- Published on
That's no moon ... that's SciFiHistory.Net!
Hahahahahaha! Ah, I amuse myself, at times.
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to ... Friday! (cue the music and dancing) Yes, you knew it was there ... saw it on the calendar, I'll bet ... and you couldn't wait for it to show up live and in person. Well, here it is! Right where you expected it to be! And it's glorious, ain't it? Damn glorious! Big damn glorious, in fact, and it couldn't be better!
Yes, yes, and yes -- for those of you watching closely -- you know who you are -- I've already done a few smaller posts this morning, one on the passing of actor David Soul along with one of my 'Because You Asked' features -- but here we are to the nitty gritty, as they say. This is what you're looking for from me on a daily basis, so I'm happy to provide. It's the daily trivia announcement, and I have a few extra words to say.
Buckle up.
Hahahahahaha! Ah, I amuse myself, at times.
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to ... Friday! (cue the music and dancing) Yes, you knew it was there ... saw it on the calendar, I'll bet ... and you couldn't wait for it to show up live and in person. Well, here it is! Right where you expected it to be! And it's glorious, ain't it? Damn glorious! Big damn glorious, in fact, and it couldn't be better!
Yes, yes, and yes -- for those of you watching closely -- you know who you are -- I've already done a few smaller posts this morning, one on the passing of actor David Soul along with one of my 'Because You Asked' features -- but here we are to the nitty gritty, as they say. This is what you're looking for from me on a daily basis, so I'm happy to provide. It's the daily trivia announcement, and I have a few extra words to say.
Buckle up.
I've mentioned many, many times before that I grew up a DC Comics guy, and -- while George Reeves wasn't my favorite Superman -- he certainly was the first I can remember. Like so many in my youth, I watched Adventures Of Superman not live but in TV syndication a good decade and one-half (or so) after its first release, and I was occasionally captivated.
Oh, sure, special effects for the age being what they were, you never quite knew what you were going to get. The flight sequences, honestly, were the most memorable for me. I loved how he'd run and leap into the air in taking off; and then it was cool to see him kinda/sorta land hard on his feet. That's one thing I don't think the movies have always handled that well -- today's superheroes just kinda/sorta defy gravity, floating more like a feather at times -- but it is what it is. I just thought those huge, athletic leaps really sold the sizzle, you know what I mean? I'd run and jump into the air, too, if I wouldn't just fall back down on my face, so there's that.
Reeves was born in 1914 and passed in 1959. No, no, and no: I'm not going to get into the matters regarding his passing. It's a point of controversy for some, but if you're interested then do yourself a Google and check out what particulars are out there on the Information Superhighway. Don't believe everything you read ... but DO BELIEVE a man can fly.
Oh, sure, special effects for the age being what they were, you never quite knew what you were going to get. The flight sequences, honestly, were the most memorable for me. I loved how he'd run and leap into the air in taking off; and then it was cool to see him kinda/sorta land hard on his feet. That's one thing I don't think the movies have always handled that well -- today's superheroes just kinda/sorta defy gravity, floating more like a feather at times -- but it is what it is. I just thought those huge, athletic leaps really sold the sizzle, you know what I mean? I'd run and jump into the air, too, if I wouldn't just fall back down on my face, so there's that.
Reeves was born in 1914 and passed in 1959. No, no, and no: I'm not going to get into the matters regarding his passing. It's a point of controversy for some, but if you're interested then do yourself a Google and check out what particulars are out there on the Information Superhighway. Don't believe everything you read ... but DO BELIEVE a man can fly.
Great mother of dragons, has there been a more reliable, more versatile, more respected genre star than the great Clancy Brown?
Now, I realize that not every actor or actress who comes along is for everyone ... but this is Clancy Brown we're talking about! I mean ... Clancy Brown? How can you not love something in the entire Clancy Brown catalogue? The guy can play good guys. The guy can play bad guys. We rarely get the luxury of seeing such a talent on parade, and a quick glance over at the guy's IMDB.com profile is astonishing. Did you know he's well over three hundred different screen credits and is still actively working?! Lords of Kobol, that guy is a force to be reckoned with, and I'm thrilled to have enjoyed so very much of his time in the industry.
Though it never gets the praise I think it deserves, Brown voiced no less than 'Lex Luthor' himself aboard the stellar TV incarnation of Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) as well as reprising the role in an animated movie or two. (Not sure on those particulars, but check that profile!) Like Batman: The Animated Series, I hold the Superman version in very high esteem; and a good deal of that is linked directly to the voicework and storytelling reverence to the Supes' mythos. It's just a fabulous show, and I encourage those who've not seen it to check it out.
I mean ... Clancy Brown, people! Come on!
Now, I realize that not every actor or actress who comes along is for everyone ... but this is Clancy Brown we're talking about! I mean ... Clancy Brown? How can you not love something in the entire Clancy Brown catalogue? The guy can play good guys. The guy can play bad guys. We rarely get the luxury of seeing such a talent on parade, and a quick glance over at the guy's IMDB.com profile is astonishing. Did you know he's well over three hundred different screen credits and is still actively working?! Lords of Kobol, that guy is a force to be reckoned with, and I'm thrilled to have enjoyed so very much of his time in the industry.
Though it never gets the praise I think it deserves, Brown voiced no less than 'Lex Luthor' himself aboard the stellar TV incarnation of Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) as well as reprising the role in an animated movie or two. (Not sure on those particulars, but check that profile!) Like Batman: The Animated Series, I hold the Superman version in very high esteem; and a good deal of that is linked directly to the voicework and storytelling reverence to the Supes' mythos. It's just a fabulous show, and I encourage those who've not seen it to check it out.
I mean ... Clancy Brown, people! Come on!
It never fails: when you talk about Star Trek -- especially the original and best show -- fans will invest hours in debating the best and the worst episodes. While I'm not saying that the choices made in the fan-favorite polls coincide with my personal taste, I'll always give an affectionate nod to "The Galileo Seven" which first aired on this day back in 1967.
It's just such a masterful story, delivered with classic Trek ideas and images. Yeah, the creatures on the planet are a bit undercooked to be sure -- they're basically Sasquatch-style primitives, so some unintentional laughs might be uttered -- but it's done with such pomp and circumstance you can't deny the potential. Also, it's one of the few episodes that has consistently scored high on those fan-favorite lists, so the story undoubtedly continues to resonant with audiences who find Trek even today. That's gotta speak to some measure of greatness, at the very least.
While this one wasn't my first episode (saw them in syndication when I was very, very, very young), it's definitely one of my favorites, too!
It's just such a masterful story, delivered with classic Trek ideas and images. Yeah, the creatures on the planet are a bit undercooked to be sure -- they're basically Sasquatch-style primitives, so some unintentional laughs might be uttered -- but it's done with such pomp and circumstance you can't deny the potential. Also, it's one of the few episodes that has consistently scored high on those fan-favorite lists, so the story undoubtedly continues to resonant with audiences who find Trek even today. That's gotta speak to some measure of greatness, at the very least.
While this one wasn't my first episode (saw them in syndication when I was very, very, very young), it's definitely one of my favorites, too!
Now, folks, there's more. In fact, there's a lot more. You know that I aim to please, and today has a little something for everyone, so I encourage you to head on over there to check out the good, the bad, and the ugly for posterity's sake:
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Oh, the life of a blogger in obscurity!
Folks, having done this gig as long as I have, I've been fortunate enough to watch back and watch my readership grow. Granted, it could've grown a helluva lot faster and I would've been helluva lot happier, but it takes time -- as they say -- to 'build it' and 'have people come.' (Hat tip to 1989's Field Of Dreams for the reference.) First, there's figuring out what I wanted to say. Then, there's actually written what I wanted to say. And then, there's figuring out what graphics I wanted to use. And even then, there's putting together what not only looks and sounds good but also serves the central purpose of informing and educating those who come to SciFiHistory.Net for a unique perspective. As anyone who has written will tell you: it isn't always what you say but what voice have you cultivated that your audience appreciates, so I'm always -- and I do mean always -- fighting this daily battle.
Because the readership has grown, I sometimes find that newbie have kinda/sorta missed bits and pieces of the evolution -- the lessons I've learned on the way -- and that's the case with today's question.
The question:
"Hey, why is it that you post a film's first release date and then also post other release dates around the world?"
That, my friends, is a very good question; and I have a very good answer.
Back when SciFiHistory.Net began, I didn't post all of a film's release dates. In fact, I only made it a habit to cite the very first theatrical screening release date. My logic here is that -- this being essentially a daily trivia website -- I felt at that time what truly mattered was -- like with a person's birth -- the day a brand new film was released was sufficient enough. It was as simple as that.
Well, a few years after I'd been doing my 'thang,' I received an email from a reader in the great Down Under ... Australia. He was taking issue with a post of mine, insisting that the original release date for a particular motion picture was, in fact, different than what I'd posted on SciFiHistory.Net. I don't remember all of the facts, mind you, but let's say -- using an example -- that I had a film like "Space Dream" (not a real title, so far as I know) and it released in the U.S. on January 5th (just using today's date). So I'd say, "On this day in 2024 (in the U.S.), Space Dream enjoyed its unveiling to the masses."
Well, this Aussie's argument was that I had my facts wrong; and -- according to what he was looking at -- Space Dream was first released on, say, February 1st. I did a bit of research, and I found that, yes, Space Dream was released theatrically on February 1st ... in Australia!
So, I did what any good editor would do. I wrote him back. I explained that my citation was correct as I had clearly indicated in the text that I was using the very first release date and also added -- in parenthesis -- that it was a U.S. release, not an Australian citation.
This fellow then wrote me back, saying, "You don't have to be a f#ckhead about it, mate!"
Now, initially, what I learned from this exchange is that Australians are insufferable rude. (It's OK, Aussies, your secret's safe with me ... well ... and anyone else who reads this.) What I also learned was more of a reminder: we, as film fans, are a global phenomenon.
Talent and films and TV shows are born everywhere, so perhaps just limiting one motion picture -- as an example -- to a single date does a disservice, perhaps unintentionally implying that I'm only interested in some geocentric kind of trivia website. I'm not -- I realize that Science Fiction and Fantasy takes place everywhere -- so I opted to make an editorial change. I'd always reference the very first screening date I could find with some additional flourish, but -- as time permits -- I'll continue expanding the Daily Citation Pages to include all release dates around the world. This way, I'm doing my part to be inclusive to the wants and needs of a global readership.
Thanks to the reader who reached out with the question, and I certainly hope this explains why -- in some small way -- I do what I do.
-- EZ
Folks, having done this gig as long as I have, I've been fortunate enough to watch back and watch my readership grow. Granted, it could've grown a helluva lot faster and I would've been helluva lot happier, but it takes time -- as they say -- to 'build it' and 'have people come.' (Hat tip to 1989's Field Of Dreams for the reference.) First, there's figuring out what I wanted to say. Then, there's actually written what I wanted to say. And then, there's figuring out what graphics I wanted to use. And even then, there's putting together what not only looks and sounds good but also serves the central purpose of informing and educating those who come to SciFiHistory.Net for a unique perspective. As anyone who has written will tell you: it isn't always what you say but what voice have you cultivated that your audience appreciates, so I'm always -- and I do mean always -- fighting this daily battle.
Because the readership has grown, I sometimes find that newbie have kinda/sorta missed bits and pieces of the evolution -- the lessons I've learned on the way -- and that's the case with today's question.
The question:
"Hey, why is it that you post a film's first release date and then also post other release dates around the world?"
That, my friends, is a very good question; and I have a very good answer.
Back when SciFiHistory.Net began, I didn't post all of a film's release dates. In fact, I only made it a habit to cite the very first theatrical screening release date. My logic here is that -- this being essentially a daily trivia website -- I felt at that time what truly mattered was -- like with a person's birth -- the day a brand new film was released was sufficient enough. It was as simple as that.
Well, a few years after I'd been doing my 'thang,' I received an email from a reader in the great Down Under ... Australia. He was taking issue with a post of mine, insisting that the original release date for a particular motion picture was, in fact, different than what I'd posted on SciFiHistory.Net. I don't remember all of the facts, mind you, but let's say -- using an example -- that I had a film like "Space Dream" (not a real title, so far as I know) and it released in the U.S. on January 5th (just using today's date). So I'd say, "On this day in 2024 (in the U.S.), Space Dream enjoyed its unveiling to the masses."
Well, this Aussie's argument was that I had my facts wrong; and -- according to what he was looking at -- Space Dream was first released on, say, February 1st. I did a bit of research, and I found that, yes, Space Dream was released theatrically on February 1st ... in Australia!
So, I did what any good editor would do. I wrote him back. I explained that my citation was correct as I had clearly indicated in the text that I was using the very first release date and also added -- in parenthesis -- that it was a U.S. release, not an Australian citation.
This fellow then wrote me back, saying, "You don't have to be a f#ckhead about it, mate!"
Now, initially, what I learned from this exchange is that Australians are insufferable rude. (It's OK, Aussies, your secret's safe with me ... well ... and anyone else who reads this.) What I also learned was more of a reminder: we, as film fans, are a global phenomenon.
Talent and films and TV shows are born everywhere, so perhaps just limiting one motion picture -- as an example -- to a single date does a disservice, perhaps unintentionally implying that I'm only interested in some geocentric kind of trivia website. I'm not -- I realize that Science Fiction and Fantasy takes place everywhere -- so I opted to make an editorial change. I'd always reference the very first screening date I could find with some additional flourish, but -- as time permits -- I'll continue expanding the Daily Citation Pages to include all release dates around the world. This way, I'm doing my part to be inclusive to the wants and needs of a global readership.
Thanks to the reader who reached out with the question, and I certainly hope this explains why -- in some small way -- I do what I do.
-- EZ
- Published on
As I often point out, folks, it isn't as if actor David Soul is known as any pioneer in the realms of the Fantastic.
As a talent, his was the kind of face that came and went, usually in quieter properties, not the ongoing serials. After finding some big and deserved mainstream success playing the hip partner to one of TV's seminal cop/buddy shows -- Starsky And Hutch, a staple of my youth -- he kinda/sorta drifted here and there into different programs. Every now and then, it was something genre specific, but I followed his work in a few nonetheless.
In one of those weird bits of synchronicity that always tickles my fancy, I'd completely forgotten that he had a small role in an episode of the groundbreaking Star Trek. In fact, one maybe didn't even known it as he was kinda/sorta buried under a weird wig and a lot of make-up for "The Apple," the story of a God who orders his worshippers to kill. It's a great addition to his entire catalogue of work because maybe it shows his talents were just evolving.
As for other adventures?
Also scoring a small role in an episode of I Dream Of Jeannie, he toiled away in whatever project big or small came his way until securing breakout success with Starsky And Hutch (1975-1979). I remember catching a few episodes of that a few years ago and thinking it hadn't aged all that well, but -- hey -- it was the 1970's and fashion was an acquired taste! But the man truly crossed into some wondrous Horror territory with a lead aboard Salem's Lot, a fondly remembered TV-miniseries adaptation of the Stephen King novel. For those who don't know it, Lot garnered an impressive three Primetime Emmys Awards nomination to its credit, along with an equally impressive Edgar Allan Poe Awards in the category of 'Best Television Feature Or Miniseries.'
Folks who enjoy Alternate History-style works would do well to check out another television miniseries project that Soul headlined: 1982's World War III saw the Cold War conflict spiralling out of control with a Soviet invasion into the wilds of Alaska. Soul plays the American man on the ground -- 'Col. Jake Caffey' -- who has the unfortunate task of trying to avert the end of life as we know it in the uncompromising cold; and -- without spoiling it for those who haven't seen it -- let's just say its dark ending was good enough to give this viewer pause. Ah, great memories.
The next year -- also on television -- Soul did something that film fans probably never imagined possible, taking on the role of 'Rick Blaine' in a serialized attempt to bring small screen audiences a lesser version of the film classic Casablanca. (Yes, I watched it. No, it isn't Science Fiction or Fantasy. 1942's Casablanca just happens to be one of my all-time favorite flicks.) I don't fault Soul for the project failing to find an audience -- not many would even think about trying to fill the shoes of Humphrey Bogart -- and it lasted only a handful of episodes.
Still, the man enjoyed a good degree of work after those days, but I think it's safe to suggest that these appearances are the ones that stick with me the most. His was a light that burned brightly for a time, and the world of entertainment was vastly improved by his time in it.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of David Soul.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
As a talent, his was the kind of face that came and went, usually in quieter properties, not the ongoing serials. After finding some big and deserved mainstream success playing the hip partner to one of TV's seminal cop/buddy shows -- Starsky And Hutch, a staple of my youth -- he kinda/sorta drifted here and there into different programs. Every now and then, it was something genre specific, but I followed his work in a few nonetheless.
In one of those weird bits of synchronicity that always tickles my fancy, I'd completely forgotten that he had a small role in an episode of the groundbreaking Star Trek. In fact, one maybe didn't even known it as he was kinda/sorta buried under a weird wig and a lot of make-up for "The Apple," the story of a God who orders his worshippers to kill. It's a great addition to his entire catalogue of work because maybe it shows his talents were just evolving.
As for other adventures?
Also scoring a small role in an episode of I Dream Of Jeannie, he toiled away in whatever project big or small came his way until securing breakout success with Starsky And Hutch (1975-1979). I remember catching a few episodes of that a few years ago and thinking it hadn't aged all that well, but -- hey -- it was the 1970's and fashion was an acquired taste! But the man truly crossed into some wondrous Horror territory with a lead aboard Salem's Lot, a fondly remembered TV-miniseries adaptation of the Stephen King novel. For those who don't know it, Lot garnered an impressive three Primetime Emmys Awards nomination to its credit, along with an equally impressive Edgar Allan Poe Awards in the category of 'Best Television Feature Or Miniseries.'
Folks who enjoy Alternate History-style works would do well to check out another television miniseries project that Soul headlined: 1982's World War III saw the Cold War conflict spiralling out of control with a Soviet invasion into the wilds of Alaska. Soul plays the American man on the ground -- 'Col. Jake Caffey' -- who has the unfortunate task of trying to avert the end of life as we know it in the uncompromising cold; and -- without spoiling it for those who haven't seen it -- let's just say its dark ending was good enough to give this viewer pause. Ah, great memories.
The next year -- also on television -- Soul did something that film fans probably never imagined possible, taking on the role of 'Rick Blaine' in a serialized attempt to bring small screen audiences a lesser version of the film classic Casablanca. (Yes, I watched it. No, it isn't Science Fiction or Fantasy. 1942's Casablanca just happens to be one of my all-time favorite flicks.) I don't fault Soul for the project failing to find an audience -- not many would even think about trying to fill the shoes of Humphrey Bogart -- and it lasted only a handful of episodes.
Still, the man enjoyed a good degree of work after those days, but I think it's safe to suggest that these appearances are the ones that stick with me the most. His was a light that burned brightly for a time, and the world of entertainment was vastly improved by his time in it.
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of David Soul.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
When I was a young’un, I was a pretty rabid fan of the works of Edgar Allan Poe.
Alas, my tastes have tempered somewhat over time, and I’ll shocked to realize that I haven’t read anything from him in a few decades. (Yes, I’m the kind of person who picks up a collection from time-to-time and just reads casually from multiple books simultaneously.) I used to make it a point to re-read a few of his more notable shorts and poems on an annual basis (nerd!), but life throws you twists and turns, and one must adjust. Still, I have nothing but profound respect for what he accomplished in his life as an author, and I think it’s grand to know that his voice still resounds with so many even in modern times.
However, I read a few early reviews for The Fall Of The House Of Usher and was ultimately turned off from watching it in the heat of its initial release. Some of it was owed to the fact that the critics I found heaping praise on the limited series aren’t exactly those I’ve found myself agreeing with over the years, so I basically added it to ‘My List’ on Netflix figuring I’m somehow find my way to it when the time was right. Well, over the holiday season, I happened across a solid article listing the major achievements in broadcast entertainment for all of 2023, and what did I find? Usher was pretty high up on the list, so I caved in and gave it a spin.
While I’m willing to admit that it wasn’t quite what I expected, I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out that my original gut impression – that being ‘don’t follow the advice of reviewers I haven’t liked’ – was somewhat accurate. Usher is chocked to the gills with political messaging – yes, I say this despite what others will tell you because it’s true – but it’s also so well made that I’d have to agree that it is one of the best made productions I’ve had the good fortune to stumble across in years. (Seriously, folks, it is that good … on technical merits.)
Where I did have some struggle with it … well, that takes a bit more dissection …
(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 …)
Alas, my tastes have tempered somewhat over time, and I’ll shocked to realize that I haven’t read anything from him in a few decades. (Yes, I’m the kind of person who picks up a collection from time-to-time and just reads casually from multiple books simultaneously.) I used to make it a point to re-read a few of his more notable shorts and poems on an annual basis (nerd!), but life throws you twists and turns, and one must adjust. Still, I have nothing but profound respect for what he accomplished in his life as an author, and I think it’s grand to know that his voice still resounds with so many even in modern times.
However, I read a few early reviews for The Fall Of The House Of Usher and was ultimately turned off from watching it in the heat of its initial release. Some of it was owed to the fact that the critics I found heaping praise on the limited series aren’t exactly those I’ve found myself agreeing with over the years, so I basically added it to ‘My List’ on Netflix figuring I’m somehow find my way to it when the time was right. Well, over the holiday season, I happened across a solid article listing the major achievements in broadcast entertainment for all of 2023, and what did I find? Usher was pretty high up on the list, so I caved in and gave it a spin.
While I’m willing to admit that it wasn’t quite what I expected, I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out that my original gut impression – that being ‘don’t follow the advice of reviewers I haven’t liked’ – was somewhat accurate. Usher is chocked to the gills with political messaging – yes, I say this despite what others will tell you because it’s true – but it’s also so well made that I’d have to agree that it is one of the best made productions I’ve had the good fortune to stumble across in years. (Seriously, folks, it is that good … on technical merits.)
Where I did have some struggle with it … well, that takes a bit more dissection …
(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 TV show's IMDB.com page citation:
"The Usher family is never far from controversy. The fortunes of siblings Roderick and Madeline Usher were made through Fortunato Pharmaceuticals, a company whose products are often under scrutiny due to health concerns. Assistant District Attorney C. Auguste Dupin is determined to land a conviction and his case against Fortunato and the Ushers has gone to trial. Now, right in the middle of the trial, Roderick's children are dying under mysterious circumstances. Roderick Usher knows who/what is behind the deaths and meets with Dupin to reveal all."
Believe it or not, the late Edgar Allan Poe was most decidedly not popular in his own lifetime. Like so many great voices, his was not found by the masses-at-large until much later – posthumously, as they say – with the only true success he had the chance to see was “The Raven” published in 1845. Given the fact that he passed away only a few years later, such notoriety late in his days pretty much guaranteed he missed his chance at fortune and fame … and, yet, history – that cruel mistress – turned a kind eye his way. Gradually, his works became known to more and more readers; and some even suggest that he was one of the truly great authors of the 19th Century.
That being the case, it’s easy to see how writer/director Mike Flanagan decided that he wanted to shed some new light on Poe’s library; what I find a bit confusing is why he, functionally, borrowed so very little of it to bring The Fall Of The House Of Usher to life on Netflix. I’ve read on the World Wide Web that the series exist not as one but adaptations of eight Poe tales; and – while that might be stylistically true – what emerges on the small screen only draws on minor details to tell a much broader story … with The Fall only serving as a kinda/sorta bookend with which to introduce the Usher family and then host their inevitable demise.
Yeah, yeah, and yeah: I realize that there are those who are going to accuse me of nitpicking here, but – at the end of the day – that’s the job of any good critic. It’s our job to point out deficiencies. That’s why I’d warn Poe aficionados showing up to not look too deeply at this Horror/Melodrama and instead approach it as a larger work inspired by Poe’s narratives. (Otherwise, there’s very little literal Poe in this yet a good smattering of his best ideas.)
However, at eight episodes, I’d still argue that there’s a great deal of excess to Usher. The central story here – basically, the Ushers are undone over a pact with the Devil – could’ve been told in, perhaps, a two-hour telefilm; but the material was expanded to include the whole kit and kaboodle of the Usher clan. Unless I’m miscounted, there are six minor deaths before the big two bite the big one; and it’s here that Flanagan and his coconspirators tested my patience on more than a single occasion. Mind you: each character gets his or her requisite screen time along with the appropriately dark comeuppance. It may not be entirely original if not outright predictable, but the grisly ends certainly serve their narrative purpose.
The cast is, undoubtedly, pretty exceptional here. Not everyone is at the top of their game, but – like many great programs – it’s an ensemble that works: the stronger players elevate the weaker ones, and even when the action slows to a snail’s pace here and there everyone has a part to play in the parable of bad graces. I just wish the scripts would’ve saved some of the more interesting actors and actresses for later in the work: I understand the curse – that everyone had to go – but couldn’t the more vivid ones have lasted a bit longer?
In the role of Roderick Usher, Bruce Greenwood – perhaps one of Hollywood’s best kept secrets – plays the patriarch to perfection. He’s a ruthless businessman who’ll stop at nothing to preserve the family fortune even though all the while he knows it’s destined to vanish in a heartbeat when the check comes due. As his equally duplicitous sister Madeline Usher, Mary McDonnell never quite finds the right notes: she’s a bit too maniacally aloof at times – when perhaps greater mischievousness would’ve been nice to see – and I found it hard to see her as the central voice-behind-the-throne when it mattered most. The ageless Carla Gugino – who looks so good she herself might’ve made a pact – inhabits the mysterious Verna – i.e. The Devil – along with several other iterations of the character; and she characteristically oozes sexiness along with Machiavellian evil in ample doses. Though a goodly portion of the action revolves around the Usher children, this tentpole threesome – in more ways than one – remains that hidden beating heart at all times; and I wish Flanagan’s script had given the three more screen time together in the resulting build-up.
"The Usher family is never far from controversy. The fortunes of siblings Roderick and Madeline Usher were made through Fortunato Pharmaceuticals, a company whose products are often under scrutiny due to health concerns. Assistant District Attorney C. Auguste Dupin is determined to land a conviction and his case against Fortunato and the Ushers has gone to trial. Now, right in the middle of the trial, Roderick's children are dying under mysterious circumstances. Roderick Usher knows who/what is behind the deaths and meets with Dupin to reveal all."
Believe it or not, the late Edgar Allan Poe was most decidedly not popular in his own lifetime. Like so many great voices, his was not found by the masses-at-large until much later – posthumously, as they say – with the only true success he had the chance to see was “The Raven” published in 1845. Given the fact that he passed away only a few years later, such notoriety late in his days pretty much guaranteed he missed his chance at fortune and fame … and, yet, history – that cruel mistress – turned a kind eye his way. Gradually, his works became known to more and more readers; and some even suggest that he was one of the truly great authors of the 19th Century.
That being the case, it’s easy to see how writer/director Mike Flanagan decided that he wanted to shed some new light on Poe’s library; what I find a bit confusing is why he, functionally, borrowed so very little of it to bring The Fall Of The House Of Usher to life on Netflix. I’ve read on the World Wide Web that the series exist not as one but adaptations of eight Poe tales; and – while that might be stylistically true – what emerges on the small screen only draws on minor details to tell a much broader story … with The Fall only serving as a kinda/sorta bookend with which to introduce the Usher family and then host their inevitable demise.
Yeah, yeah, and yeah: I realize that there are those who are going to accuse me of nitpicking here, but – at the end of the day – that’s the job of any good critic. It’s our job to point out deficiencies. That’s why I’d warn Poe aficionados showing up to not look too deeply at this Horror/Melodrama and instead approach it as a larger work inspired by Poe’s narratives. (Otherwise, there’s very little literal Poe in this yet a good smattering of his best ideas.)
However, at eight episodes, I’d still argue that there’s a great deal of excess to Usher. The central story here – basically, the Ushers are undone over a pact with the Devil – could’ve been told in, perhaps, a two-hour telefilm; but the material was expanded to include the whole kit and kaboodle of the Usher clan. Unless I’m miscounted, there are six minor deaths before the big two bite the big one; and it’s here that Flanagan and his coconspirators tested my patience on more than a single occasion. Mind you: each character gets his or her requisite screen time along with the appropriately dark comeuppance. It may not be entirely original if not outright predictable, but the grisly ends certainly serve their narrative purpose.
The cast is, undoubtedly, pretty exceptional here. Not everyone is at the top of their game, but – like many great programs – it’s an ensemble that works: the stronger players elevate the weaker ones, and even when the action slows to a snail’s pace here and there everyone has a part to play in the parable of bad graces. I just wish the scripts would’ve saved some of the more interesting actors and actresses for later in the work: I understand the curse – that everyone had to go – but couldn’t the more vivid ones have lasted a bit longer?
In the role of Roderick Usher, Bruce Greenwood – perhaps one of Hollywood’s best kept secrets – plays the patriarch to perfection. He’s a ruthless businessman who’ll stop at nothing to preserve the family fortune even though all the while he knows it’s destined to vanish in a heartbeat when the check comes due. As his equally duplicitous sister Madeline Usher, Mary McDonnell never quite finds the right notes: she’s a bit too maniacally aloof at times – when perhaps greater mischievousness would’ve been nice to see – and I found it hard to see her as the central voice-behind-the-throne when it mattered most. The ageless Carla Gugino – who looks so good she herself might’ve made a pact – inhabits the mysterious Verna – i.e. The Devil – along with several other iterations of the character; and she characteristically oozes sexiness along with Machiavellian evil in ample doses. Though a goodly portion of the action revolves around the Usher children, this tentpole threesome – in more ways than one – remains that hidden beating heart at all times; and I wish Flanagan’s script had given the three more screen time together in the resulting build-up.
The other narrative weakness worth mentioning here is that it winds up feeling immeasurably formulaic once you’ve in on the game.
Also, when I was a young’un, the guys in my grade school would come to recess wanting to talk about the latest episode of Rod Serling’s classic The Twilight Zone that frequently aired in syndication back in those days. While they were huge, huge fans of it, I found it only middling – no insult intended to its greatness – because once you’ve seen a good handful of episodes it becomes increasingly easy to predict (or nearly predict) the outcome. In short, they all end with a twist of sorts, and these just deserts usually tie back to some flaw of the main characters. Sadly, the same can be said for the Usher children: whatever gluttonous choice they’ve made in their present will tie directly into their demise. As strong as these final flourishes are handled, they’re still all foreseeable once the seams on the fastball are visible.
And because this is big budget Hollywood production, Flanagan and his crew fulfilled the task of indicting the major ‘baddie of the day,’ and here it would appear that they’d like to bring a glorious end to the entire pharmaceutical industry. (Really, Tinseltown? Can’t you for once just let the Devil be the criminal? She’s right here in human form, for Pete’s sake?) Points are scored, and the Western way of life is attacked from perhaps every vantage point, but there can be no larger social ill than capitalism, of which the various drug making companies drink from the same trough. Usher is increasingly preachy the closer this one strides toward its big finish, and I would’ve appreciated fewer sermons. (That’s what church is for, after all.)
Highly recommended.
The Fall Of The House Of Usher (2023) has been the recipient of an incredible amount of critical and commercial praise; and – in all honesty – that’s the only reason I wanted to see it. While I’d never suggest the acclaim is unworthy, I would say that those looking for a faithful adaptation of the works of Edgar Allan Poe would be better served looking elsewhere as this really only grabs on a few key stories and, essentially, uses scant ideas of them in a vastly different mold. Performances are good, but the real reason to marvel at this one is its technical prowess: this is, arguably, one of the finest assembled works I’ve seen on television, and – if there is balance in the universe – it should mop the floor with contenders during awards season.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of The Fall Of The House Of Usher as I viewed it entirely through my very own Netflix subscription.
-- EZ
Also, when I was a young’un, the guys in my grade school would come to recess wanting to talk about the latest episode of Rod Serling’s classic The Twilight Zone that frequently aired in syndication back in those days. While they were huge, huge fans of it, I found it only middling – no insult intended to its greatness – because once you’ve seen a good handful of episodes it becomes increasingly easy to predict (or nearly predict) the outcome. In short, they all end with a twist of sorts, and these just deserts usually tie back to some flaw of the main characters. Sadly, the same can be said for the Usher children: whatever gluttonous choice they’ve made in their present will tie directly into their demise. As strong as these final flourishes are handled, they’re still all foreseeable once the seams on the fastball are visible.
And because this is big budget Hollywood production, Flanagan and his crew fulfilled the task of indicting the major ‘baddie of the day,’ and here it would appear that they’d like to bring a glorious end to the entire pharmaceutical industry. (Really, Tinseltown? Can’t you for once just let the Devil be the criminal? She’s right here in human form, for Pete’s sake?) Points are scored, and the Western way of life is attacked from perhaps every vantage point, but there can be no larger social ill than capitalism, of which the various drug making companies drink from the same trough. Usher is increasingly preachy the closer this one strides toward its big finish, and I would’ve appreciated fewer sermons. (That’s what church is for, after all.)
Highly recommended.
The Fall Of The House Of Usher (2023) has been the recipient of an incredible amount of critical and commercial praise; and – in all honesty – that’s the only reason I wanted to see it. While I’d never suggest the acclaim is unworthy, I would say that those looking for a faithful adaptation of the works of Edgar Allan Poe would be better served looking elsewhere as this really only grabs on a few key stories and, essentially, uses scant ideas of them in a vastly different mold. Performances are good, but the real reason to marvel at this one is its technical prowess: this is, arguably, one of the finest assembled works I’ve seen on television, and – if there is balance in the universe – it should mop the floor with contenders during awards season.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review of The Fall Of The House Of Usher as I viewed it entirely through my very own Netflix subscription.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to the other side of the hump! That's right ... it's Thursday ... and the countdown to the weekend has begun!
Ahhh .... the memories of Star Trek: The Experience ...
What? You've never heard?
Well, all the way back in 1998, one of the greatest attractions for Star Trek enthusiasts around the world opened when the Las Vegas Hilton hosted Star Trek: The Experience for its gala debut. For all intents and purposes, the exhibit literally 'transported' consumers into the 23rd Century with a theme park style ride that started out on the transporter pad to the USS Enterprise-D. From there, you were whisked to the bridge where -- if I remember correctly -- it was Commander William Riker who provided a briefing via the main viewscreen. It would seem that all of us Regular Joes arrived on the cusp of some engagement with some nefarious Klingons -- in a Bird Of Prey, no less -- and when things went south all of us were marched off the bridge and evacuated in shuttlecraft. Here, we'd zoom through outer space and into the vortex meant to deliver us back in our proper timeline ... only, then, we'd look out to find that the Klingons came back with us, requiring the flagship of the Federation fleet to, ultimately, blast them out of the sky!
Ahhh ... what great fun!
What? You don't believe this was ever a thing?
Well, here's the simulator ride video footage, compliments of a YouTube.com link, just to put your doubts to bed.
Ahhh .... the memories of Star Trek: The Experience ...
What? You've never heard?
Well, all the way back in 1998, one of the greatest attractions for Star Trek enthusiasts around the world opened when the Las Vegas Hilton hosted Star Trek: The Experience for its gala debut. For all intents and purposes, the exhibit literally 'transported' consumers into the 23rd Century with a theme park style ride that started out on the transporter pad to the USS Enterprise-D. From there, you were whisked to the bridge where -- if I remember correctly -- it was Commander William Riker who provided a briefing via the main viewscreen. It would seem that all of us Regular Joes arrived on the cusp of some engagement with some nefarious Klingons -- in a Bird Of Prey, no less -- and when things went south all of us were marched off the bridge and evacuated in shuttlecraft. Here, we'd zoom through outer space and into the vortex meant to deliver us back in our proper timeline ... only, then, we'd look out to find that the Klingons came back with us, requiring the flagship of the Federation fleet to, ultimately, blast them out of the sky!
Ahhh ... what great fun!
What? You don't believe this was ever a thing?
Well, here's the simulator ride video footage, compliments of a YouTube.com link, just to put your doubts to bed.
At the conclusion to the simulator ride, you were let out aboard the Deep Space Nine station's Promenade. Here, there were a few nice gift shops with some premium style merchandise that was, largely, only available for purchase there at The Experience. You could also pop into Quark's for a drink or a meal, and there were some massive viewscreens all about the place always broadcasting footage from any number of Star Trek shows. It was truly a fabulous spot for folks who wanted to see the future brought to life with the style of the television shows.
Yes, yes, and yes: if you can't tell, I miss it dearly.
The wifey and I managed to squeeze in one last trip up there not long before the doors closed, and we even enjoyed a backstage pass style fan experience wherein we were allowed onto the Bridge without the main attendees for photo ops and the like. The place wonderfully captured the feel of TNG and DS9; and, of course, there were rumors that it was going to be resurrected for some time at a different venue in Las Vegas. Sadly, nothing ever came to life, but here's hoping this wasn't the last we'll ever see of Star Trek: The Experience.
If you want to see what the whole simulator experience was like, then check out this feature also up on YouTube.com:
Yes, yes, and yes: if you can't tell, I miss it dearly.
The wifey and I managed to squeeze in one last trip up there not long before the doors closed, and we even enjoyed a backstage pass style fan experience wherein we were allowed onto the Bridge without the main attendees for photo ops and the like. The place wonderfully captured the feel of TNG and DS9; and, of course, there were rumors that it was going to be resurrected for some time at a different venue in Las Vegas. Sadly, nothing ever came to life, but here's hoping this wasn't the last we'll ever see of Star Trek: The Experience.
If you want to see what the whole simulator experience was like, then check out this feature also up on YouTube.com:
Incredible, no?
Now imagine doing it live. I think on my first trip there I rode the full ride three times. By the end of the day, my back hurt a bit because of the bumpiness of the simulator, but it was worth it.
Naturally, I'll say that if Paramount could get its act together with the handling of the intellectual property, it would be grand to see such a destination pop up again. I believe we went a total of four times over the years, and we'd still be heading there on a regular basis were it still in operation.
In other news, here's what you're really here for today ...
Now imagine doing it live. I think on my first trip there I rode the full ride three times. By the end of the day, my back hurt a bit because of the bumpiness of the simulator, but it was worth it.
Naturally, I'll say that if Paramount could get its act together with the handling of the intellectual property, it would be grand to see such a destination pop up again. I believe we went a total of four times over the years, and we'd still be heading there on a regular basis were it still in operation.
In other news, here's what you're really here for today ...
Surf on over to the Daily Citation Page for January 4th, and I think you'll find plenty of trivia to keep you satiated for the duration.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Alas, I don't see a great deal of biographical information available to me on IMDB.com regarding Mickey Cottrell, whose passing I have the responsibility of reporting today. That isn't unusual, per se: a lot of folks in the entertainment industry still manage to maintain a modicum of privacy. Good for them, I say: the limelight doesn't need to spill over into all of one's personal affairs, and maybe he's a better person for keeping his private life private.
In any event, it looks like the talented man found his way from the great American Midwest to Hollywood in respectable time. He built himself a solid resume of smaller screen roles as well as segued into working behind-the-scenes on the production staff as well as reaching the level of producer. Though his screen time may've been in supporting players, he still managed -- with only thirty-six credits to his name -- to build a fairly impressive track record in the realms of the Fantastic, making stops to both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager along the way. In fact, his character of 'Chancellor Alrik' winded up with the task of enjoying wedded bliss to 'Kamala,' played on screen by the lovely Famke Janssen. What a role that could've been, am I right?
From an article on Yahoo.com News:
“He was the most fun brother ever,” Cottrell-Smith relayed to the outlet. “So many good memories of when I was a kid — we’d sing together, dance, just all kinds of fun things that went on all the time when he was around. … He was just so fun, full of life, entertaining. Every woman in the neighborhood adored him. He had a job when he was a teenager where he would take the bus downtown and he had to walk two or three blocks home from the bus stop, and he’d be singing and dancing all the way home. And all the ladies in the neighborhood would come outside and watch him.”
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Cottrell.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
In any event, it looks like the talented man found his way from the great American Midwest to Hollywood in respectable time. He built himself a solid resume of smaller screen roles as well as segued into working behind-the-scenes on the production staff as well as reaching the level of producer. Though his screen time may've been in supporting players, he still managed -- with only thirty-six credits to his name -- to build a fairly impressive track record in the realms of the Fantastic, making stops to both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager along the way. In fact, his character of 'Chancellor Alrik' winded up with the task of enjoying wedded bliss to 'Kamala,' played on screen by the lovely Famke Janssen. What a role that could've been, am I right?
From an article on Yahoo.com News:
“He was the most fun brother ever,” Cottrell-Smith relayed to the outlet. “So many good memories of when I was a kid — we’d sing together, dance, just all kinds of fun things that went on all the time when he was around. … He was just so fun, full of life, entertaining. Every woman in the neighborhood adored him. He had a job when he was a teenager where he would take the bus downtown and he had to walk two or three blocks home from the bus stop, and he’d be singing and dancing all the way home. And all the ladies in the neighborhood would come outside and watch him.”
Our warmest thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Cottrell.
May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
“I’m very thrilled about the project because I feel what we’re about to create is something very special,” Obaid-Chinoy recently told CNN. “We’re in 2024 now, and it’s about time that we had a woman come forward to shape a story in a galaxy far, far away.”
– Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, Storyteller
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
– Ariel Durant, Philosopher
Folks, I’m on record hundreds if not thousands of times in this space saying that I don’t like to pick on people.
Essentially, there’s little to be gained from such corrosive activity. Each of us at times have been prone to say or suggest something that might end up to be bone-headedly stupid upon further reflection, so why expend any substantive effort throwing sticks and stones at folks who at the end of the day just don’t matter? Maybe it isn’t so much wasted energy as it is misdirected momentum, the kind of muscle that could be exercised in a more productive fashion. Granted, I’m not necessarily out to save humanity by blogging about movies, television, and the wider state of entertainment; and yet I can still try to set a good example for those who show up to this space when and if they do. I try – at all times – to be a respectable steward … maybe not a good one or a bad one … but a respectable one. Someone folks might not always agree with, but someone who’s proven he has something worthwhile to say … right or wrong.
Still, when the tree serves up such delicious low-hanging fruit, why not pick it?
Am I right?
So … the comment above was a little ‘something something’ muttered in an actual interview by the much-lauded filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy. Apparently, it’s her contention that in all of Star Wars history there’s been no woman actively shaping this space saga; and she’s just been granted the opportunity to take Rey Skywalker into the future in a proposed stand-alone adventure that’ll likely be very, very, very decidedly female in perspective.
Hmmm.
Now – as I said, I’m not one to pick on others – but let it be known – for the record – that a good many ladies have left a substantial mark on Star Wars production. (Yes, yes, and yes: I think what Ms. Obaid-Chinoy likely meant to say that no individual film has had a woman directing, and that’s accurate … but it entirely dismisses the Star Wars Television Universe.) A misspeak doesn’t excuse such blithering and impolite stupidity, so I’m choosing today to use this space to kinda/sorta set the record straight. (Ms. Obaid-Chinoy, if you can spare a moment? This short list might help bring you up to speed. Apologies that it’s been written by a man, but I can’t change my gender.)
Of course, it’s long been stated that while George Lucas is given full artistic credit for the creation of the galaxy far, far away, his wife – Marcia Lucas – was an accomplished Hollywood editor who aided her husband in streamlining unnecessary footage and giving the Original Trilogy a great deal more emotional warmth. So, yeah, it might be true that Marcia never directed anything (that we know of and/or has been confirmed, at least to my albeit limited knowledge), it stands without question that she made a rather substantial impact alongside others in placing this saga where it is today.
Also, ignoring the late Carrie Fisher’s contributions to the space saga only because she never served as a director is also a huge, huge, huge insult to those involved. Granted, Fisher is rather famously known for dressing up and bringing one of the signature figureheads of the Rebellion to life in the Original Trilogy as well as the Sequel Trilogy; but it’s been written that she also helped Lucas by punching up some of the dialogue in the Prequel Trilogy. Sure, sure, and sure: I get that perhaps those scripts aren’t exactly revered for their brilliance, but what matters here is that we’re talking about the contributions of females in shaping Star Wars, and I think that’s relevant.
Furthermore, has Obaid-Chinoy never even heard of her boss, Kathleen Kennedy? Kennedy and her supporters within Lucasfilm rather notoriously announced that “The Force Is Female” whilst in the midst of production for the Sequel Trilogy as well as a great deal of the television entries, so … ? Because Kennedy was never christened as “director” apparently all of the effort expended to both create new products and steer the franchise practically off the financial cliff counts for nought? Mind you, Kennedy wasn’t involved in every single decision, I’m sure, but there’s no mistaking her contributions made. That’s the substance of Obaid-Chinoy’s awful take, so it’s worthy of mention.
Dare I even fail to list Leslye Headland? This controversial storyteller and Harvey Weinstein enabler has been diligently at work behind the scenes crafting what Kennedy has promised to be the greatest next chapter in all of Star Wars: The Acolyte is finally going to seeing the light of day some time in 2024. It sports an almost entirely female cast, no blasters, and a lot of space-aged kung fu (from what I’ve read), and I would expect a force like Headland might feel more than a tad slighted by Obaid-Chinoy’s rather obvious dismissal from the proceedings.
Now … mind you … I could go on. There are an incredible number of specialists who have toiled almost endlessly behind-the-scenes in roles big and small with Star Wars production. (Bryce Dallas Howard and Deborah Chow have made significant contributions to The Mandalorian, but, again, that doesn’t mean squat in Obaid-Chinoy’s universe, apparently.) All one need to is run down the credits list for any single motion picture to see that a good percentage have been of the kinder, gentler sex. Dismissing their impact simply because they weren’t directors should be the kind of egregious slur that, normally, would end one’s career … but this is Hollywood … and in Hollywood name-calling and backstabbing are in ample supply.
Instead of looking at the make-up of one’s chromosomes in deciding what’s best behind the camera, why can’t we just see your completed effort and let us decide for ourselves?
– Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, Storyteller
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
– Ariel Durant, Philosopher
Folks, I’m on record hundreds if not thousands of times in this space saying that I don’t like to pick on people.
Essentially, there’s little to be gained from such corrosive activity. Each of us at times have been prone to say or suggest something that might end up to be bone-headedly stupid upon further reflection, so why expend any substantive effort throwing sticks and stones at folks who at the end of the day just don’t matter? Maybe it isn’t so much wasted energy as it is misdirected momentum, the kind of muscle that could be exercised in a more productive fashion. Granted, I’m not necessarily out to save humanity by blogging about movies, television, and the wider state of entertainment; and yet I can still try to set a good example for those who show up to this space when and if they do. I try – at all times – to be a respectable steward … maybe not a good one or a bad one … but a respectable one. Someone folks might not always agree with, but someone who’s proven he has something worthwhile to say … right or wrong.
Still, when the tree serves up such delicious low-hanging fruit, why not pick it?
Am I right?
So … the comment above was a little ‘something something’ muttered in an actual interview by the much-lauded filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy. Apparently, it’s her contention that in all of Star Wars history there’s been no woman actively shaping this space saga; and she’s just been granted the opportunity to take Rey Skywalker into the future in a proposed stand-alone adventure that’ll likely be very, very, very decidedly female in perspective.
Hmmm.
Now – as I said, I’m not one to pick on others – but let it be known – for the record – that a good many ladies have left a substantial mark on Star Wars production. (Yes, yes, and yes: I think what Ms. Obaid-Chinoy likely meant to say that no individual film has had a woman directing, and that’s accurate … but it entirely dismisses the Star Wars Television Universe.) A misspeak doesn’t excuse such blithering and impolite stupidity, so I’m choosing today to use this space to kinda/sorta set the record straight. (Ms. Obaid-Chinoy, if you can spare a moment? This short list might help bring you up to speed. Apologies that it’s been written by a man, but I can’t change my gender.)
Of course, it’s long been stated that while George Lucas is given full artistic credit for the creation of the galaxy far, far away, his wife – Marcia Lucas – was an accomplished Hollywood editor who aided her husband in streamlining unnecessary footage and giving the Original Trilogy a great deal more emotional warmth. So, yeah, it might be true that Marcia never directed anything (that we know of and/or has been confirmed, at least to my albeit limited knowledge), it stands without question that she made a rather substantial impact alongside others in placing this saga where it is today.
Also, ignoring the late Carrie Fisher’s contributions to the space saga only because she never served as a director is also a huge, huge, huge insult to those involved. Granted, Fisher is rather famously known for dressing up and bringing one of the signature figureheads of the Rebellion to life in the Original Trilogy as well as the Sequel Trilogy; but it’s been written that she also helped Lucas by punching up some of the dialogue in the Prequel Trilogy. Sure, sure, and sure: I get that perhaps those scripts aren’t exactly revered for their brilliance, but what matters here is that we’re talking about the contributions of females in shaping Star Wars, and I think that’s relevant.
Furthermore, has Obaid-Chinoy never even heard of her boss, Kathleen Kennedy? Kennedy and her supporters within Lucasfilm rather notoriously announced that “The Force Is Female” whilst in the midst of production for the Sequel Trilogy as well as a great deal of the television entries, so … ? Because Kennedy was never christened as “director” apparently all of the effort expended to both create new products and steer the franchise practically off the financial cliff counts for nought? Mind you, Kennedy wasn’t involved in every single decision, I’m sure, but there’s no mistaking her contributions made. That’s the substance of Obaid-Chinoy’s awful take, so it’s worthy of mention.
Dare I even fail to list Leslye Headland? This controversial storyteller and Harvey Weinstein enabler has been diligently at work behind the scenes crafting what Kennedy has promised to be the greatest next chapter in all of Star Wars: The Acolyte is finally going to seeing the light of day some time in 2024. It sports an almost entirely female cast, no blasters, and a lot of space-aged kung fu (from what I’ve read), and I would expect a force like Headland might feel more than a tad slighted by Obaid-Chinoy’s rather obvious dismissal from the proceedings.
Now … mind you … I could go on. There are an incredible number of specialists who have toiled almost endlessly behind-the-scenes in roles big and small with Star Wars production. (Bryce Dallas Howard and Deborah Chow have made significant contributions to The Mandalorian, but, again, that doesn’t mean squat in Obaid-Chinoy’s universe, apparently.) All one need to is run down the credits list for any single motion picture to see that a good percentage have been of the kinder, gentler sex. Dismissing their impact simply because they weren’t directors should be the kind of egregious slur that, normally, would end one’s career … but this is Hollywood … and in Hollywood name-calling and backstabbing are in ample supply.
Instead of looking at the make-up of one’s chromosomes in deciding what’s best behind the camera, why can’t we just see your completed effort and let us decide for ourselves?
- Published on
Stardate 01.03.2024.A: Life After Death Won't Keep A Good Cop Down In 1991's 'the Blue Jean Monster'
From what I’ve read, one of the biggest differences between ‘the East’ and 'the West’ is how the respective cultures approach life spiritually.
(No, I’m not talking about God here, though there could be elements of that as well.)
While we in ‘the West’ tend to avoid ascribing ideas like Fate and Karma to random events, I’ve read that folks in ‘the East’ see some of these otherworldly influences at play with great consistency. The spirits are always up to something, or the great god of the mountain is making it rain together. Life is vastly more mystical than a meaningless series of unrelated events between life and birth, and we’re touched and affected and influenced by life forces well beyond our own in daily pursuits. I don’t pretend to understand all of these cultural differences, nor would I consider myself an expert in any way on East/West differences; but I can say that – having seen a good deal of film from China, Korea, and Japan, it’s easy to identify how some storytellers incorporate spirituality into their scripts in ways U.S. films by comparison simply ignore.
Still, I didn’t expect to get even a small dose of such mysticism like I did in the weird cop/comedy The Blue Jean Monster (1991). Though one piece or two might seem small and/or inconsequential, they still show a cultural trait working its way into what would otherwise be a mundane moment or two; and this gives an otherwise forgettable feature a bit of extra flavor those watching closely might appreciate. Ultimately, that may not help make this Monster one for the history books – as it’s otherwise a bit too looney and predictable – but it still more than adequately shows that even zombies won’t enter the afterlife quietly without achieving one’s spiritual goals.
(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 cop gets buried under steel rebars while pursuing triad bank robbers through a construction site. He gets reanimated supernaturally and becomes invulnerable, but needs electricity to remain alive, and goes after the gang who killed him.”
(No, I’m not talking about God here, though there could be elements of that as well.)
While we in ‘the West’ tend to avoid ascribing ideas like Fate and Karma to random events, I’ve read that folks in ‘the East’ see some of these otherworldly influences at play with great consistency. The spirits are always up to something, or the great god of the mountain is making it rain together. Life is vastly more mystical than a meaningless series of unrelated events between life and birth, and we’re touched and affected and influenced by life forces well beyond our own in daily pursuits. I don’t pretend to understand all of these cultural differences, nor would I consider myself an expert in any way on East/West differences; but I can say that – having seen a good deal of film from China, Korea, and Japan, it’s easy to identify how some storytellers incorporate spirituality into their scripts in ways U.S. films by comparison simply ignore.
Still, I didn’t expect to get even a small dose of such mysticism like I did in the weird cop/comedy The Blue Jean Monster (1991). Though one piece or two might seem small and/or inconsequential, they still show a cultural trait working its way into what would otherwise be a mundane moment or two; and this gives an otherwise forgettable feature a bit of extra flavor those watching closely might appreciate. Ultimately, that may not help make this Monster one for the history books – as it’s otherwise a bit too looney and predictable – but it still more than adequately shows that even zombies won’t enter the afterlife quietly without achieving one’s spiritual goals.
(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 cop gets buried under steel rebars while pursuing triad bank robbers through a construction site. He gets reanimated supernaturally and becomes invulnerable, but needs electricity to remain alive, and goes after the gang who killed him.”
Upon reflection, I find it difficult to make too much of The Blue Jean Monster, a somewhat weird blend of comedy and gritty cop dramas produced in Hong Kong back in 1991.
Directed by Kai-Ming Lai (aka Ivan Lai), it’s an uneven procedural that tries to mix some downright silly antics at times with themes of the supernatural alongside a light buddy-cop story that dishes some theatrical violence in the last reel. According to IMDB.com, screenwriter Kam-Hung Ng doesn’t have a great deal of work to his name – with only four screen credits, this one appears to be his last and crowning achievement – so it’s equally hard to measure what other ideas could’ve been front-and-center of the creator’s mind to make sense of some deficiencies. The film never tries to hammer at any central messages; in fact, even the inclusion of its very low-brow humor might suggest a bit of laziness went into the whole affair.
It isn’t uncommon for film output around the world to be influenced by popular flicks of the day, and I’m left wondering if that isn’t the central problem with Monster: at times, it feels as if bits and pieces of influence were cobbled together by a screenwriter and director in order to make something that felt all too similar to another (vastly more successful) picture. Naturally, the hope would be to duplicate the box office success that some other creative team achieved; but without knowing more of what went into the making of the film I can only suspect that was the case here. Stranger things have happened.
Tsu Hsiang (played by popular Chinese actor Fui-On Shing) is a cop living his life and career to the fullest. He’s about to be blessed with the birth of his first child when Fate throws him a cruel twist: while in pursuit of a gang of bank robbers, he’s struck down in a horrific accident that leaves him buried under a small mountain of steel. But the life force of a stray cat – along with a strike of lightning – reanimates this force of justice, turning him into a modern-day Frankenstein who’ll stop at nothing to both witness the birth of his child and bringing the crooks who caused his ‘death’ to their own grisly ends.
So … one needn’t go to a great deal of work to see the rather obvious influences at work in that short parade of ideas.
Clearly, there’s a callback to the original Frankenstein, and one might even see the power of lightning as giving life or even twisting Fate as it was thematically used in Robert Zemeckis’ stellar Back To The Future trilogy. There’s even a cult(ish) cop comedy from the late 1980’s – Dead Heat – that deals specifically with an officer of the law brought back from the dead to see his mission completed. (In fact, the product packaging suggests the flick was conceived as a Hong Kong incarnation of that picture, an odd one to copy as I’m not sure how well-known it was around the world much less at the box office.) But Hollywood and beyond do love to seize on what’s been done before, to bend it, to reshape it, and deliver something derivative; and it’s fair to see the work and ideas of others trying to chart similar narrative paths here.
What resonates more strongly with Monster than other moments is the fact that Tsu over and over again insists he must survive to see the birth of his child. As much as he remains steadfast in his pursuit of those criminals who led to his demise, he’s equally insistent upon staying alive to experience the joy of his legacy. This decidedly human trait keeps this somewhat zombie cop within the realm of understanding for audiences, showing us that he’s still a man despite the need to be ‘recharged’ electrically several times over the course of the picture. No matter how monstrous he might appear with torn flesh, pale skin, or fleshy eyes, the heart of a true spirit beats (or doesn’t) within. Thankfully, the script does see the man achieving both goals – and, yes, they’re linked together in more ways than one in the climatic battle of the last reel – so let’s all be thankful for small miracles.
Directed by Kai-Ming Lai (aka Ivan Lai), it’s an uneven procedural that tries to mix some downright silly antics at times with themes of the supernatural alongside a light buddy-cop story that dishes some theatrical violence in the last reel. According to IMDB.com, screenwriter Kam-Hung Ng doesn’t have a great deal of work to his name – with only four screen credits, this one appears to be his last and crowning achievement – so it’s equally hard to measure what other ideas could’ve been front-and-center of the creator’s mind to make sense of some deficiencies. The film never tries to hammer at any central messages; in fact, even the inclusion of its very low-brow humor might suggest a bit of laziness went into the whole affair.
It isn’t uncommon for film output around the world to be influenced by popular flicks of the day, and I’m left wondering if that isn’t the central problem with Monster: at times, it feels as if bits and pieces of influence were cobbled together by a screenwriter and director in order to make something that felt all too similar to another (vastly more successful) picture. Naturally, the hope would be to duplicate the box office success that some other creative team achieved; but without knowing more of what went into the making of the film I can only suspect that was the case here. Stranger things have happened.
Tsu Hsiang (played by popular Chinese actor Fui-On Shing) is a cop living his life and career to the fullest. He’s about to be blessed with the birth of his first child when Fate throws him a cruel twist: while in pursuit of a gang of bank robbers, he’s struck down in a horrific accident that leaves him buried under a small mountain of steel. But the life force of a stray cat – along with a strike of lightning – reanimates this force of justice, turning him into a modern-day Frankenstein who’ll stop at nothing to both witness the birth of his child and bringing the crooks who caused his ‘death’ to their own grisly ends.
So … one needn’t go to a great deal of work to see the rather obvious influences at work in that short parade of ideas.
Clearly, there’s a callback to the original Frankenstein, and one might even see the power of lightning as giving life or even twisting Fate as it was thematically used in Robert Zemeckis’ stellar Back To The Future trilogy. There’s even a cult(ish) cop comedy from the late 1980’s – Dead Heat – that deals specifically with an officer of the law brought back from the dead to see his mission completed. (In fact, the product packaging suggests the flick was conceived as a Hong Kong incarnation of that picture, an odd one to copy as I’m not sure how well-known it was around the world much less at the box office.) But Hollywood and beyond do love to seize on what’s been done before, to bend it, to reshape it, and deliver something derivative; and it’s fair to see the work and ideas of others trying to chart similar narrative paths here.
What resonates more strongly with Monster than other moments is the fact that Tsu over and over again insists he must survive to see the birth of his child. As much as he remains steadfast in his pursuit of those criminals who led to his demise, he’s equally insistent upon staying alive to experience the joy of his legacy. This decidedly human trait keeps this somewhat zombie cop within the realm of understanding for audiences, showing us that he’s still a man despite the need to be ‘recharged’ electrically several times over the course of the picture. No matter how monstrous he might appear with torn flesh, pale skin, or fleshy eyes, the heart of a true spirit beats (or doesn’t) within. Thankfully, the script does see the man achieving both goals – and, yes, they’re linked together in more ways than one in the climatic battle of the last reel – so let’s all be thankful for small miracles.
My biggest struggle with Monster was that it never effectively balances its drama and comedy at any point.
I’m long known amongst friends and colleagues for not being a fan of easy comedy. Slapstick and general goofiness – lunacy of characters or basic buffoonery – just don’t reach me the way it does others. I’ve always preferred a smart edge to comedy, be it physical or verbal, and I have a fondness for outright satire. Though I can be patient with such clowning, it really needs to have its proper place in the story; and that just doesn’t happen here. Tsu ends up occasionally being painted as fairly dumb in a few moments, and that flies in the face of logic with how he could be as good a detective as he’s supposed to be. The grimness of several scenes – along with the portrayal of some violence and thuggery – winds up feeling out-of-place when compared to the film’s overall sense of humor, and there’s just no means to balance all of this tonally in the final estimation.
The Blue Jean Monster (1991) was produced by Diagonal Pictures, Golden Harvest Company, and Paragon Films Ltd. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good folks at 88 Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds to this Blu-ray release were quite good; there’s no loss of audience and only a smattering of inferior quality transfers here and there. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts the original theatrical trailer, a stills gallery, and an interview with the film’s assistant director Sam Leong. Additionally, the slipcase reportedly contains some new artwork produced for the release, and it also contains a double-sided fold-out poster. It’s a good collection – a bit light on content – for fans who like this kind of thing.
Mildly recommended.
Tonally, The Blue Jean Monster is a bit of catastrophe. It gravitates between slapstick humor and some grim subject matter a bit too often for this viewer, making the result feel like some bizarre halfling – not unlike the Monster himself! – but all too unintentionally. There are some interesting ideas in here – one man’s unflinching commitment to the law and his personal legacy – but they don’t find the traction they deserve when paired up against some slapstick behavior that feels ridiculously out of place. Think of all of this as a Cantonese riff on the Frankenstein myth – with cops and robbers thrown in for good measure – and you’re still likely to have a bit of fun with it.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at 88 Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Blue Jean Monster (1991) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
I’m long known amongst friends and colleagues for not being a fan of easy comedy. Slapstick and general goofiness – lunacy of characters or basic buffoonery – just don’t reach me the way it does others. I’ve always preferred a smart edge to comedy, be it physical or verbal, and I have a fondness for outright satire. Though I can be patient with such clowning, it really needs to have its proper place in the story; and that just doesn’t happen here. Tsu ends up occasionally being painted as fairly dumb in a few moments, and that flies in the face of logic with how he could be as good a detective as he’s supposed to be. The grimness of several scenes – along with the portrayal of some violence and thuggery – winds up feeling out-of-place when compared to the film’s overall sense of humor, and there’s just no means to balance all of this tonally in the final estimation.
The Blue Jean Monster (1991) was produced by Diagonal Pictures, Golden Harvest Company, and Paragon Films Ltd. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good folks at 88 Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds to this Blu-ray release were quite good; there’s no loss of audience and only a smattering of inferior quality transfers here and there. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts the original theatrical trailer, a stills gallery, and an interview with the film’s assistant director Sam Leong. Additionally, the slipcase reportedly contains some new artwork produced for the release, and it also contains a double-sided fold-out poster. It’s a good collection – a bit light on content – for fans who like this kind of thing.
Mildly recommended.
Tonally, The Blue Jean Monster is a bit of catastrophe. It gravitates between slapstick humor and some grim subject matter a bit too often for this viewer, making the result feel like some bizarre halfling – not unlike the Monster himself! – but all too unintentionally. There are some interesting ideas in here – one man’s unflinching commitment to the law and his personal legacy – but they don’t find the traction they deserve when paired up against some slapstick behavior that feels ridiculously out of place. Think of all of this as a Cantonese riff on the Frankenstein myth – with cops and robbers thrown in for good measure – and you’re still likely to have a bit of fun with it.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at 88 Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Blue Jean Monster (1991) 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 the first Hump Day of the brand new year! That feels pretty damn good, am I right?
And ... how's your 2024 shaping up this early? I hope that you're doing everything humanly (and inhumanly) possible to seize each and every day and tame that beeeotch to be your very own! Let's hope for nothing but success and happiness this year, and let's work together to make that happen at each and every occasion, shall we?
Folks, I've gotta confess: I've caught some gnarly, gnarly sinus bug. Can't quite seem to get them to open up. I've been steaming and whatnot, popped a few pills, and slept in here and there. Been struggling with it a few days now. Finally, this morning I think it's starting to let up. Thankfully, the sinus headache -- which was unbelievably massive -- has kinda/sorta moved down out of the top of my head and has given me a bit of a reprieve. But it's kept me away from watching movies and the like. Honestly, the pain was so bad that I couldn't quite see clearly. I have a bad, bad, bad history with sinus stuff. Those of you who do? Say a prayer for me, please. Much appreciated. I'm on the mend, but any help to boost me along would be greatly appreciated.
Still, I'm hoping to squeeze in a flick this afternoon, so keep your eyes peeled.
Now ... did any of you know that yesterday -- January 2nd -- was officially National Science Fiction Day? Seriously, I never knew we even had such a thing. Apparently, it's tied directly to Isaac Asimov's birthday, so I guess our cultural betters think that makes it all legit. But it's good now that I know, and next year I'll try to make it more of a thing 'round these parts for all involved.
Well. Again, apologies for not keeping you up on the latest and greatest developments. Now that I know, I'll do better. In the meantime, here's what you're all waiting for ...
And ... how's your 2024 shaping up this early? I hope that you're doing everything humanly (and inhumanly) possible to seize each and every day and tame that beeeotch to be your very own! Let's hope for nothing but success and happiness this year, and let's work together to make that happen at each and every occasion, shall we?
Folks, I've gotta confess: I've caught some gnarly, gnarly sinus bug. Can't quite seem to get them to open up. I've been steaming and whatnot, popped a few pills, and slept in here and there. Been struggling with it a few days now. Finally, this morning I think it's starting to let up. Thankfully, the sinus headache -- which was unbelievably massive -- has kinda/sorta moved down out of the top of my head and has given me a bit of a reprieve. But it's kept me away from watching movies and the like. Honestly, the pain was so bad that I couldn't quite see clearly. I have a bad, bad, bad history with sinus stuff. Those of you who do? Say a prayer for me, please. Much appreciated. I'm on the mend, but any help to boost me along would be greatly appreciated.
Still, I'm hoping to squeeze in a flick this afternoon, so keep your eyes peeled.
Now ... did any of you know that yesterday -- January 2nd -- was officially National Science Fiction Day? Seriously, I never knew we even had such a thing. Apparently, it's tied directly to Isaac Asimov's birthday, so I guess our cultural betters think that makes it all legit. But it's good now that I know, and next year I'll try to make it more of a thing 'round these parts for all involved.
Well. Again, apologies for not keeping you up on the latest and greatest developments. Now that I know, I'll do better. In the meantime, here's what you're all waiting for ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
As one who does a reasonable amount of genre-related reading, I knew of the name Clive Barker for quite some time.
In fact, he’d been recommended to me as an author worth following, so a few decades back I’d picked up a short story collection and gave it a whirl. Contained within were one dark yarn after another with protagonists and antagonists often meshed in some bloody tale that involved one dark turn after another. Some of the stuff felt a bit mildly exploitative but not so much that the developments felt fast or cheap, and a good deal of what I read showed a level of inspiration not often seen in the written word. While I wasn’t quite won over (Horror stuff in film and in print rarely frightens me), I did find that the storyteller had some dynamic ideas trapped within his prose, so I kept my eyes peeled for more. It was about at this time that someone recommended I check out a few feature films for which he had delivered the scripts.
Now, I don’t pick on Horror authors even though their tomes may not exactly go bump in my night, if you catch my drift. Horror on the cerebral level – as opposed to being crafted visually in films and television – are two fundamentally different beasts that require different techniques; and what I find truly scary in my mind may not always translate well into images with characters in costumes backed up by ample technical effects. I’ve made observations in the past about how I think Stephen King adaptations suffer for much of the same reason – what chills me while reading in the dark isn’t the same as when I’m sitting with popcorn in a movie theater – so I’m going to preface my thoughts on Underworld (1985) the exact same way: all of this may’ve worked in prose, but so far as I can tell there’s a good bit that’s been lost – if not downright sacrificed – in translation.
As a result, I found far too much of Underworld underwhelming.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When high class hooker Nicole is kidnapped from her brothel, rich businessman Hugo Motherskille hires her ex-love Roy Bain to find her.”
Argh. In short? Well, Underworld’s a bit of a mess.
In fact, he’d been recommended to me as an author worth following, so a few decades back I’d picked up a short story collection and gave it a whirl. Contained within were one dark yarn after another with protagonists and antagonists often meshed in some bloody tale that involved one dark turn after another. Some of the stuff felt a bit mildly exploitative but not so much that the developments felt fast or cheap, and a good deal of what I read showed a level of inspiration not often seen in the written word. While I wasn’t quite won over (Horror stuff in film and in print rarely frightens me), I did find that the storyteller had some dynamic ideas trapped within his prose, so I kept my eyes peeled for more. It was about at this time that someone recommended I check out a few feature films for which he had delivered the scripts.
Now, I don’t pick on Horror authors even though their tomes may not exactly go bump in my night, if you catch my drift. Horror on the cerebral level – as opposed to being crafted visually in films and television – are two fundamentally different beasts that require different techniques; and what I find truly scary in my mind may not always translate well into images with characters in costumes backed up by ample technical effects. I’ve made observations in the past about how I think Stephen King adaptations suffer for much of the same reason – what chills me while reading in the dark isn’t the same as when I’m sitting with popcorn in a movie theater – so I’m going to preface my thoughts on Underworld (1985) the exact same way: all of this may’ve worked in prose, but so far as I can tell there’s a good bit that’s been lost – if not downright sacrificed – in translation.
As a result, I found far too much of Underworld underwhelming.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When high class hooker Nicole is kidnapped from her brothel, rich businessman Hugo Motherskille hires her ex-love Roy Bain to find her.”
Argh. In short? Well, Underworld’s a bit of a mess.
I know, I know, I know. Is it truly fair for me to say this definitively without making my argument. Well, I can do what I want with this space, and I’ll say that now and stand by it later, but I do try to be as frank and as blunt when I feel it’s necessary, and I think on this occasion it’s definitely warranted.
So let me explain …
I knew of Underworld under its other released name, Transmutations. (I’m uncertain as to just where and which countries it played under that name – either theatrically or with video release – but I’ve seen it referenced under that name far more than I have Underworld.) In fact, I’d seen it before – I believe it was on home video in the early 1990’s, but I could be amiss on the date – and I remember even watching a few sequences of it twice, mostly because I didn’t quite understand it. You see, there’s a great deal of world-building that has to take place in any picture in order for an audience to fully accept the people, the place, and the premise; and, sadly, that doesn’t quite happen effectively here. Granted, the script from Clive Barker and James Caplin strongly suggests some of the necessary details, but without greater specificity I found it a bit too murky for its own good.
Roy Bain (played by Larry Lamb) is a bit of a professional layout or errand boy … well, that’s only so far as I can tell in the film’s set-up. There are some allusions to the fact that he’s supposed to be a private detective – a hard-boiled gumshoe in the vein of Philip Marlowe, Sam Spade, or Lew Archer – but, sadly (again), there’s very little evidence of that life on the screen. When the film opens, in fact, the impression given is that Bain is out of the business, smitten with far more personal pursuits like painting or artwork or some other effete hobby. Still, the affection for a pretty face is enough to pull any deadbeat off his couch; and Bain is enticed by criminal heavyweight Motherskille (Steven Berkoff) to go back on the job.
Now, just what transpires from here is where Underworld feels more than a bit undercooked.
Through exposition, we’re educated to the fact that Bain’s former squeeze, Nicole (Nicola Cowper), is tied up in some shady medical dealings tied to Dr. Savary (Denholm Elliott). Apparently, the good/bad doctor has taken it upon himself to get into the drug trade with an elixir that not only addicts its users but also transforms/mutates them into … well … into creatures, each and every one of them disfigured in curiouser and curiouser ways. I’ve read that these genetic changes were supposed to be somehow aligned to their respective fears, wishes, dreams, etc., but I didn’t quite see how this translated into the story as presented. (Suffice it to say, I found little to no logic for this emerging sub-class of the general population, but what do I know? I’m just a critic!) Nicole is apparently immune to the drug’s side effects, and so she becomes the hope for a cure for those who’ve been most heavily afflicted. As she’s apparently also the mistress to Savary, the script makes her both a source and a cure for the drug. How they were going to cure themselves never emerges, but that’s chump change in the world of hard-boiled drama, don’t you know?
Truthfully, there just isn’t enough foundation for the film to stand up under its own ideas. In appearances alone, these drug users and abusers seem to develop outward conditions that tie in with some internal mechanisms, be they fears, desires, or something more. Some grow lumps, sores, and stalks, while others manifest strength, speed, fangs, or even glowing eyes. Yet, the how and why for these differences never quite gets shaped up in a manner wherein the audience can capably follow along. Think of it as a kind of shorthand that was shared with the players and makers but was insufficiently scaled for the viewers to be ‘in the know,’ and I think you’ll agree.
So let me explain …
I knew of Underworld under its other released name, Transmutations. (I’m uncertain as to just where and which countries it played under that name – either theatrically or with video release – but I’ve seen it referenced under that name far more than I have Underworld.) In fact, I’d seen it before – I believe it was on home video in the early 1990’s, but I could be amiss on the date – and I remember even watching a few sequences of it twice, mostly because I didn’t quite understand it. You see, there’s a great deal of world-building that has to take place in any picture in order for an audience to fully accept the people, the place, and the premise; and, sadly, that doesn’t quite happen effectively here. Granted, the script from Clive Barker and James Caplin strongly suggests some of the necessary details, but without greater specificity I found it a bit too murky for its own good.
Roy Bain (played by Larry Lamb) is a bit of a professional layout or errand boy … well, that’s only so far as I can tell in the film’s set-up. There are some allusions to the fact that he’s supposed to be a private detective – a hard-boiled gumshoe in the vein of Philip Marlowe, Sam Spade, or Lew Archer – but, sadly (again), there’s very little evidence of that life on the screen. When the film opens, in fact, the impression given is that Bain is out of the business, smitten with far more personal pursuits like painting or artwork or some other effete hobby. Still, the affection for a pretty face is enough to pull any deadbeat off his couch; and Bain is enticed by criminal heavyweight Motherskille (Steven Berkoff) to go back on the job.
Now, just what transpires from here is where Underworld feels more than a bit undercooked.
Through exposition, we’re educated to the fact that Bain’s former squeeze, Nicole (Nicola Cowper), is tied up in some shady medical dealings tied to Dr. Savary (Denholm Elliott). Apparently, the good/bad doctor has taken it upon himself to get into the drug trade with an elixir that not only addicts its users but also transforms/mutates them into … well … into creatures, each and every one of them disfigured in curiouser and curiouser ways. I’ve read that these genetic changes were supposed to be somehow aligned to their respective fears, wishes, dreams, etc., but I didn’t quite see how this translated into the story as presented. (Suffice it to say, I found little to no logic for this emerging sub-class of the general population, but what do I know? I’m just a critic!) Nicole is apparently immune to the drug’s side effects, and so she becomes the hope for a cure for those who’ve been most heavily afflicted. As she’s apparently also the mistress to Savary, the script makes her both a source and a cure for the drug. How they were going to cure themselves never emerges, but that’s chump change in the world of hard-boiled drama, don’t you know?
Truthfully, there just isn’t enough foundation for the film to stand up under its own ideas. In appearances alone, these drug users and abusers seem to develop outward conditions that tie in with some internal mechanisms, be they fears, desires, or something more. Some grow lumps, sores, and stalks, while others manifest strength, speed, fangs, or even glowing eyes. Yet, the how and why for these differences never quite gets shaped up in a manner wherein the audience can capably follow along. Think of it as a kind of shorthand that was shared with the players and makers but was insufficiently scaled for the viewers to be ‘in the know,’ and I think you’ll agree.
Moreover, director George Pavlou keeps everything in Barker and James Caplin’s script moving – though at a snail’s pace here and there – as if everything makes perfect sense to the participants. He never quite flings open doors on enough of the players and their relationships to bring everyone up to speed, instead hoping that perhaps we won’t notice that their various histories have gaping holes in them. When did they meet before? Why has Bain sequestered himself off from any contact with them? How is it that he and Nicole were lovers in the past when it looks as if she’s barely out of her teenage years now? And what about Bianca’s obvious affections for the man? How might she tie into all of what happened before? There just aren’t nearly enough answers upon which to craft a suitable understanding of this world and its people; and it shows.
In fact, I posit up as an argument that Barker and Caplin (separately or collectively) have a fondness, say, for a certain old Film Noir that needn’t be named. (FYI: this is pure speculation on my part, so just roll with the punches.) Maybe they like this old flick so much that – in a form of paying homage to it – one or the other decided they’d give it a thematic updating along with adding some of the appendages and accoutrements to make it a bit more Fantasy, a bit more fantastical, a bit more imaginative. Well, the grit and grime that go hand-in-hand with Noir may not thrive as easily in the realms of the Fantastic precisely because anything is possible over there … and, in territories so uniquely delineated by the black and white of human behaviors, the fanciful just doesn’t work. This homage, then, feels a bit more like gar-bage … and I think all involved deserved a bit better than that.
Underworld (aka Transmutations) (1985) was produced by Limehouse Productions, Green Man Productions, and Alpine. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s been advertised as an all-new HDR/Dolby Vision Master from a 4K scan of the 35mm original camera negative to be quite good; yes, there are a few sequences of grain here-and-there, but I found nothing to distract from the overall presentation of the story. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts two cuts of the project along with some archival behind-the-scenes footage, some of its produced artwork and designs, along with an audio commentary by director Pavlou and author Stephen Thrower. It’s a good collection for those who like this sort of thing.
Alas, only mildly recommended.
Perhaps diehard fans of Clive Barker (I’ve been told that there are plenty) might find more to love in this neo-noir Underworld. Purists who follow the scribe’s output might see the trimmings of ideas he’s explored to greater effect elsewhere, but as a one-off? As an entirely independent intellectual property? Sigh. There’s just no narrative substance in here that I could easily wrap my head around to the point wherein I knew and trust that what developed made perfect sense. It’s a dark and murky journey … and I’ve absolutely no idea why it had to unfold as it did in the big finish. I felt like there was more to this story, and still – in this packaging – I’ve no desire to know more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray collection of Clive Barker’s Underworld by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
In fact, I posit up as an argument that Barker and Caplin (separately or collectively) have a fondness, say, for a certain old Film Noir that needn’t be named. (FYI: this is pure speculation on my part, so just roll with the punches.) Maybe they like this old flick so much that – in a form of paying homage to it – one or the other decided they’d give it a thematic updating along with adding some of the appendages and accoutrements to make it a bit more Fantasy, a bit more fantastical, a bit more imaginative. Well, the grit and grime that go hand-in-hand with Noir may not thrive as easily in the realms of the Fantastic precisely because anything is possible over there … and, in territories so uniquely delineated by the black and white of human behaviors, the fanciful just doesn’t work. This homage, then, feels a bit more like gar-bage … and I think all involved deserved a bit better than that.
Underworld (aka Transmutations) (1985) was produced by Limehouse Productions, Green Man Productions, and Alpine. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to what’s been advertised as an all-new HDR/Dolby Vision Master from a 4K scan of the 35mm original camera negative to be quite good; yes, there are a few sequences of grain here-and-there, but I found nothing to distract from the overall presentation of the story. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts two cuts of the project along with some archival behind-the-scenes footage, some of its produced artwork and designs, along with an audio commentary by director Pavlou and author Stephen Thrower. It’s a good collection for those who like this sort of thing.
Alas, only mildly recommended.
Perhaps diehard fans of Clive Barker (I’ve been told that there are plenty) might find more to love in this neo-noir Underworld. Purists who follow the scribe’s output might see the trimmings of ideas he’s explored to greater effect elsewhere, but as a one-off? As an entirely independent intellectual property? Sigh. There’s just no narrative substance in here that I could easily wrap my head around to the point wherein I knew and trust that what developed made perfect sense. It’s a dark and murky journey … and I’ve absolutely no idea why it had to unfold as it did in the big finish. I felt like there was more to this story, and still – in this packaging – I’ve no desire to know more.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray collection of Clive Barker’s Underworld 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