Net, maybe I'll craft a daily column regarding how many times on a certain date that there are references to the work. Like so many ideas I have in the hopper, I just have to have the time to execute them effectively or I rarely try.
In any event, the whole reason I bring all of this up is because one of the very first adaptations of record for Jekyll/Hyde was first screened on this day all the way back in 1912.
Entirely from a dramatic standpoint, why wouldn't it be?
There are very few works of this kind that affords a talented actor with the opportunity to embody not one but two distinctly different personaes. Thespians being what they are, I'd imagine the whole gaggle of them would be champing at the bit to give the dual identity their respective attempts at justice. And, yes, for the record, it's been gender-swapped a bit here and there for posterity's sake, giving the ladies the chance to show -- on screen -- that they can be just as evil as men can. How's that for equality?
At some point in the future of SciFiHistory.Net, maybe I'll craft a daily column regarding how many times on a certain date that there are references to the work. Like so many ideas I have in the hopper, I just have to have the time to execute them effectively or I rarely try.
In any event, the whole reason I bring all of this up is because one of the very first adaptations of record for Jekyll/Hyde was first screened on this day all the way back in 1912.
Check your history, fellow geeks and nerds, and you'll know that Paramount had for a long, long time wanted to launch their very own channel. In fact, the whole idea of crafting a Paramount Network really took off way back in the 1970's; and -- believe it or not -- the studio suits intended to do it around the return of the original Star Trek to the TV dial.
You see, Trek was famously cancelled back in 1969. Not all that long after, man landed on the moon; and -- all of a sudden -- the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his gallant crew were the most popular thing ever in television syndication broadcast. It was the most sought after show ever, and Paramount -- realizing that they had a good thing -- decided Kirk and company would make their return to the weekly line-up with an all-new channel. (If you don't believe it, then Google that crud.)
Alas, that was too expensive an endeavor. Star Trek: Phase II morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture; and that whole business of their own network was tabled for about a decade and one-half ... until Star Trek: Voyager blasted into parts unknown on this day in 1995. The UPN -- the United Paramount Network -- was born, giving Captain Janeway her own spot on Boob Tube to preach Starfleet ethics to a previously uncharted quadrant of outer space. It lasted a fun-filled seven seasons -- the last original Trek show to do that, thank you very much -- and history was made.
You see, Trek was famously cancelled back in 1969. Not all that long after, man landed on the moon; and -- all of a sudden -- the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his gallant crew were the most popular thing ever in television syndication broadcast. It was the most sought after show ever, and Paramount -- realizing that they had a good thing -- decided Kirk and company would make their return to the weekly line-up with an all-new channel. (If you don't believe it, then Google that crud.)
Alas, that was too expensive an endeavor. Star Trek: Phase II morphed into Star Trek: The Motion Picture; and that whole business of their own network was tabled for about a decade and one-half ... until Star Trek: Voyager blasted into parts unknown on this day in 1995. The UPN -- the United Paramount Network -- was born, giving Captain Janeway her own spot on Boob Tube to preach Starfleet ethics to a previously uncharted quadrant of outer space. It lasted a fun-filled seven seasons -- the last original Trek show to do that, thank you very much -- and history was made.
Of course, there's more waiting for you to discover On This Day In Science Fiction History, so I encourage each and every one of you to wander over to my little corner of the Information Superhighway and see for yourself.
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 January 15th!
First up: apologies that I didn't get any posts up over the weekend. It was busier-than-usual weekend for me, and I just didn't have the time and energy required, even for such a 'trivial' effort. (Snicker snicker) Seriously, I was busy a huge portion of Saturday on some volunteer work; so I was playing catch-up with some household stuff on Sunday -- including sleep! -- and I missed out on a daily announcement two days in a row. My sincere apologies.
But it's Monday, the start of an all-new week, and I'm here yet again to dispense with some of the latest and greatest trivia this side of ... well ... the other side ... whatever that may be. So let's find the silver lining here, folks, and let's get on with the business of taking care of business.
I do have a flick or two I need to watch today, which will most likely keep my time on the Main Page here short. I believe I have two pictures that are released for streaming as of tomorrow, so I need to do the old 'watch and review' on both; and I believe both of them are Science Fiction. (One might be a bit more Thriller-focused, but the synopsis leans both ways.) Those reviews won't be up today -- they're embargoed until tomorrow, I think -- so keep your eyes peeled. I may get up my thoughts on 1984's Conan The Destroyer for posterity's sake, and I hope you find those a bit surprising.
First up: apologies that I didn't get any posts up over the weekend. It was busier-than-usual weekend for me, and I just didn't have the time and energy required, even for such a 'trivial' effort. (Snicker snicker) Seriously, I was busy a huge portion of Saturday on some volunteer work; so I was playing catch-up with some household stuff on Sunday -- including sleep! -- and I missed out on a daily announcement two days in a row. My sincere apologies.
But it's Monday, the start of an all-new week, and I'm here yet again to dispense with some of the latest and greatest trivia this side of ... well ... the other side ... whatever that may be. So let's find the silver lining here, folks, and let's get on with the business of taking care of business.
I do have a flick or two I need to watch today, which will most likely keep my time on the Main Page here short. I believe I have two pictures that are released for streaming as of tomorrow, so I need to do the old 'watch and review' on both; and I believe both of them are Science Fiction. (One might be a bit more Thriller-focused, but the synopsis leans both ways.) Those reviews won't be up today -- they're embargoed until tomorrow, I think -- so keep your eyes peeled. I may get up my thoughts on 1984's Conan The Destroyer for posterity's sake, and I hope you find those a bit surprising.
For those of us who grew up as children of an earlier generation, it was on this day all the way back in 1981 that Buck Rogers In The 25th Century launched its second season. The show pivoted away significantly from the stand-alone and reasonably high camp of the first season as this new series put Buck and his compatriots aboard a big spacecraft called 'the Searcher,' and they were headed out into deep space in search of survivors that may've left Earth during its last great conflict.
From what little I've read, it would seem that the producers wanted to give the show a narrative makeover, bringing in what they felt were some meatier, more socially conscious stories. It was a pretty significant tone shift -- given that the first season was largely made up of traditional weekly TV action stuff along with hints of SciFi and Fantasy here and there -- and I suspect it was more of a turn-off for viewers because it was so unexpected. Whatever the true factors may be, it lastly one of those truncated half-seasons, so we'll never know if Buck was successful in reunited all the people of Earth or not. Sad.
Still, what I thought was particularly grand (though a bit goofy, at times) was the introduction of the character Hawk to the growing Buck mythology. Yes, yes, and yes: I get that audiences probably found the half-bird half-man creation to be a bit over-the-top. But I liked the fact that here was -- much like Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- a character truly in search of himself while trying to just get through the business of helping others in their quest to put their world back together. Greater stories were, nonetheless, needed to elevate Buck's prospects at a long life ... but it wasn't meant to be, I guess, leaving Hawk's personal mission as unfulfilled as was the second season's.
From what little I've read, it would seem that the producers wanted to give the show a narrative makeover, bringing in what they felt were some meatier, more socially conscious stories. It was a pretty significant tone shift -- given that the first season was largely made up of traditional weekly TV action stuff along with hints of SciFi and Fantasy here and there -- and I suspect it was more of a turn-off for viewers because it was so unexpected. Whatever the true factors may be, it lastly one of those truncated half-seasons, so we'll never know if Buck was successful in reunited all the people of Earth or not. Sad.
Still, what I thought was particularly grand (though a bit goofy, at times) was the introduction of the character Hawk to the growing Buck mythology. Yes, yes, and yes: I get that audiences probably found the half-bird half-man creation to be a bit over-the-top. But I liked the fact that here was -- much like Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- a character truly in search of himself while trying to just get through the business of helping others in their quest to put their world back together. Greater stories were, nonetheless, needed to elevate Buck's prospects at a long life ... but it wasn't meant to be, I guess, leaving Hawk's personal mission as unfulfilled as was the second season's.
What you're really looking for at this point is the link, and I'm happy to oblige:
Please, please, please: head on over to today's Citation Page and take a look at everything a genre fan could want to know. There's truly a great deal there awaiting your discovery, and I hope it tickles your fancy in just the way it should.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Like so many, I was there to experience the sweaty joy of Conan The Barbarian’s first theatrical outing in 1982.
Of course, me and my buddies had to sneak into the theaters to do so; and I’m perfectly okay with admitting to having broken said law plenty of years after the statute of limitations has run out. (Erm … it has, right? Right?!?!) The first Conan had everything – and I do mean everything – that a fan of genre films could possible love. While it may not have been an entirely faithful adaptation of what creator Robert E. Howard intended (I’ve heard it was perhaps as often as I’ve heard it wasn’t), the motion picture still introduced Austrian strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger as the nomadic Cimmerian who went about seeking fame and fortune in the bygone era to the delight of Fantasy fans everywhere. It had warriors and wizards in relative supply. It had the kind of epic scope one expected of a story drawn from world-building mythology. And it had Sandahl Bergman as the demonstration that even ‘Girl Power’ could flourish at a time when ladies weren’t exactly covered up as well as they are today.
So you might imagine our astonishment when a good deal of what made the Barbarian such a groundbreaking experience in Fantasy was followed up with a vastly more kid-friendly sequel, Conan The Destroyer (1984). Oh, all of the necessary ingredients were still there for screen greatness, but it was all watered down, made blander and more palatable for an audience that showed up wishing for a big, bloody body count. This time, the princess was a real child – 14-year-old Olivia d’Abo in her film debut – and the sidekick was an authentic wisecracker – Tracey Walter is about as miscast a prospect there ever was. The mythic backdrop was gone; and – in its place – basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain and shock artist Grace Jones rounded out the cast of a lukewarm quest that amounted to an obvious double-cross and some of the lamest fight choreography of cinema record.
What’s a barbarian have to do to get a little respect around here?
(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 …)
Of course, me and my buddies had to sneak into the theaters to do so; and I’m perfectly okay with admitting to having broken said law plenty of years after the statute of limitations has run out. (Erm … it has, right? Right?!?!) The first Conan had everything – and I do mean everything – that a fan of genre films could possible love. While it may not have been an entirely faithful adaptation of what creator Robert E. Howard intended (I’ve heard it was perhaps as often as I’ve heard it wasn’t), the motion picture still introduced Austrian strongman Arnold Schwarzenegger as the nomadic Cimmerian who went about seeking fame and fortune in the bygone era to the delight of Fantasy fans everywhere. It had warriors and wizards in relative supply. It had the kind of epic scope one expected of a story drawn from world-building mythology. And it had Sandahl Bergman as the demonstration that even ‘Girl Power’ could flourish at a time when ladies weren’t exactly covered up as well as they are today.
So you might imagine our astonishment when a good deal of what made the Barbarian such a groundbreaking experience in Fantasy was followed up with a vastly more kid-friendly sequel, Conan The Destroyer (1984). Oh, all of the necessary ingredients were still there for screen greatness, but it was all watered down, made blander and more palatable for an audience that showed up wishing for a big, bloody body count. This time, the princess was a real child – 14-year-old Olivia d’Abo in her film debut – and the sidekick was an authentic wisecracker – Tracey Walter is about as miscast a prospect there ever was. The mythic backdrop was gone; and – in its place – basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain and shock artist Grace Jones rounded out the cast of a lukewarm quest that amounted to an obvious double-cross and some of the lamest fight choreography of cinema record.
What’s a barbarian have to do to get a little respect around here?
(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:
“Conan leads a ragtag group of adventurers on a quest for a princess.”
Folks, it pains me to remember just how disappointed I was with Conan The Destroyer back in its heyday.
While the first adventure had a problem here or there (mostly in the way it dipped in predictable comic moments to lighten the obvious dark mood), Destroyer was a bit of a mess, never quite charting out the length and limits of Conan’s quest here but, instead, putting him on the path to resurrecting his beloved Valeria (seen briefly here – via a body double) as reward for kinda/sorta ushering in a New Age for Queen Taramis (played by Sarah Douglas). Precisely how the Conan of the first picture – who never cared for magic – determined to embrace its potential so strongly in the second picture never quite gets explained (in spite of suggesting he’s been blinded by love), so everything that transpires over the course of this 103-minute spectacle lacks the necessary foundation to give it authenticity. It’s a cheap, predictable adventure – especially so when even modestly compared to Arnold’s debut in the role – and I’ve read that the franchise was willingly thrown off the track by its producer, Hollywood heavyweight Dino De Laurentiis.
As best as I understand this story, De Laurentiis was a bit aghast once he saw a fully assembled Conan The Barbarian, finding the hero’s quest a bit too dark and gloomy for his likes. All of this theatrical rumination over blood and guts forced the producer to dismiss writer/director John Milius for the sequel, and screen veteran Richard Fleischer was hired in hopes that a follow-up would be vastly more mainstream. (Is there a more offensive word in the English language?) As a result, Conan could still go about his barbaric ways, but there’d be fewer beheadings, a stronger emphasis on love (as opposed to pure lustful eroticism), and PG-rated carnage.
Good grief.
This reviewer means no insult to Fleischer at all. The man is a legend in his own right, and he certainly kept the technical merits that helped imprint the original film on the psyches of young men around the world firmly in place. The sets, props, costumes, locations, etc. are all tonally consistent were you to watch these two films back-to-back; but there’s a greater supply of what I’ll call ‘camel spit’ to the sequel than ever should’ve been allowed. In fact, Malak (the aforementioned Walters) even recounts an event from the first film that he wasn’t even present to see, so one might come away from Destroyer damn confused as to how the sequel truly gave birth logically to such a misguided Part 2.
“Conan leads a ragtag group of adventurers on a quest for a princess.”
Folks, it pains me to remember just how disappointed I was with Conan The Destroyer back in its heyday.
While the first adventure had a problem here or there (mostly in the way it dipped in predictable comic moments to lighten the obvious dark mood), Destroyer was a bit of a mess, never quite charting out the length and limits of Conan’s quest here but, instead, putting him on the path to resurrecting his beloved Valeria (seen briefly here – via a body double) as reward for kinda/sorta ushering in a New Age for Queen Taramis (played by Sarah Douglas). Precisely how the Conan of the first picture – who never cared for magic – determined to embrace its potential so strongly in the second picture never quite gets explained (in spite of suggesting he’s been blinded by love), so everything that transpires over the course of this 103-minute spectacle lacks the necessary foundation to give it authenticity. It’s a cheap, predictable adventure – especially so when even modestly compared to Arnold’s debut in the role – and I’ve read that the franchise was willingly thrown off the track by its producer, Hollywood heavyweight Dino De Laurentiis.
As best as I understand this story, De Laurentiis was a bit aghast once he saw a fully assembled Conan The Barbarian, finding the hero’s quest a bit too dark and gloomy for his likes. All of this theatrical rumination over blood and guts forced the producer to dismiss writer/director John Milius for the sequel, and screen veteran Richard Fleischer was hired in hopes that a follow-up would be vastly more mainstream. (Is there a more offensive word in the English language?) As a result, Conan could still go about his barbaric ways, but there’d be fewer beheadings, a stronger emphasis on love (as opposed to pure lustful eroticism), and PG-rated carnage.
Good grief.
This reviewer means no insult to Fleischer at all. The man is a legend in his own right, and he certainly kept the technical merits that helped imprint the original film on the psyches of young men around the world firmly in place. The sets, props, costumes, locations, etc. are all tonally consistent were you to watch these two films back-to-back; but there’s a greater supply of what I’ll call ‘camel spit’ to the sequel than ever should’ve been allowed. In fact, Malak (the aforementioned Walters) even recounts an event from the first film that he wasn’t even present to see, so one might come away from Destroyer damn confused as to how the sequel truly gave birth logically to such a misguided Part 2.
Chamberlain visually makes for an admirable screen nemesis to Schwarzenegger, but the script credited to Roy Thomas, Gerry Conway, and Stanley Mann – never quit builds up enough substance to make their inevitable showdown as ‘inevitable’ as it should’ve been. Yes, they’re painted at odds, but there’s absolutely no functioning nuance to the relationship. There are few allusions to the how and why that these two muscular forces will eventually find themselves on the opposite sides of Cimmerian justice; and I have to wonder what – by Crom! – might’ve been left on the cutting room floor. At least, the first film got it right when scripters Oliver Stone and Milius charted out how Thulsa Doom and Conan were destined to meet over crossed swords (or thereabouts), but Destroyer’s plainness truly sacrificed greater context in favor of more laughs.
Equally wasted is the presence of genre superstar Sarah Douglas. At this point in her career, audiences had already seen the lady’s ability to chew scenery alongside Terence Stamp and Gene Hackman in Superman II (1980), so I – as one in that crowd – was aghast that she was given such an underwhelming creation to sink her teeth into as was Taramis. I have both heard and read that there were scenes trimmed from the movie that may’ve strengthened her power and control over the circumstances here; and – if this is the case – I’d say that was a sad miscalculation on the producer’s part. But when you hire a Thespian with Douglas’ skill, shouldn’t you at least give her something that displays were capabilities? Here, she’s an asset that just reaches a mark that could’ve been achieved by any actress of the day; and the script’s failure to utilize her effectively is an insult to both her and the viewers.
A great deal has been written about Grace Jones addition to the cast, and – for better or for worse – I suppose it’s safe to admit she does a fairly affable job with what she was given. Athletically, she looks similar to Bergman (from the first film); and I wonder if that isn’t part of what Fleischer was trying to do, riffing on a popular character with a race-swapped addition. But given what the story lays out for her in the story, she’s still short-changed in the second half by being a woman rather stereotypically frightened by a rat crawling near to her from across the room. (Again, I get the joke. I’m just saying it was stupid and in poor taste, unbefitting the measure of warrior seen in Fantasy.) The script does rather Progressively reward her in the last reel, granting her a position we’re told historically intended for a man, so kudos to Fleisher for being well ahead of the curve with his Feminism.
All that leaves us with is d’Abo.
Clearly, her fetching good looks were part of the package Fleischer likely expected when casting her in the role; and – as I’ve always, always, always contended – there’s nothing wrong with that. It isn’t sexist, folks; it’s merely a factual observation. (This is why Roseanne Barr wasn’t cast as the princess.) Given that this was her big screen debut, it’s also reasonable to point out that her acting chops were relatively young and still developing, so I’ll simply point out that she doesn’t always hit the right note, as they say. As a princess, I can only suppose audiences took to her in the way the production intended; though a bit flat in a few spots, I’d attribute any major discrepancies to some underdeveloped ideas of the writing as opposed to shackling those weaknesses to her. I think a great deal more effort should’ve been expended on making this one a bit more coherent – the ragtag band seems to go where the script intended as opposed to organically developing into a quest – but ‘good enough’ seemed to be the vibe sought … and, on that front, it’s ‘good enough.’
Equally wasted is the presence of genre superstar Sarah Douglas. At this point in her career, audiences had already seen the lady’s ability to chew scenery alongside Terence Stamp and Gene Hackman in Superman II (1980), so I – as one in that crowd – was aghast that she was given such an underwhelming creation to sink her teeth into as was Taramis. I have both heard and read that there were scenes trimmed from the movie that may’ve strengthened her power and control over the circumstances here; and – if this is the case – I’d say that was a sad miscalculation on the producer’s part. But when you hire a Thespian with Douglas’ skill, shouldn’t you at least give her something that displays were capabilities? Here, she’s an asset that just reaches a mark that could’ve been achieved by any actress of the day; and the script’s failure to utilize her effectively is an insult to both her and the viewers.
A great deal has been written about Grace Jones addition to the cast, and – for better or for worse – I suppose it’s safe to admit she does a fairly affable job with what she was given. Athletically, she looks similar to Bergman (from the first film); and I wonder if that isn’t part of what Fleischer was trying to do, riffing on a popular character with a race-swapped addition. But given what the story lays out for her in the story, she’s still short-changed in the second half by being a woman rather stereotypically frightened by a rat crawling near to her from across the room. (Again, I get the joke. I’m just saying it was stupid and in poor taste, unbefitting the measure of warrior seen in Fantasy.) The script does rather Progressively reward her in the last reel, granting her a position we’re told historically intended for a man, so kudos to Fleisher for being well ahead of the curve with his Feminism.
All that leaves us with is d’Abo.
Clearly, her fetching good looks were part of the package Fleischer likely expected when casting her in the role; and – as I’ve always, always, always contended – there’s nothing wrong with that. It isn’t sexist, folks; it’s merely a factual observation. (This is why Roseanne Barr wasn’t cast as the princess.) Given that this was her big screen debut, it’s also reasonable to point out that her acting chops were relatively young and still developing, so I’ll simply point out that she doesn’t always hit the right note, as they say. As a princess, I can only suppose audiences took to her in the way the production intended; though a bit flat in a few spots, I’d attribute any major discrepancies to some underdeveloped ideas of the writing as opposed to shackling those weaknesses to her. I think a great deal more effort should’ve been expended on making this one a bit more coherent – the ragtag band seems to go where the script intended as opposed to organically developing into a quest – but ‘good enough’ seemed to be the vibe sought … and, on that front, it’s ‘good enough.’
Conan The Destroyer (1984) was produced by the Dino De Laurentiis Company and Pressman Films. 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 that the sights-and-sounds to what’s reported as this all-new 4K Ultra HD release were nothing short of spectacular! Yes, there are a few sequences wherein there’s some obvious post-production special effects trickery going on, but – alas – there’s nothing that can be done about that. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, this is Arrow Films, and they do not disappoint. In fairness to them, I’m doing the respectable copy-and-paste from their issued press materials just so that you can get a full rundown of what’s available.
Special Features and Technical Specs:
Special Features and Technical Specs:
- BRAND NEW 4K RESTORATION from the original negative by Arrow Films
- DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM
- Newly restored original mono audio and remixed Dolby Atmos surround audio
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing
- Archive feature commentary by director Richard Fleischer
- Archive feature commentary by actors Olivia d'Abo and Tracey Walter
- Archive feature commentary by actor Sarah Douglas with genre historians Kim Newman & Stephen Jones
- Brand new feature commentary by genre historian Paul M. Sammon, author of Conan: The Phenomenon
- Newly assembled isolated score track in lossless stereo
- Casting the Destroyer, a newly filmed interview with casting director Johanna Ray
- Cut from a Different Cloth, a newly filmed interview with costume designer John Bloomfield
- Dune and the Destroyer, a newly filmed interview with art director Kevin Phipps
- Swords, Sorcery & Stunts, a newly filmed interview with stunt coordinator Vic Armstrong
- Behind the Destroyer, a newly filmed interview with John Walsh, author of Conan the Barbarian: The Official History of the Film
- Conan: The Making of a Comic Book Legend, an archive interview with writers Roy Thomas & Gerry Conway
- Basil Poledouris: Composing the Conan Saga, an archive interview with the composer
- Theatrical trailers
- Image gallery
- Double-sided fold-out poster
- Six double-sided collectors' postcards
- Illustrated collectors' booklet featuring new writing by Walter Chaw and John Walsh, and an archive set report by Paul M. Sammon
Also, folks, please keep in mind that yours truly was issued an industry copy from the distributor; as such, I’m not provided any of the add-alongs such as posters, limited edition artwork, postcards, etc. So I can’t speak to the efficacy of those items … but knowing what I do of Arrow’s efforts I can only suspect that they’re worth the investment.
Recommended.
Look, peeps: I’m not gonna mix words with anyone over my opinion of Conan The Destroyer (1984). There’s no disputing that it’s the inferior film in this franchise, and – quite frankly – a lot of that is owed to the fact that De Laurentiis wanted to go after a completely different audience as opposed to the one who showed up (to greater financial rewards) for the first one. The technical accomplishments of what Destroyer achieved are still damn impressive, but tonally this one is all over map, struggling with nailing down the proper balance between action and intrigue, drama and comedy, and myth and magic. The blemishes I saw in my first theatrical go’round with it are there; and yet the older and (goddam it) wiser film enthusiast discovered a new appreciation for it decades later. You’re all forgiven, cast and crew, but I still wanted more screen adventures of the seminal Cimmerian.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray screener copy of Conan The Destroyer (1984) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Recommended.
Look, peeps: I’m not gonna mix words with anyone over my opinion of Conan The Destroyer (1984). There’s no disputing that it’s the inferior film in this franchise, and – quite frankly – a lot of that is owed to the fact that De Laurentiis wanted to go after a completely different audience as opposed to the one who showed up (to greater financial rewards) for the first one. The technical accomplishments of what Destroyer achieved are still damn impressive, but tonally this one is all over map, struggling with nailing down the proper balance between action and intrigue, drama and comedy, and myth and magic. The blemishes I saw in my first theatrical go’round with it are there; and yet the older and (goddam it) wiser film enthusiast discovered a new appreciation for it decades later. You’re all forgiven, cast and crew, but I still wanted more screen adventures of the seminal Cimmerian.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray screener copy of Conan The Destroyer (1984) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Confession time: one of the reasons I don’t often write about my favorite films is that I don’t want to live in fear of spoiling the magic they bring me?
Does that make sense? In any given lifetime, each of us discovers a few handfuls of films that – for whatever reason – simply speak to us almost on a genetic level. They resonate. Some suggest that they transport us to nostalgically back to other eras of our lives, tapping something very deep in our psyche, and the process results in bringing us great joy. I’ve always argued that this isn’t always the case – for example, I’m old but not old enough to have experienced The Maltese Falcon (1941), Citizen Kane (1941), or Casablanca (1942) in their original theatrical runs – but there’s still something to be said for uncorking memories of earlier places, earlier faces, or earlier times. Consequently, critiquing a motion picture that transcends the ordinary is risky: if you look too closely at the sun, then you’ll likely go blind, and that’s just not a risk I take lightly.
But as I’ve gotten older (not wiser, mind you), I have grown far more capable of suppressing that latent but natural human instinct to almost protect these older flicks maternally from scrutiny. I’m far more willing to look a bit more closely – even listen a bit more closely – to try to diagnose not so much why the beating clock ticks but how it does more loudly, more reverently, or more distinctly than do other projects. Today, I can set aside my biases to see not only the good, the bad, and the ugly in a film as groundbreaking as John Milius’ Conan The Barbarian (1982) but also to offer up some substantive observations about why it echoes so stridently with so many who found it mesmerizing back then and still so today over four decades later.
Far from a perfect film, this Conan is still a perfect example of how big screen Fantasy should look, sound, feel, and function if the goal is to have audiences take the subject matter seriously.
(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 …)
Does that make sense? In any given lifetime, each of us discovers a few handfuls of films that – for whatever reason – simply speak to us almost on a genetic level. They resonate. Some suggest that they transport us to nostalgically back to other eras of our lives, tapping something very deep in our psyche, and the process results in bringing us great joy. I’ve always argued that this isn’t always the case – for example, I’m old but not old enough to have experienced The Maltese Falcon (1941), Citizen Kane (1941), or Casablanca (1942) in their original theatrical runs – but there’s still something to be said for uncorking memories of earlier places, earlier faces, or earlier times. Consequently, critiquing a motion picture that transcends the ordinary is risky: if you look too closely at the sun, then you’ll likely go blind, and that’s just not a risk I take lightly.
But as I’ve gotten older (not wiser, mind you), I have grown far more capable of suppressing that latent but natural human instinct to almost protect these older flicks maternally from scrutiny. I’m far more willing to look a bit more closely – even listen a bit more closely – to try to diagnose not so much why the beating clock ticks but how it does more loudly, more reverently, or more distinctly than do other projects. Today, I can set aside my biases to see not only the good, the bad, and the ugly in a film as groundbreaking as John Milius’ Conan The Barbarian (1982) but also to offer up some substantive observations about why it echoes so stridently with so many who found it mesmerizing back then and still so today over four decades later.
Far from a perfect film, this Conan is still a perfect example of how big screen Fantasy should look, sound, feel, and function if the goal is to have audiences take the subject matter seriously.
(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 young boy, Conan, becomes a slave after his parents are killed and his tribe destroyed by a ruthless warlord and sorcerer, Thulsa Doom. When he grows up, he becomes a fearless, invincible fighter. Set free, he plots revenge against Thulsa Doom.”
Author Robert E. Howard certainly led an intensely troubled existence.
While I don’t see the need to recap the highs and lows of the man’s reasonably short life (he committed suicide at age 30 due to what’s been suggested as a variety of circumstances not the least of which may’ve been his mental health), I’ve always thought that he likely used writing as the ultimate escape from those influences that troubled his days and nights. He realized his talent and desire to craft stories when he was very young; and – as the years wore on – he dabbled in a variety of genres much in the same way that the pulp publishers of the day would flex, change, and expand as new readerships were properly wooed into the marketplace. Eventually, he learned that he could make it his life’s pursuit, and he practically leapt into such an opportunity headfirst. He’s often credited with having created the ‘Swords and Sorcery’ genre, so it’s only natural that – when Hollywood decided to tap that vein for theatrical incarnations – Howard’s seminal creation Conan was at the top of their list.
Now – again, I’m not trying to court controversy here, folks, and I’m just trying to convey a few facts – Howard purists might argue that Conan’s story as presented in the 1982 picture isn’t entirely accurate. I’ve read that the origins as depicted on film tie much more closely to another Howard creation – Kull of Atlantis – but having not read the stories I can’t attest to that accuracy. Whatever the case may be, I think it’s fitting that screenwriter Oliver Stone (who penned the first draft) clearly used Howard’s original ideas from whatever character in order to strive for a level of authenticity in bringing the Hyborian Age to the silver screen. Though Stone’s initial idea was to transport Conan to the world of the future – millennia after Earth had fallen into disarray – Milius boarded the project and refocused the narrative into the distant past; and the rest – as they say – is history.
As a boy, Conan watches in abject horror as his parents are violently struck down by the command of Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones). Conscripted into slavery, the youth grows into a man (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and he quickly becomes both revered and feared for his abilities in the combat arena. Eventually, he is freed by his master, at which time he embarks on a campaign of adventures until he is hired by King Osric (Max Von Sydow) to rescue his daughter (Valérie Quennessen) from the control of Doom’s dark magic, a mission that will also give the barbarian his chance for revenge.
“A young boy, Conan, becomes a slave after his parents are killed and his tribe destroyed by a ruthless warlord and sorcerer, Thulsa Doom. When he grows up, he becomes a fearless, invincible fighter. Set free, he plots revenge against Thulsa Doom.”
Author Robert E. Howard certainly led an intensely troubled existence.
While I don’t see the need to recap the highs and lows of the man’s reasonably short life (he committed suicide at age 30 due to what’s been suggested as a variety of circumstances not the least of which may’ve been his mental health), I’ve always thought that he likely used writing as the ultimate escape from those influences that troubled his days and nights. He realized his talent and desire to craft stories when he was very young; and – as the years wore on – he dabbled in a variety of genres much in the same way that the pulp publishers of the day would flex, change, and expand as new readerships were properly wooed into the marketplace. Eventually, he learned that he could make it his life’s pursuit, and he practically leapt into such an opportunity headfirst. He’s often credited with having created the ‘Swords and Sorcery’ genre, so it’s only natural that – when Hollywood decided to tap that vein for theatrical incarnations – Howard’s seminal creation Conan was at the top of their list.
Now – again, I’m not trying to court controversy here, folks, and I’m just trying to convey a few facts – Howard purists might argue that Conan’s story as presented in the 1982 picture isn’t entirely accurate. I’ve read that the origins as depicted on film tie much more closely to another Howard creation – Kull of Atlantis – but having not read the stories I can’t attest to that accuracy. Whatever the case may be, I think it’s fitting that screenwriter Oliver Stone (who penned the first draft) clearly used Howard’s original ideas from whatever character in order to strive for a level of authenticity in bringing the Hyborian Age to the silver screen. Though Stone’s initial idea was to transport Conan to the world of the future – millennia after Earth had fallen into disarray – Milius boarded the project and refocused the narrative into the distant past; and the rest – as they say – is history.
As a boy, Conan watches in abject horror as his parents are violently struck down by the command of Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones). Conscripted into slavery, the youth grows into a man (Arnold Schwarzenegger), and he quickly becomes both revered and feared for his abilities in the combat arena. Eventually, he is freed by his master, at which time he embarks on a campaign of adventures until he is hired by King Osric (Max Von Sydow) to rescue his daughter (Valérie Quennessen) from the control of Doom’s dark magic, a mission that will also give the barbarian his chance for revenge.
Thankfully, the script for Conan delivered the character with a proper origins-style story as well as setting the mythic strongman out on a hero’s journey. While there isn’t a great deal of investment along the way in recounting the man’s personal quest, the film still squeezes in a proper sprinkling of obvious suggestions that Doom and his collaborators remain fertile in his mind. I do think that the picture could’ve used, perhaps, a significant monologue scene wherein the character could’ve laid out – with some specificity – all of the particulars; and yet the lack of one never impedes the resulting forward progress. It’s pretty clear what’s in store for Doom once these two are reunited, and I’m not entirely certain that Schwarzenegger – at this point rather early in his acting career – could’ve convincingly delivered such a speech anyway. (No insult intended; just being honest.)
In fact, one might even see a bit of genius on Milius’ part for keeping such a scene away from the barbarian.
Doom – as an adversary – isn’t exactly a heavyweight big on words, but he does have a sequence or two wherein he recounts a bit of villainous philosophy for life. While he probably accomplishes far more with his menacing eye contact, Doom isn’t exactly ever shown as a man of action, definitely not in the same fashion as is Conan. Schwarzenegger gets into the sweaty mix of things, muscling his way through everything the script throws his way. In contrast, Doom employs a veritable army of thugs, whores, and priests to accomplish his bidding, only opting to finally get his hands dirty when and if he feels it completely necessary. He does – in the beginning – with the beheading of Conan’s mother (the German actress Nadiuska) – every son’s true first love – and again toward the big finish in firing the snake/arrow that robs the barbarian of Valeria (Sandahl Bergman), his chosen mate.
However, there’s something wonderful poetic about Conan – one of literature’s greatest thieves and plunderers – being spurred to action in his first feature film by being the victim of theft itself. Stone and Milius’ script sees the mortal man as less than whole because of the stealing of the signature women of his existence. Had his mother survived, the boy still may’ve learned the ways of the warrior, but he quite probably would not have grown up with such nomadic tendencies. Similarly, had Valeria lived, perhaps Conan would’ve realized that true love was a strong enough prospect for him to settle down, raise a few children, and enjoy a life of respectable solitude. Instead – for better or for worse – theft both spurs and consumes his very existence, a grim reality that threatens to remain his only constant until his end of days as he’s pictured – in flashforward – sitting in silence all alone on his eventual throne.
In fact, one might even see a bit of genius on Milius’ part for keeping such a scene away from the barbarian.
Doom – as an adversary – isn’t exactly a heavyweight big on words, but he does have a sequence or two wherein he recounts a bit of villainous philosophy for life. While he probably accomplishes far more with his menacing eye contact, Doom isn’t exactly ever shown as a man of action, definitely not in the same fashion as is Conan. Schwarzenegger gets into the sweaty mix of things, muscling his way through everything the script throws his way. In contrast, Doom employs a veritable army of thugs, whores, and priests to accomplish his bidding, only opting to finally get his hands dirty when and if he feels it completely necessary. He does – in the beginning – with the beheading of Conan’s mother (the German actress Nadiuska) – every son’s true first love – and again toward the big finish in firing the snake/arrow that robs the barbarian of Valeria (Sandahl Bergman), his chosen mate.
However, there’s something wonderful poetic about Conan – one of literature’s greatest thieves and plunderers – being spurred to action in his first feature film by being the victim of theft itself. Stone and Milius’ script sees the mortal man as less than whole because of the stealing of the signature women of his existence. Had his mother survived, the boy still may’ve learned the ways of the warrior, but he quite probably would not have grown up with such nomadic tendencies. Similarly, had Valeria lived, perhaps Conan would’ve realized that true love was a strong enough prospect for him to settle down, raise a few children, and enjoy a life of respectable solitude. Instead – for better or for worse – theft both spurs and consumes his very existence, a grim reality that threatens to remain his only constant until his end of days as he’s pictured – in flashforward – sitting in silence all alone on his eventual throne.
Fortunately, the script stayed mostly light on dialogue for ‘the muscles from Brussels,’ and Conan never really says anything more than is rationally required at any point in the film. Bergman – also reasonably new to acting – gets a bit more mileage out of her lines, though she’s also never given any real speeches of significance. Gerry Lopez plays Subotai, a companion and sidekick who makes the duo a threesome (not in the sexual way, thank goodness); and the actor delivers mostly lighthearted secondary notes that give the story a bit of additional flavor. Screen legend Mako shows up in the second half as an unnamed wizard who rounds out the crew as a somewhat mystical influence; he spouts his lines as if they have great importance but is often reduced to laughter as a result of his exaggerated performance. The four make for a great team in the stand against evil, but no quest is ever undertaken without consequence, meaning not everyone will see the light of day come the picture’s finish.
What gives Conan The Barbarian – as a motion picture – its greatest asset is the fact that Milius treats the material as if its swords and sorcery gospel. This is big and bold mythmaking – almost as big and bold as it ever cinematic Fantasy ever got – and that shows with every scene and sequence in the two-hour-plus runtime. Whereas it became fairly common with pictures emerging in the wake of Conan’s success (and, incidentally, even its vastly inferior popcorn sequel Conan The Destroyer) to introduce far more levity and general goofiness, the first outing avoids camp, period kitsch, and pratfalls that, sadly, become part of the formula only a year or two later. Perhaps this is why that even to this day Conan’s most ardent and faithful supporters point back to this film as being as important for Fantasy as is Howard’s first publications: there’s an aura of respect and admiration to its raw potential that remains unmatched ever since, and maybe we’ll never quite see again.
None of this is meant to dismiss any shortcomings I have with the project.
Tonally, I’d agree that it stays on track most of the time, but there are scenes here and there that just don’t work. For example, a segment that displays the Conan crew’s descent into thieving gluttony that has the exhausted barbarian falling face-first into a bowl of gruel … and, sigh, I could’ve done without the obvious, cheap laugh. Conan punches a camel in its face at another point – a screen bit that drew the ire of animal rights activists – and, again, it feels like a lowbrow attempt to muster up a snicker from audiences here and there. The stark realism of a barbarian’s life gets a bit supernatural in the last reel when the fallen Valeria returns from the beyond to save her betrothed when he needs assistance most; and, yes, I realize this isn’t an uncommon occurrence in Fantasy, but it still felt a bit too staged for my liking. Love conquers all, true, but … I mean … come on! How about a little nuance, Milius?
What gives Conan The Barbarian – as a motion picture – its greatest asset is the fact that Milius treats the material as if its swords and sorcery gospel. This is big and bold mythmaking – almost as big and bold as it ever cinematic Fantasy ever got – and that shows with every scene and sequence in the two-hour-plus runtime. Whereas it became fairly common with pictures emerging in the wake of Conan’s success (and, incidentally, even its vastly inferior popcorn sequel Conan The Destroyer) to introduce far more levity and general goofiness, the first outing avoids camp, period kitsch, and pratfalls that, sadly, become part of the formula only a year or two later. Perhaps this is why that even to this day Conan’s most ardent and faithful supporters point back to this film as being as important for Fantasy as is Howard’s first publications: there’s an aura of respect and admiration to its raw potential that remains unmatched ever since, and maybe we’ll never quite see again.
None of this is meant to dismiss any shortcomings I have with the project.
Tonally, I’d agree that it stays on track most of the time, but there are scenes here and there that just don’t work. For example, a segment that displays the Conan crew’s descent into thieving gluttony that has the exhausted barbarian falling face-first into a bowl of gruel … and, sigh, I could’ve done without the obvious, cheap laugh. Conan punches a camel in its face at another point – a screen bit that drew the ire of animal rights activists – and, again, it feels like a lowbrow attempt to muster up a snicker from audiences here and there. The stark realism of a barbarian’s life gets a bit supernatural in the last reel when the fallen Valeria returns from the beyond to save her betrothed when he needs assistance most; and, yes, I realize this isn’t an uncommon occurrence in Fantasy, but it still felt a bit too staged for my liking. Love conquers all, true, but … I mean … come on! How about a little nuance, Milius?
Nonetheless, I still agree with those who sing Conan’s praises, and it isn’t hard to see how the studio launched this cinematic campaign with the intent to capture a five-flick saga for one of Fantasy’s biggest names. Sadly, the franchise largely fell apart after its sequel pretty much ground momentum and audience goodwill to a halt, forcing producers to turn their sights in a completely different direction – with a completely different character – leaving the Conan chronicle largely ignored for too, too, too long a time. Fans were given some TV iterations and inspirations to whet their appetite, but nothing – and I do mean nothing – ever approached the stature of the original … and that’s where it remains until this day.
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties as a genre historian if I failed to mention that Conan definitely turned heads as well as lopping off a few for good measure. Actress Bergman took home the 1983 Golden Globes Award in the category of ‘New Star Of The Year In A Motion Picture – Female’ for her efforts; and she also cornered the critical market with a 1983 Saturn Award in the category of ‘Best Actress.’ The picture itself also garnered such Saturn Award nominations as ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Costumes,’ ‘Best Music,’ and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ It was clear that Fantasy emerged in a big way, and audiences remained hungry for more over several years.
Conan The Barbarian (1982) was produced by the Dino De Laurentiis Company and Pressman Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this reported brand new 4K remastering to be nothing short of phenomenal: this is an incredible cinematic experience, and I’m thrilled to report that it’s never looked better. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Friends, this is Arrow Films, and they rarely disappoint. I’m doing the faithful copy-and-paste below:
Special Features and Techncial Specs:
DISC ONE - 4K BLU-RAY
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties as a genre historian if I failed to mention that Conan definitely turned heads as well as lopping off a few for good measure. Actress Bergman took home the 1983 Golden Globes Award in the category of ‘New Star Of The Year In A Motion Picture – Female’ for her efforts; and she also cornered the critical market with a 1983 Saturn Award in the category of ‘Best Actress.’ The picture itself also garnered such Saturn Award nominations as ‘Best Make-Up,’ ‘Best Costumes,’ ‘Best Music,’ and ‘Best Fantasy Film.’ It was clear that Fantasy emerged in a big way, and audiences remained hungry for more over several years.
Conan The Barbarian (1982) was produced by the Dino De Laurentiis Company and Pressman Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this reported brand new 4K remastering to be nothing short of phenomenal: this is an incredible cinematic experience, and I’m thrilled to report that it’s never looked better. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Friends, this is Arrow Films, and they rarely disappoint. I’m doing the faithful copy-and-paste below:
Special Features and Techncial Specs:
DISC ONE - 4K BLU-RAY
- BRAND NEW 4K RESTORATION from the original negative by Arrow Films
- DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION of three versions of the film via seamless branching: the Theatrical Cut (127 mins), the International Cut (129 mins) and the Extended Cut (130 mins)
- Newly restored original mono audio and remixed Dolby Atmos surround audio on all three cuts
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard-of-hearing on all three cuts
- Archive feature commentary by director John Milius and star Arnold Schwarzenegger (Extended Cut only)
- Brand new feature commentary by genre historian Paul M. Sammon, author of Conan: The Phenomenon (Extended Cut only)
- Newly assembled isolated score track in lossless stereo (Extended Cut only)
DISC TWO - EXTRAS (BLU-RAY)
Highest recommendation possible.
Sadly, it just doesn’t get any better than this when you’re considering bare bones, pre-CGI Fantasy storytelling … and that’s perhaps the most important reason to enjoy Conan The Barbarian (1982) in this package: there’s just nothing else quite like it, nor will there be, ever. Along with the actors, the artisans and craftsmen who made this picture one of the definitive theatrical experiences of its day need to be celebrated again and again so that their contributions won’t be lost to history. While the genre went in a more family-friendly direction after this, this Barbarian was brash, bloody, and brutish just the way I think creators intended, and there’s no way to discount this one’s legacy even with the passage of time. It’s a veritable masterpiece, and it deserves to be a part of any genre fan’s collection.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD screener copy of Conan The Barbarian (1982) 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
- Conan Unchained: The Making of Conan, an archive documentary from 2000 featuring interviews with Schwarzenegger, Milius, Stone, Jones, Lopez, Bergman, Poledouris and several others
- Designing Conan, a newly filmed interview with production artist William Stout
- Costuming Conan, a newly filmed interview with costume designer John Bloomfield
- Barbaric Effects, a newly filmed interview with special effects crew members Colin Arthur and Ron Hone
- Young Conan, a newly filmed interview with actor Jorge Sanz
- Conan & The Priest, a newly filmed interview with actor Jack Taylor
- Cutting the Barbarian, a newly filmed interview with assistant editor Peck Prior
- Crafting Conan's Magic, a newly filmed interview with visual effects crew members Peter Kuran and Katherine Kean
- Barbarians and Northmen, a newly filmed interview with filmmaker Robert Eggers on the film's influence on The Northman
- Behind the Barbarian, a newly filmed interview with John Walsh, author of Conan the Barbarian: The Official History of the Film
- A Line in the Sand, a newly filmed interview with Alfio Leotta, author of The Cinema of John Milius
- Conan: The Rise of a Fantasy Legend, an archive featurette on the film's literary and comic book roots
- Art of Steel: Sword Makers & Masters, an archive interview with sword master Kiyoshi Yamasaki
- Conan: From the Vault, an archive compilation of on-set cast and crew interviews
- A Tribute to Basil Poledouris, a series of videos produced by the Úbeda Film Music Festival, including video of Poledouris conducting a concert of music from the film in 2006 (remixed in 5.1 surround) and interviews with collaborators such as Paul Verhoeven and Randal Kleiser
- Rarely-seen electronic press kit from 1982, featuring over half an hour of on-set footage and cast and crew interviews (from a watermarked tape source)
- Outtakes, including a deleted cameo by Milius
- Split-screen "Valeria Battles Spirits" visual effects comparison
- Conan: The Archives, a gallery of photos and production images from 2000
- Conan the Barbarian: The Musical, an affectionate comic tribute to the film by Jon & Al Kaplan
- US and International teaser and theatrical trailers
- Image gallery
- Double-sided fold-out poster
- Six double-sided collectors' postcards
- Illustrated collectors' booklet featuring new writing by Walter Chaw and John Walsh, and an archive set report by Paul M. Sammon
Highest recommendation possible.
Sadly, it just doesn’t get any better than this when you’re considering bare bones, pre-CGI Fantasy storytelling … and that’s perhaps the most important reason to enjoy Conan The Barbarian (1982) in this package: there’s just nothing else quite like it, nor will there be, ever. Along with the actors, the artisans and craftsmen who made this picture one of the definitive theatrical experiences of its day need to be celebrated again and again so that their contributions won’t be lost to history. While the genre went in a more family-friendly direction after this, this Barbarian was brash, bloody, and brutish just the way I think creators intended, and there’s no way to discount this one’s legacy even with the passage of time. It’s a veritable masterpiece, and it deserves to be a part of any genre fan’s collection.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD screener copy of Conan The Barbarian (1982) 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 Thursday, January 11, 2024. This is your steward of All Things Genre hoping that your week is progressing nicely, but now let's take a brief timeout to enjoy a quick look into the realms of the Fantastic.
You know, I mentioned the other day that I made my way through an all-new 4K release of Conan The Barbarian (1982) -- for which I'm working on a review -- and just last night I screened its counterpart, Conan The Destroyer (1984), as part of this new collection from Arrow Films. (Kudos to my distributor friend who provided me with copies.) It's funny how, tonally, the two flicks almost feel like night and day: while crafted in the same cinematic universe, they only superficially resemble one another, so much so that I think it's rather obvious that Destroyer really ground the film franchise to a halt so very quickly. It isn't that it's a bad film; it's just that when stacked as a follow-up to the vastly superior original (in so many ways), one might ask "Why?" Why derail what could've truly been an incredible theatrical legacy.
Don't fret: I'll save the really good observations for my respective reviews. But I can't even begin to put into words my frustration with how Hollywood does this, how they creatively tank what could be the prospects for some truly intelligent world-building all because the producer wanted to wider the audience pool in hopes of making a few more bucks in profit. The truth is that the Golden Goose was slaughtered; and ticket buyers went elsewhere for their Fantasy needs. While some have christened the 1980's as the Golden Era of Fantasy films, I find it rather telling that the studios both built and killed it in so short a time. Wow. What a misstep.
Sorry for the sermon, peeps. Some mornings, it's all I can do to stay sane!
The sentiments are very close, however, to what's going on right now with the Star Wars and Star Trek properties; and that's mostly why I brought it up. Star Wars -- under Kathleen Kennedy's stewardship -- has really gone off-the-rails stupid, and the attempts to (cough cough) refashion it into some kind of Social Justice Juggernaut might have damaged it beyond repair at this point. The same could be said for Star Trek, given the fact that it veered so very quickly into pushing political ideology over simply merely discussing it the way previous incarnations did. All a reasonable person need do is even glance in the direction of the long-running Doctor Who to see that identity issues tarnish the goodwill built with audiences, forcing them to go elsewhere for their entertainment needs.
Wow. Has Science Fiction and Fantasy ever been in a worse situation than the present?
I know, I know, I know: a good many of you come here precisely because I do try to avoid these discussion. Still, as I've said more and more as of late, you can't separate entertainment from the culture of politics because these producers and storytellers are inserted these issues front-and-center. Long gone is the day when equity was something central to mainstream fare; now you can't turn on the tube without a steady drip-drip-drip of propaganda ... and I think that's very sad.
You know, I mentioned the other day that I made my way through an all-new 4K release of Conan The Barbarian (1982) -- for which I'm working on a review -- and just last night I screened its counterpart, Conan The Destroyer (1984), as part of this new collection from Arrow Films. (Kudos to my distributor friend who provided me with copies.) It's funny how, tonally, the two flicks almost feel like night and day: while crafted in the same cinematic universe, they only superficially resemble one another, so much so that I think it's rather obvious that Destroyer really ground the film franchise to a halt so very quickly. It isn't that it's a bad film; it's just that when stacked as a follow-up to the vastly superior original (in so many ways), one might ask "Why?" Why derail what could've truly been an incredible theatrical legacy.
Don't fret: I'll save the really good observations for my respective reviews. But I can't even begin to put into words my frustration with how Hollywood does this, how they creatively tank what could be the prospects for some truly intelligent world-building all because the producer wanted to wider the audience pool in hopes of making a few more bucks in profit. The truth is that the Golden Goose was slaughtered; and ticket buyers went elsewhere for their Fantasy needs. While some have christened the 1980's as the Golden Era of Fantasy films, I find it rather telling that the studios both built and killed it in so short a time. Wow. What a misstep.
Sorry for the sermon, peeps. Some mornings, it's all I can do to stay sane!
The sentiments are very close, however, to what's going on right now with the Star Wars and Star Trek properties; and that's mostly why I brought it up. Star Wars -- under Kathleen Kennedy's stewardship -- has really gone off-the-rails stupid, and the attempts to (cough cough) refashion it into some kind of Social Justice Juggernaut might have damaged it beyond repair at this point. The same could be said for Star Trek, given the fact that it veered so very quickly into pushing political ideology over simply merely discussing it the way previous incarnations did. All a reasonable person need do is even glance in the direction of the long-running Doctor Who to see that identity issues tarnish the goodwill built with audiences, forcing them to go elsewhere for their entertainment needs.
Wow. Has Science Fiction and Fantasy ever been in a worse situation than the present?
I know, I know, I know: a good many of you come here precisely because I do try to avoid these discussion. Still, as I've said more and more as of late, you can't separate entertainment from the culture of politics because these producers and storytellers are inserted these issues front-and-center. Long gone is the day when equity was something central to mainstream fare; now you can't turn on the tube without a steady drip-drip-drip of propaganda ... and I think that's very sad.
The deeds of one Carl Kolchak -- as brought to life on television by character actor Darren McGavin -- inspired an entire generation of viewers and storytellers to turn their sights toward things that go bump in the night; and many don't know that the franchise actually began life as not one but two popular telefilms introducing this crack reporter to the world of entertainment. In fact, I've read that these original telefilms were rather widely praised in their time, so it was only natural that the property get dusted off quickly and put into serial format. I've seen the flicks (on DVD) as well as a few episodes of the single season show, and it's easy to see the influence it had on Chris Carter, the man behind Fox TV's enduring The X-Files.
Think I'm alone in my assessment?
Well, the original film took home a much-deserved Edgar Allan Poe Awards' trophy in the category of 'Best Television Feature Or Miniseries' for good measure.
Still not convinced?
Well, how about the fact that a 2019 DVD release of this original film enjoyed a Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best DVD/Blu-ray Television Movie Or Series Release'? Think that would happen in a vacuum?
Seriously, if I haven't convinced you yet, then I likely never will. But I do encourage those of you who like something a bit older to check out Kolchak. It's a wonderful IP that gets kicked around for retooling from time-to-time.
Think I'm alone in my assessment?
Well, the original film took home a much-deserved Edgar Allan Poe Awards' trophy in the category of 'Best Television Feature Or Miniseries' for good measure.
Still not convinced?
Well, how about the fact that a 2019 DVD release of this original film enjoyed a Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best DVD/Blu-ray Television Movie Or Series Release'? Think that would happen in a vacuum?
Seriously, if I haven't convinced you yet, then I likely never will. But I do encourage those of you who like something a bit older to check out Kolchak. It's a wonderful IP that gets kicked around for retooling from time-to-time.
Of course, that isn't all that today should be celebrated for; and -- as par for the course -- I've included a wealth of other tidbits and trivia worthy of your attention on the proper Daily Citation Page. You're all encouraged to check it out; and -- as time permits -- I might even craft a few additions to the day.
Here's what you're truly looking for ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, word has just reached the SciFiHistory.Net news desk of writer/producer Tracy Tormé's passing.
Again, Tormé's name might not exactly be a household name amongst a lot of fandom, but it's definitely one that I think a good number of serious Science Fiction and Fantasy enthusiasts might recognize. While having penned or edited scripts for such genre properties as Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Big Goodbye," "Skin Of Evil," The Neutral Zone") and The Outer Limits, Tormé should be chiefly acknowledged for bringing Sliders to life on television for fans of the parallel worlds saga. He also provided scripts for Spellbinder (1988), Fire In The Sky (1993), Odyssey 5, and Carnivale.
In 1994, the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films extended to him a Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best Writing.' His script adapted the Travis Walton abduction case for the silver screen, a project that earned three additional nominations in the categories of 'Best Music' (Mark Isham), 'Best Actor' (Robert Patrick), and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
While some may not find this little item of trivia germane, I still find it worth passing along that Tormé in cited on IMDB.com as being one of the leading UFOlogists in Hollywood, no small feat, indeed. I believe I once even heard Torme interviewed and discussing the phenomenon in an installment of the popular syndicated talk show Coast To Coast sometime in the early 2000's. His was an interesting perspective that I wish more behind-the-scenes shared especially as it relates to the ongoing study of life out there; such willingness to, at least, consider other prospects certainly helped fuel a great deal of the man's writing, and that's been a huge plus for fans.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Tormé.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
Again, Tormé's name might not exactly be a household name amongst a lot of fandom, but it's definitely one that I think a good number of serious Science Fiction and Fantasy enthusiasts might recognize. While having penned or edited scripts for such genre properties as Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Big Goodbye," "Skin Of Evil," The Neutral Zone") and The Outer Limits, Tormé should be chiefly acknowledged for bringing Sliders to life on television for fans of the parallel worlds saga. He also provided scripts for Spellbinder (1988), Fire In The Sky (1993), Odyssey 5, and Carnivale.
In 1994, the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films extended to him a Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best Writing.' His script adapted the Travis Walton abduction case for the silver screen, a project that earned three additional nominations in the categories of 'Best Music' (Mark Isham), 'Best Actor' (Robert Patrick), and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
While some may not find this little item of trivia germane, I still find it worth passing along that Tormé in cited on IMDB.com as being one of the leading UFOlogists in Hollywood, no small feat, indeed. I believe I once even heard Torme interviewed and discussing the phenomenon in an installment of the popular syndicated talk show Coast To Coast sometime in the early 2000's. His was an interesting perspective that I wish more behind-the-scenes shared especially as it relates to the ongoing study of life out there; such willingness to, at least, consider other prospects certainly helped fuel a great deal of the man's writing, and that's been a huge plus for fans.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Tormé.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to ... Hump Day! That's right, folks: it's midweek once again, and that also means that the weekend is in sight once more! Look for those silver linings whenever they're out there, and find the strength to push onward again!
Ahhhh ... what's up, friends?
Not a lot to report casually this morning. I have some volunteer work later this morning, so I'll be away from the blog for some time. (Apologies, but it is what it is.) And the news desk is a bit slim today -- at least, thus far, it is -- so I've nada new to report on that front. I can tell you that last night I enjoyed the International Cut of 1982's Conan The Barbarian compliments of Arrow Films. It's an all-new 4K restoration slated for release at the end of this month (January), and I received a complimentary copy via a distributor. I'll be penning a review shortly -- likely not today -- but it looks grand, folks. It probably hasn't looked this good since its first airing on the big screen. Watch this space, and you'll see my comments up in the lights soon.
Now, I did get an email question wondering on my two cents regarding yesterday's announcement of a forthcoming Star Wars movie regarding the Mandolorian; and -- no, no, and no -- I'll not be penning a column on that.
Honestly, folks, it seems like the Mouse House and Lucasfilm are trying to distract a wee bit from the catastrophies of their own making. Didn't we hear not all that long ago the rumors that Mando Season 4 was being reworked into a motion picture? Seems to me that was the chitchat on the Information Superhighway. Well, why not hold on making that announcement official until they needed some potentially positive press? The whole Sharmeen whatever her name is comes along, upsets fandom, and boom! Let's distract the masses with a little something different, eh? No, folks: so long as Kathleen Kennedy is at the helm, I'm not really looking for a Mando movie. Remember how she pretty much tanked the series? Why do we think a big screen outing could be any different? Have we already forgotten how awful Season 3 was? Geesh. No. I'm not really all that interested in announcements: Lucasfilm have announced plenty of new Star Wars films that haven't seen the light of day, so I'll wait to buy my popcorn at the theater.
Today, there's also a lot of web chitchat focused on an interview Daisy Ridley did wherein she confessed to a media pundit that she cried over how bad she personally thought her work was in The Force Awakens. I've politely pointed out that this is a kinda/sorta surprising confession as she and John Boyega and Oscar Isaac are all on record as being pretty pleased with what they did in Star Wars on previous press tours, so 'color me cynical' if I question why Ms. Ridley's saying this now. (No, no, no: I'm not implying she's lying.) Self doubt goes hand-in-hand with the acting profession. Some might argue it's what helps push talent to greater heights, even. I'm just suspicious as to how and why this is permeating the World Wide Web the very day AFTER an announcement about a Star Wars film she'll likely be no part of.
Strange timing, don't you think? Almost like Kathleen Kennedy wants you to know that she's still out there, and that Rey movie -- the one that's been greeted with some controversy over Sharmeen's comments -- is still getting made?
Well, what do I know? I'm just a blogger.
Ahhhh ... what's up, friends?
Not a lot to report casually this morning. I have some volunteer work later this morning, so I'll be away from the blog for some time. (Apologies, but it is what it is.) And the news desk is a bit slim today -- at least, thus far, it is -- so I've nada new to report on that front. I can tell you that last night I enjoyed the International Cut of 1982's Conan The Barbarian compliments of Arrow Films. It's an all-new 4K restoration slated for release at the end of this month (January), and I received a complimentary copy via a distributor. I'll be penning a review shortly -- likely not today -- but it looks grand, folks. It probably hasn't looked this good since its first airing on the big screen. Watch this space, and you'll see my comments up in the lights soon.
Now, I did get an email question wondering on my two cents regarding yesterday's announcement of a forthcoming Star Wars movie regarding the Mandolorian; and -- no, no, and no -- I'll not be penning a column on that.
Honestly, folks, it seems like the Mouse House and Lucasfilm are trying to distract a wee bit from the catastrophies of their own making. Didn't we hear not all that long ago the rumors that Mando Season 4 was being reworked into a motion picture? Seems to me that was the chitchat on the Information Superhighway. Well, why not hold on making that announcement official until they needed some potentially positive press? The whole Sharmeen whatever her name is comes along, upsets fandom, and boom! Let's distract the masses with a little something different, eh? No, folks: so long as Kathleen Kennedy is at the helm, I'm not really looking for a Mando movie. Remember how she pretty much tanked the series? Why do we think a big screen outing could be any different? Have we already forgotten how awful Season 3 was? Geesh. No. I'm not really all that interested in announcements: Lucasfilm have announced plenty of new Star Wars films that haven't seen the light of day, so I'll wait to buy my popcorn at the theater.
Today, there's also a lot of web chitchat focused on an interview Daisy Ridley did wherein she confessed to a media pundit that she cried over how bad she personally thought her work was in The Force Awakens. I've politely pointed out that this is a kinda/sorta surprising confession as she and John Boyega and Oscar Isaac are all on record as being pretty pleased with what they did in Star Wars on previous press tours, so 'color me cynical' if I question why Ms. Ridley's saying this now. (No, no, no: I'm not implying she's lying.) Self doubt goes hand-in-hand with the acting profession. Some might argue it's what helps push talent to greater heights, even. I'm just suspicious as to how and why this is permeating the World Wide Web the very day AFTER an announcement about a Star Wars film she'll likely be no part of.
Strange timing, don't you think? Almost like Kathleen Kennedy wants you to know that she's still out there, and that Rey movie -- the one that's been greeted with some controversy over Sharmeen's comments -- is still getting made?
Well, what do I know? I'm just a blogger.
Folks, I've always been fascinated with the topic of where Science Fiction truly began.
Don't get me wrong: this isn't some 'life's mission' pursuit of mine. My point in bringing it up is that some very smart people have put a lot of thought (and ink) into their respective ideas about what spurred our genre into existence. Not all that long ago, I pointed out that a great many of them credit the publication of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as the authentic start to SciFi; but I'm here today to remind you that another great many cast their finger in the direction of this film -- 1927's Metropolis -- as being the true cinematic beginnings to the realms of the Fantastic.
Have you seen it?
If yes, then good on you.
If not, then why not?
I know, I know, I know. "It's old!" "It's black-and-white!" "It's silent!" Trust me when I say that I've heard any and all of the excuses folks offer to defend not watching a true theatrical gem -- which it is -- but that just doesn't hold water for me. In life, there are hundreds if not thousands if not millions of things we do just because, and watching Metropolis is something that true genre fans ought to complete once in a lifetime. Seriously. It's culture, peeps. It's fine art. Of course, you may hate it. That's to each his own. But this is my annual opportunity to encourage folks to reach back into the annals of film history and try something different. My lifelong appreciation of 'what's come before' is why I do what I do on SciFiHistory.Net. And features like Metropolis tickle my fancy. Maybe not as much as other older projects. But they still do, nonetheless.
So if you sit down to watch one old, silent, black-and-white Science Fiction classic today, then make it Metropolis ... which, incidentally, celebrates its 97th birthday today.
Don't get me wrong: this isn't some 'life's mission' pursuit of mine. My point in bringing it up is that some very smart people have put a lot of thought (and ink) into their respective ideas about what spurred our genre into existence. Not all that long ago, I pointed out that a great many of them credit the publication of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as the authentic start to SciFi; but I'm here today to remind you that another great many cast their finger in the direction of this film -- 1927's Metropolis -- as being the true cinematic beginnings to the realms of the Fantastic.
Have you seen it?
If yes, then good on you.
If not, then why not?
I know, I know, I know. "It's old!" "It's black-and-white!" "It's silent!" Trust me when I say that I've heard any and all of the excuses folks offer to defend not watching a true theatrical gem -- which it is -- but that just doesn't hold water for me. In life, there are hundreds if not thousands if not millions of things we do just because, and watching Metropolis is something that true genre fans ought to complete once in a lifetime. Seriously. It's culture, peeps. It's fine art. Of course, you may hate it. That's to each his own. But this is my annual opportunity to encourage folks to reach back into the annals of film history and try something different. My lifelong appreciation of 'what's come before' is why I do what I do on SciFiHistory.Net. And features like Metropolis tickle my fancy. Maybe not as much as other older projects. But they still do, nonetheless.
So if you sit down to watch one old, silent, black-and-white Science Fiction classic today, then make it Metropolis ... which, incidentally, celebrates its 97th birthday today.
Of course, there's a whole lot more to celebrate today than just Metropolis. There are some big birthday, some other big movie releases, and even some great episodes of genre television. In fact, there are 82 great reasons that I know of today that makes being a fan of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror the unique experience that it is.
You want proof?
Then here you are ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing (site hits have been through the roof as of late, so thank you thank you thank you and keep it up) ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Readers, I unfortunately have some very sad news to share this afternoon: word has reached the World Wide Web that actor Adan Canto has passed.
IMDB.com reports that Canto originally sought fame and fortune with his musical skills, hoping to be a professional musician. There's even a mention that he wrote and produced a handful of songs while chasing such a dream. It wasn't long, however, that his natural good looks caught the attention of casting directors; and he was able to secure a bit of 'overnight success' in the entertainment industry. Leaving behind a resume of twenty-five screen credits, it would appear that his credentials in the world of genre might be a touch light. I do recall him making an appearance in the Marvel Movie Universe in the guise of 'Sunspot' for the well-received X-Men: Days Of Future Past (2014) for 20th Century Fox. I also see that he enjoyed screen time aboard The Following, Hysteria, Second Chance, Designated Survivor, and The Devil Below (2021).
Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Canto.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
IMDB.com reports that Canto originally sought fame and fortune with his musical skills, hoping to be a professional musician. There's even a mention that he wrote and produced a handful of songs while chasing such a dream. It wasn't long, however, that his natural good looks caught the attention of casting directors; and he was able to secure a bit of 'overnight success' in the entertainment industry. Leaving behind a resume of twenty-five screen credits, it would appear that his credentials in the world of genre might be a touch light. I do recall him making an appearance in the Marvel Movie Universe in the guise of 'Sunspot' for the well-received X-Men: Days Of Future Past (2014) for 20th Century Fox. I also see that he enjoyed screen time aboard The Following, Hysteria, Second Chance, Designated Survivor, and The Devil Below (2021).
Our thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Canto.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, and Happy Tuesday, gentle readers! Welcome to January 9th!
If you'll pardon me, then let me take a moment to say ... BBBBrrrrrrrrr! For those of you who don't know it, it's damn cold here in the great American Southwest this morning, and we're not used to such arctic temperatures. I've already been outside this morning to feed the strays who live out front, and it's mighty, mighty chilly, my friends. Mighty chilly. I just might have to crawl back under the blankets any time soon for a few extra Zzzzz's and to keep warm. Damn frigid, if you ask me.
Mother Nature can be a beeyotch from time-to-time; and, no, sorry, I'm not one to believe in that whole 'Global Warming' campaign of information. Yes, it's true that climate changes -- in fact, it's always changing -- but I'm not convinced that cows tooting has anything to do with the current state of the galaxy. Do a bit of research, folks, and you'll see that cows have been tooting since the Dawn of Man; and I seriously doubt their toots have grown any more noxious in this past century than they ever were before. Science -- and nature -- just don't work that way.
But enough politics and ideology ...
If you'll pardon me, then let me take a moment to say ... BBBBrrrrrrrrr! For those of you who don't know it, it's damn cold here in the great American Southwest this morning, and we're not used to such arctic temperatures. I've already been outside this morning to feed the strays who live out front, and it's mighty, mighty chilly, my friends. Mighty chilly. I just might have to crawl back under the blankets any time soon for a few extra Zzzzz's and to keep warm. Damn frigid, if you ask me.
Mother Nature can be a beeyotch from time-to-time; and, no, sorry, I'm not one to believe in that whole 'Global Warming' campaign of information. Yes, it's true that climate changes -- in fact, it's always changing -- but I'm not convinced that cows tooting has anything to do with the current state of the galaxy. Do a bit of research, folks, and you'll see that cows have been tooting since the Dawn of Man; and I seriously doubt their toots have grown any more noxious in this past century than they ever were before. Science -- and nature -- just don't work that way.
But enough politics and ideology ...
Every now and then, the Information Superhighway gets abuzz with Tweets that kinda/sorta ask a seminal question of participants, something benign, something like "What's a show you watched as a kid?" Generally speaking, I don't jump about those Tweet-trains -- well, not unless I have something really interesting and/or different to add -- but there was an interaction last week about forgotten shows. While I don't think The Six Million Dollar Man qualifies as a truly forgotten show, I will say that the episode that aired on this day all the way back in 1977 was one of the highpoints of my television youth.
For those of you who've never seen it, "Death Probe" (Parts 1 and 2, mind you) had this robot intended for an exploratory mission to Venus going haywire and crashing in the America. Naturally, former astronaut and now special agent Steve Austin gets dispatched to look into this thing; and the killbot has gone up to homicide level 10! The bionic man had to face off against what was arguably one of his greatest adversaries, so thank goodness this installment was a two-parter, am I right?
Ahhh, the memories!
No, folks, I'm not clamoring for a Six Million Dollar Man do-over. I'd likely tune in if someone gave it a legitimate attempt (Bionic Woman had one a few years back, and it was underwhelming); but I'm not sure it's the kind of show that means anything to audiences. This is the era of superheroes, for all intents and purposes, so a human/cyborg action hero probably would seem more than a bit out of place ... sadly.
For those of you who've never seen it, "Death Probe" (Parts 1 and 2, mind you) had this robot intended for an exploratory mission to Venus going haywire and crashing in the America. Naturally, former astronaut and now special agent Steve Austin gets dispatched to look into this thing; and the killbot has gone up to homicide level 10! The bionic man had to face off against what was arguably one of his greatest adversaries, so thank goodness this installment was a two-parter, am I right?
Ahhh, the memories!
No, folks, I'm not clamoring for a Six Million Dollar Man do-over. I'd likely tune in if someone gave it a legitimate attempt (Bionic Woman had one a few years back, and it was underwhelming); but I'm not sure it's the kind of show that means anything to audiences. This is the era of superheroes, for all intents and purposes, so a human/cyborg action hero probably would seem more than a bit out of place ... sadly.
Alas, folks, that's really all I have for now. I checked the archives this morning, and I do have a few items I'm hoping to add to the day; but I do have a few flicks I also need to get to for review purposes. I might get something up later today regarding those. In the meantime, here's your ticket to the best genre trivia money can buy ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing (many, many thanks on that one) ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 01.09.2024.B: 2023's 'Reflect' Reminds Viewers To Always Be Careful About What You Look For
(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:
“Five eclectic women journey into the vortexes of Sedona where they are forced to confront the resurgence of their traumatic memories through shadow work.”
Folk, I ask you to bear with me while I detail a personal story. While some may not find it entirely necessary for this review, I think it helps convey my sentiments after viewing Reflect (2023), a SciFi/Comedy from writer/director Dana Kippel.
Reasonably early in my career as an Amazon Top 1,000 reviewer, a distributor reached out to me, offering a physical copy of his new feature in exchange for a write-up on the web’s premiere retailer. What he had produced was a part-biographical and part-fictional drama involving a famous model from the 1950’s; hoping to spur some wider interest in the film, he was doing what many merchants used to do on Amazon.com, basically trying to saturate the market with some much-needed publicity that he hoped would translate into sales. After taking a look at some of what had already been written, I was a bit skeptical, but – after a time – I conceded and said I’d be happy to take a gander.
Now, I won’t go into those particulars as they’re really not germane to the point I’m making.
The bottom line – so far as I was concerned – was that the film was a narrative mess, never quite ‘hitting the landing,’ as they say, or developing any plotline worth following all that closely. What reviews had already been published – while a bit harsh – were actually still somewhat flattering mostly because of the subject matter – that being a lovely lady in her prime – and still this was no five-star-opus that I think the director had intended. I don’t craft reviews like that – never have because I find them disingenuous and superficial – so I was honest in stating that the project was best viewed as a labor of love by the storyteller and maybe this woman’s most ardent fans but would likely struggle to find a following beyond that.
A few weeks after my post went live, the director reached out to me, demanding that I take my review down, that I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that the story was never intended for an audience like me. When I pointed out that I was just being honest and – in his own words – he was proving my point, he then went to Amazon.com directly, trying to get not only my writing removed but also have me banned from the site. This was at a time when the retail giant was still standing beside its contributors, so the review stayed … but it’s since been scrubbed as their policies underwent an overhaul when Bezos and his managers summarily through many who helped build the behemoth into what it is today under the bus.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Five eclectic women journey into the vortexes of Sedona where they are forced to confront the resurgence of their traumatic memories through shadow work.”
Folk, I ask you to bear with me while I detail a personal story. While some may not find it entirely necessary for this review, I think it helps convey my sentiments after viewing Reflect (2023), a SciFi/Comedy from writer/director Dana Kippel.
Reasonably early in my career as an Amazon Top 1,000 reviewer, a distributor reached out to me, offering a physical copy of his new feature in exchange for a write-up on the web’s premiere retailer. What he had produced was a part-biographical and part-fictional drama involving a famous model from the 1950’s; hoping to spur some wider interest in the film, he was doing what many merchants used to do on Amazon.com, basically trying to saturate the market with some much-needed publicity that he hoped would translate into sales. After taking a look at some of what had already been written, I was a bit skeptical, but – after a time – I conceded and said I’d be happy to take a gander.
Now, I won’t go into those particulars as they’re really not germane to the point I’m making.
The bottom line – so far as I was concerned – was that the film was a narrative mess, never quite ‘hitting the landing,’ as they say, or developing any plotline worth following all that closely. What reviews had already been published – while a bit harsh – were actually still somewhat flattering mostly because of the subject matter – that being a lovely lady in her prime – and still this was no five-star-opus that I think the director had intended. I don’t craft reviews like that – never have because I find them disingenuous and superficial – so I was honest in stating that the project was best viewed as a labor of love by the storyteller and maybe this woman’s most ardent fans but would likely struggle to find a following beyond that.
A few weeks after my post went live, the director reached out to me, demanding that I take my review down, that I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that the story was never intended for an audience like me. When I pointed out that I was just being honest and – in his own words – he was proving my point, he then went to Amazon.com directly, trying to get not only my writing removed but also have me banned from the site. This was at a time when the retail giant was still standing beside its contributors, so the review stayed … but it’s since been scrubbed as their policies underwent an overhaul when Bezos and his managers summarily through many who helped build the behemoth into what it is today under the bus.
But …
If you followed that yarn closely, then you might understand that my whole premise is that not each and every film is fundamentally for every possible viewer. While it’s likely every storyteller’s hope to gain the broadest viewership possible, there’s still something to be said for crafting content uniquely for a niche crowd. That niche might both understand and appreciate the accomplishment more than any mainstream audience could. Horror films speak to horror freaks; Fantasy flicks appeal to Fantasy fans; and a little ‘something something’ like Reflect likely has admirers hungry for its female-centric, introspective, New Age tomfoolery. It’s just that I wouldn’t consider myself among them.
Still, because I can ‘color outside the lines,’ I’m glad I watched Kippel’s affair of the soul. I’m not sure I’m coming away from it with the message or perspective she intended; and yet I can appreciate moments that its characters connected with me though I’ve never quite experienced the level of emotional struggles any endured.
Summer (played by Kippel herself) is missing the feeling of being alive in her life; and – as a consequence – she’s drawn into the idea of attending a vortex retreat in Sedona, Arizona where the promise of a $20,000 payday awaits the lucky individual who completes it. Though she may’ve been enticed with the promise of a cash prize, there are signs that life isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be; and, thus, she goes about recruiting a handful of her closest friends – Annie (Marissa Patterson), Liz (Jadelyn Breier), Nia (Ariana Brown), and Katie (Grace Patterson) – for the existential challenge of their lives. They band together on a road trip into metaphysical waters, where their respective issues, hang-ups, and phobias wind up getting prime time coverage whether they like it or not.
As it turns out, finding yourself might very well cost you more than you could possibly ever wish to offer.
I’m about to say something that might offend a good portion of the readership, but it is what it is: it’s been said that women and men are wired to think differently. Personally, I believe that each of us is wired to service whatever our individual needs might be, but I’ve always conceded that variations exist between the sexes regardless. For example, it’s been my experience that women do think more seriously about many subjects – at a younger age – than men do; and this explains why men are renowned for having mid-life crises … crap just doesn’t ‘hit the fan’ until later in life. While women may not fully escape similar psychological predicaments, it’s still been attributed as a male phenomenon for ages; and I’d like to think this is because women deal with stuff much sooner than men do.
That’s what I see in a feature like Reflect.
If you followed that yarn closely, then you might understand that my whole premise is that not each and every film is fundamentally for every possible viewer. While it’s likely every storyteller’s hope to gain the broadest viewership possible, there’s still something to be said for crafting content uniquely for a niche crowd. That niche might both understand and appreciate the accomplishment more than any mainstream audience could. Horror films speak to horror freaks; Fantasy flicks appeal to Fantasy fans; and a little ‘something something’ like Reflect likely has admirers hungry for its female-centric, introspective, New Age tomfoolery. It’s just that I wouldn’t consider myself among them.
Still, because I can ‘color outside the lines,’ I’m glad I watched Kippel’s affair of the soul. I’m not sure I’m coming away from it with the message or perspective she intended; and yet I can appreciate moments that its characters connected with me though I’ve never quite experienced the level of emotional struggles any endured.
Summer (played by Kippel herself) is missing the feeling of being alive in her life; and – as a consequence – she’s drawn into the idea of attending a vortex retreat in Sedona, Arizona where the promise of a $20,000 payday awaits the lucky individual who completes it. Though she may’ve been enticed with the promise of a cash prize, there are signs that life isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be; and, thus, she goes about recruiting a handful of her closest friends – Annie (Marissa Patterson), Liz (Jadelyn Breier), Nia (Ariana Brown), and Katie (Grace Patterson) – for the existential challenge of their lives. They band together on a road trip into metaphysical waters, where their respective issues, hang-ups, and phobias wind up getting prime time coverage whether they like it or not.
As it turns out, finding yourself might very well cost you more than you could possibly ever wish to offer.
I’m about to say something that might offend a good portion of the readership, but it is what it is: it’s been said that women and men are wired to think differently. Personally, I believe that each of us is wired to service whatever our individual needs might be, but I’ve always conceded that variations exist between the sexes regardless. For example, it’s been my experience that women do think more seriously about many subjects – at a younger age – than men do; and this explains why men are renowned for having mid-life crises … crap just doesn’t ‘hit the fan’ until later in life. While women may not fully escape similar psychological predicaments, it’s still been attributed as a male phenomenon for ages; and I’d like to think this is because women deal with stuff much sooner than men do.
That’s what I see in a feature like Reflect.
Five women find (and lose) themselves on a mission of self-discovery. Metaphorically, some come back from it while some do not. Granted, all of this has a decidedly Fantasy packaging – there are depictions of aerial vortices, shadow people, and worlds-between-worlds – but that’s mostly window dressing for Summer and her cohorts. Their real-world problems tied them to this plane of existence; when confronted with their respective inability to grow beyond, they lose to those ethereal influences, never to be seen again. While Kippel may have intended more, I’d still like to think that these souls aren’t so much lost as they are overwhelmed somewhere in-between this world and the next, maybe even somewhat hopelessly searching for a way back.
Still, maybe that’s just the man in me talking.
Kudos are extended to the strong ensemble. Not everyone is pitch perfect – some characters feel a bit stereotypical here and there, but it’s hard to transcend the predictable when so little screen time is shared amongst so many – but Marissa Patterson, in particular, really hit a good stride with her portrayal of a suicidal woman who can’t quite find her way back from the darkest impulses. It could be that she was the most relatable for me in the group, but – whatever the case – I saw her work as deserving extra mention.
Reflect (2023) was produced by Crazy Carrot Films. According to the publicity materials provided, the film is presently available for streaming via such platforms as Prime Video, Apple TV, Google Play, and Vudu. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the major of the sights and sounds to be quite exceptional. (Note: there are some trippy video effects rendered digitally that give some sequences an otherworldly experience, and some might find them a bit distracting, but methinks they’re intended to just be part of the experience.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this production via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Mildly recommended.
Reflect (2023) suitable takes real world challenges and gives then an ‘out there’ screen exploration against the backdrop of the wonderful scenic Sedona, Arizona. (Folks, I’ve been there many times, but you can never get enough of it. Plan yourselves a trip. And, yes, I’ve even toured the vortices.) As a male, I won’t say that I understood the plight of each character – nor the depth or complexity of why they’re still carrying that emotional baggage – and I could understand why some might even dismiss the effort as one more ‘chick flick’ not intended for my sex. Nothing could be further from the truth; this one’s about the pursuit of healing, and, yes, these ladies could all have used a little time under the Arizona sun.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Crazy Carrot Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Reflect (2023) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Still, maybe that’s just the man in me talking.
Kudos are extended to the strong ensemble. Not everyone is pitch perfect – some characters feel a bit stereotypical here and there, but it’s hard to transcend the predictable when so little screen time is shared amongst so many – but Marissa Patterson, in particular, really hit a good stride with her portrayal of a suicidal woman who can’t quite find her way back from the darkest impulses. It could be that she was the most relatable for me in the group, but – whatever the case – I saw her work as deserving extra mention.
Reflect (2023) was produced by Crazy Carrot Films. According to the publicity materials provided, the film is presently available for streaming via such platforms as Prime Video, Apple TV, Google Play, and Vudu. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the major of the sights and sounds to be quite exceptional. (Note: there are some trippy video effects rendered digitally that give some sequences an otherworldly experience, and some might find them a bit distracting, but methinks they’re intended to just be part of the experience.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this production via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Mildly recommended.
Reflect (2023) suitable takes real world challenges and gives then an ‘out there’ screen exploration against the backdrop of the wonderful scenic Sedona, Arizona. (Folks, I’ve been there many times, but you can never get enough of it. Plan yourselves a trip. And, yes, I’ve even toured the vortices.) As a male, I won’t say that I understood the plight of each character – nor the depth or complexity of why they’re still carrying that emotional baggage – and I could understand why some might even dismiss the effort as one more ‘chick flick’ not intended for my sex. Nothing could be further from the truth; this one’s about the pursuit of healing, and, yes, these ladies could all have used a little time under the Arizona sun.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Crazy Carrot Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Reflect (2023) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ