- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to the brand-new start of a brand-new week! Here's hoping everyone had a fabulous, fabulous weekend, and you're able to attack this portion of the Silly Season with the energy and verve needed!
Yes, yes, and yes ... how is your Silly Season going? Before you know it, why, the big holiday itself will be here, and then we'll all be turning our attention toward the impending New Year, am I right? Where, oh where did all of 2023 go? How (oh how) did it vanish so quickly? When (oh when) might all of this ever slow down so that each of us can experience each and every moment with the time and clarity it deserves? As they say, time flies -- and it does, indeed, fly, so you young whippersnappers had better take note before you're as old and your back hurts as much as me -- and I do very much encourage each of you to find something special to fill up a small piece of every day you're given on this Big Blue Marble. Eventually, it'll all be gone ... and where's the fun in that?
Ok, ok, and ok ... enough with that, and let's get down to the business of the Daily Grindhouse, shall we?
Look: those of you slipping me messages to prompt some commentary on the wide, wide world of Doctor Who and it's apparent descent into some (cough cough) political storytelling? In short, I'm not sure I'll really have much to say on that topic. Over the tenure of Jodie Whittaker, it became reasonably clear that the BBC and the showrunner(s) were far more interested in taking Who in a direction wherein it appeared as if we'd be getting political commentary all of the time. When agendas become so openly invasion, I've almost always tuned out; so I kinda/sorta made the conscious decision to avoid Russell T. Davies' return to the franchise as I kinda/sorta figured that's why he was coming back ... namely to begin the official indoctrination efforts that have corroded a good deal of what constitutes BBC programming these days. When I followed a bit of the discussion online just after the first of these three special dropped, I knew right away that this kind of storytelling just didn't interest me ... so I haven't watched them at all. As I said (or as I implied), such efforts don't interest me. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Not even remotely.
So in fairness to the show, how can I comment on it if I'm not watching?
Oh, I might make the occasional observation -- some of which might even be fueled by things I've read and/or heard and/or decided all on my own -- but I've never sought to become one of those voices who is read by others merely because I write something and post it in this space. (Granted, I'm thrilled to have readers, so don't get me wrong.) I just feel like if I'm not watching it then I cannot effectively analyze what it's doing on any substantive level, so I'll leave that to those who are in the midst of what appears to be some death struggle. If I change mind and watch an episode or two -- and this would likely only be to effective comment on the controversies of the day -- then you'll all know. I post it LOUD AND PROUD as they say (snicker snicker), but -- for now -- I'll leave it at that.
Now ... of course, it saddens me any time an Intellectual Property appears to be reaching Who's present state. The exodus of viewers, however, even at this point comes as no surprise as its audience has been dwindling for quite awhile now. Unlike others, I suspect that there may be a good number of reasons -- not just the introduction of some social themes -- and some of them are probably related to the age of the franchise. If we're approaching the end or -- far more likely -- some kind of hiatus (just look at how much time has elapsed between production of the last few seasons, and you'll see what I mean), then hopefully whatever emerges with its return might represent the best and brightest storytelling possible ... not just some intellectual cash grab hoping to win 'brownie points' with Generation Z. (Erm ... are they even watching?)
So after that mini-diatribe, let's agree to leave it at that, ok? LGBTWho is what it is.
But that's not why the great majority of you are here today. Many of you are hoping to be cast on an all-new voyage into genre-specific trivia, and -- as always -- I am to please! Here's the link you're looking for ...
Yes, yes, and yes ... how is your Silly Season going? Before you know it, why, the big holiday itself will be here, and then we'll all be turning our attention toward the impending New Year, am I right? Where, oh where did all of 2023 go? How (oh how) did it vanish so quickly? When (oh when) might all of this ever slow down so that each of us can experience each and every moment with the time and clarity it deserves? As they say, time flies -- and it does, indeed, fly, so you young whippersnappers had better take note before you're as old and your back hurts as much as me -- and I do very much encourage each of you to find something special to fill up a small piece of every day you're given on this Big Blue Marble. Eventually, it'll all be gone ... and where's the fun in that?
Ok, ok, and ok ... enough with that, and let's get down to the business of the Daily Grindhouse, shall we?
Look: those of you slipping me messages to prompt some commentary on the wide, wide world of Doctor Who and it's apparent descent into some (cough cough) political storytelling? In short, I'm not sure I'll really have much to say on that topic. Over the tenure of Jodie Whittaker, it became reasonably clear that the BBC and the showrunner(s) were far more interested in taking Who in a direction wherein it appeared as if we'd be getting political commentary all of the time. When agendas become so openly invasion, I've almost always tuned out; so I kinda/sorta made the conscious decision to avoid Russell T. Davies' return to the franchise as I kinda/sorta figured that's why he was coming back ... namely to begin the official indoctrination efforts that have corroded a good deal of what constitutes BBC programming these days. When I followed a bit of the discussion online just after the first of these three special dropped, I knew right away that this kind of storytelling just didn't interest me ... so I haven't watched them at all. As I said (or as I implied), such efforts don't interest me. Not at all. Not in the slightest. Not even remotely.
So in fairness to the show, how can I comment on it if I'm not watching?
Oh, I might make the occasional observation -- some of which might even be fueled by things I've read and/or heard and/or decided all on my own -- but I've never sought to become one of those voices who is read by others merely because I write something and post it in this space. (Granted, I'm thrilled to have readers, so don't get me wrong.) I just feel like if I'm not watching it then I cannot effectively analyze what it's doing on any substantive level, so I'll leave that to those who are in the midst of what appears to be some death struggle. If I change mind and watch an episode or two -- and this would likely only be to effective comment on the controversies of the day -- then you'll all know. I post it LOUD AND PROUD as they say (snicker snicker), but -- for now -- I'll leave it at that.
Now ... of course, it saddens me any time an Intellectual Property appears to be reaching Who's present state. The exodus of viewers, however, even at this point comes as no surprise as its audience has been dwindling for quite awhile now. Unlike others, I suspect that there may be a good number of reasons -- not just the introduction of some social themes -- and some of them are probably related to the age of the franchise. If we're approaching the end or -- far more likely -- some kind of hiatus (just look at how much time has elapsed between production of the last few seasons, and you'll see what I mean), then hopefully whatever emerges with its return might represent the best and brightest storytelling possible ... not just some intellectual cash grab hoping to win 'brownie points' with Generation Z. (Erm ... are they even watching?)
So after that mini-diatribe, let's agree to leave it at that, ok? LGBTWho is what it is.
But that's not why the great majority of you are here today. Many of you are hoping to be cast on an all-new voyage into genre-specific trivia, and -- as always -- I am to please! Here's the link you're looking for ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, despite what you’re about to read I really do like ghost stories.
I know, I know, I know: right out the gate, I’m sounding awfully judgy, right? Well, that happens from time to time, and it does so today mostly because I find myself often crippled with lethargy when confronted by ghost stories that are delivered in far too Gothic a fashion. Gothic Horror has been largely categorized as stories that rely heavily upon mood and atmosphere – they tend to be mostly bleak in nature – and there’s generally some major tie in involving a strong measure of supernatural and/or dark magic required to make all of it into something possible. While some flicks are truly more content with just your run o’ the mill ghost, Gothic yarns try to go a bit further – perhaps trying to flesh out a wider spiritual world – and, frankly, it usually bores me silly. I can’t tell you the number of arguments I’ve surrendered about what makes these films good or bad; in the end, I typically throw out the white flag with a request to ‘agree to disagree,’ never really wanting to win the day. In fact, I’d rather just have the day back so I can relive it without the film, but that’s another debate entirely.
That said, Roger Corman’s The Terror (1963) is almost exactly what I’m talking about. It both is and isn’t a ghost story instead relying on some magical trickery facilitated by an old lady who may or may not be a witch all set in a reality that may or may not be as close or as far from anything resembling reality. Oh, there’s a castle, some vicious bird, and a few mysterious players who try to spice up the affair; but the big finish doesn’t quite make perfect sense. That’s certainly saying something when your star has achieved the heights of one Jack Nicholson paired up opposite the legendary Boris Karloff. Their involvement alone suggested to me that this one might just be worth the effort … and yet I’m left with the overwhelming sense of inadequacy with how it all turned out.
(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 French Army officer, Lieutenant Duvalier, has been separated from his unit and receives help from a mysterious woman. He follows her to the castle of Baron Von Leppe only to find that she is the Baron’s wife who died 20 years ago.”
A chief concern of mine with any ghost story is that once I know I’m in the middle of one I start to ‘study the seams’ more than I’m watching its players.
See, once the bloom is off the rose (as they say), then my brain kinda/sorta shifts into a different gear. If I’m successfully put together the pieces so that I’m understanding what the point of the action is, then I start to look for what is and isn’t real any longer. The fact that there’s some supernatural deception afoot practically requires one to watch a bit more closely – where the story is heading, what might be clever misdirection instead of authentic developments, and which of these people might turn out to be less than mortal – and this might find some losing patience fairly quickly. This doesn’t mean this particular adventure is any less entertaining; it merely posits that the trickery is well under way, and I – like many others – will spend time trying to unravel its puzzles before the big twist is delivered in the finale.
I know, I know, I know: right out the gate, I’m sounding awfully judgy, right? Well, that happens from time to time, and it does so today mostly because I find myself often crippled with lethargy when confronted by ghost stories that are delivered in far too Gothic a fashion. Gothic Horror has been largely categorized as stories that rely heavily upon mood and atmosphere – they tend to be mostly bleak in nature – and there’s generally some major tie in involving a strong measure of supernatural and/or dark magic required to make all of it into something possible. While some flicks are truly more content with just your run o’ the mill ghost, Gothic yarns try to go a bit further – perhaps trying to flesh out a wider spiritual world – and, frankly, it usually bores me silly. I can’t tell you the number of arguments I’ve surrendered about what makes these films good or bad; in the end, I typically throw out the white flag with a request to ‘agree to disagree,’ never really wanting to win the day. In fact, I’d rather just have the day back so I can relive it without the film, but that’s another debate entirely.
That said, Roger Corman’s The Terror (1963) is almost exactly what I’m talking about. It both is and isn’t a ghost story instead relying on some magical trickery facilitated by an old lady who may or may not be a witch all set in a reality that may or may not be as close or as far from anything resembling reality. Oh, there’s a castle, some vicious bird, and a few mysterious players who try to spice up the affair; but the big finish doesn’t quite make perfect sense. That’s certainly saying something when your star has achieved the heights of one Jack Nicholson paired up opposite the legendary Boris Karloff. Their involvement alone suggested to me that this one might just be worth the effort … and yet I’m left with the overwhelming sense of inadequacy with how it all turned out.
(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 French Army officer, Lieutenant Duvalier, has been separated from his unit and receives help from a mysterious woman. He follows her to the castle of Baron Von Leppe only to find that she is the Baron’s wife who died 20 years ago.”
A chief concern of mine with any ghost story is that once I know I’m in the middle of one I start to ‘study the seams’ more than I’m watching its players.
See, once the bloom is off the rose (as they say), then my brain kinda/sorta shifts into a different gear. If I’m successfully put together the pieces so that I’m understanding what the point of the action is, then I start to look for what is and isn’t real any longer. The fact that there’s some supernatural deception afoot practically requires one to watch a bit more closely – where the story is heading, what might be clever misdirection instead of authentic developments, and which of these people might turn out to be less than mortal – and this might find some losing patience fairly quickly. This doesn’t mean this particular adventure is any less entertaining; it merely posits that the trickery is well under way, and I – like many others – will spend time trying to unravel its puzzles before the big twist is delivered in the finale.
Duvalier (played by screen legend Jack Nicholson) finds himself lost in the French countryside when a captivatingly beautiful vixen, Helene (Sandra Knight), appears seemingly out of nowhere and tempts him – like a siren from Greek mythology – into a relationship. Once she begins drifting in and out of reality, the displaced soldier will stop at nothing to both find and rescue her from whatever trials and tribulations have befallen the lady. In his quest, he’ll meet a witch (Dorothy Neumann), a baron (Boris Karloff), and a weaselly toadie (Dick Miller) who may or may not have played some part in Helene’s past, but one thing’s for sure: he’ll have her heart joined with his if it’s the last thing he does … and it just might be!
Like any good ghost story, all of this is blended together because of love – that one, sure thing – and the script (credited to Corman, Leo Gordon, and Jack Hill) uses an almost classical structure to pit the men against the women in pursuit of their respective carnal delights. Because The Terror showcases a small cast – there are no more than six players in total – it isn’t all that difficult to kinda/sorta guess who may’ve originally been attracted to whom, and such obviousness immediately lessens what could’ve otherwise been a more interesting cerebral exercise. Still, the problems mount quickly as allegiances shift, identities are re-aligned, and only exposition can be exploited to fill the gaps left by plot holes. Come the last reel, I was aghast at how little I really knew about our hero – Duvalier – and how little I really cared whether he won the day or not. There’s a narrative flatness here that just never gets overcome, and it winds up spoiling just about every twist.
Now, I have read that The Terror wasn’t so much one easily-shot production as it was a theatrical outing cobbled together across a handful of related shooting sequences. While the lion’s share of the footage apparently belongs to Corman himself, several scenes and second shooting strings were prepared by Francis Ford Coppola, Jack Hale, Monte Hellman, and even star Nicholson getting in on the storytelling action. The lack of one driving force at the helm could easily explain why this story seems to shift focus here and there – Nicholson’s and Karloff’s screen time puts them kinda/sorta at odds in more ways than one, and Miller’s scenes suggest differing levels of complicity with the spooky details – so it’s difficult to come away from The Terror knowing full well what I was supposed to be frightened of.
The Terror (1963) was produced by Roger Corman Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Film Masters. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this newly restored release (from film elements) to be astonishingly good. There are a few sequences wherein its patently obvious that inferior masters were used, but none of this detracts from the visual and audible delights. As for the special features? The collection boasts a theatrical trailer, a visual essay, an audio commentary (hosted by C. Courtney Joyner and Dr. Steve Haberman, and a collector’s booklet with accompanying essays. It’s a great assortment for those who cherish these kinds of extras.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
The best I can summon about The Terror (1963) is that offers up some occasionally interesting scenery along with some reasonably proficient production detail though I’ve got very little idea of what its story really was. Gothic yarns have never been my forte, and this one’s languid pacing across an already slim 80-minutes had me rewinding in a few spots to see if I’d missed something. (Tip: I hadn’t, at least not that I could find.) It feels like it was meant to be meatier than it inevitably was, what with the heavy hints of intersecting relationships, but frankly I was glad it was all over once … well … it was all over.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Film Masters provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Terror (1963) 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
Like any good ghost story, all of this is blended together because of love – that one, sure thing – and the script (credited to Corman, Leo Gordon, and Jack Hill) uses an almost classical structure to pit the men against the women in pursuit of their respective carnal delights. Because The Terror showcases a small cast – there are no more than six players in total – it isn’t all that difficult to kinda/sorta guess who may’ve originally been attracted to whom, and such obviousness immediately lessens what could’ve otherwise been a more interesting cerebral exercise. Still, the problems mount quickly as allegiances shift, identities are re-aligned, and only exposition can be exploited to fill the gaps left by plot holes. Come the last reel, I was aghast at how little I really knew about our hero – Duvalier – and how little I really cared whether he won the day or not. There’s a narrative flatness here that just never gets overcome, and it winds up spoiling just about every twist.
Now, I have read that The Terror wasn’t so much one easily-shot production as it was a theatrical outing cobbled together across a handful of related shooting sequences. While the lion’s share of the footage apparently belongs to Corman himself, several scenes and second shooting strings were prepared by Francis Ford Coppola, Jack Hale, Monte Hellman, and even star Nicholson getting in on the storytelling action. The lack of one driving force at the helm could easily explain why this story seems to shift focus here and there – Nicholson’s and Karloff’s screen time puts them kinda/sorta at odds in more ways than one, and Miller’s scenes suggest differing levels of complicity with the spooky details – so it’s difficult to come away from The Terror knowing full well what I was supposed to be frightened of.
The Terror (1963) was produced by Roger Corman Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Film Masters. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this newly restored release (from film elements) to be astonishingly good. There are a few sequences wherein its patently obvious that inferior masters were used, but none of this detracts from the visual and audible delights. As for the special features? The collection boasts a theatrical trailer, a visual essay, an audio commentary (hosted by C. Courtney Joyner and Dr. Steve Haberman, and a collector’s booklet with accompanying essays. It’s a great assortment for those who cherish these kinds of extras.
Alas … only mildly recommended.
The best I can summon about The Terror (1963) is that offers up some occasionally interesting scenery along with some reasonably proficient production detail though I’ve got very little idea of what its story really was. Gothic yarns have never been my forte, and this one’s languid pacing across an already slim 80-minutes had me rewinding in a few spots to see if I’d missed something. (Tip: I hadn’t, at least not that I could find.) It feels like it was meant to be meatier than it inevitably was, what with the heavy hints of intersecting relationships, but frankly I was glad it was all over once … well … it was all over.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Film Masters provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Terror (1963) 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
One of the greatest unintended consequences of the whole COVID debacle involves what theater owners had to do for a long while to keep their businesses open.
For those who don’t know it, motion picture production simply fell off the map. If actors and actresses weren’t allowed to be in the same working space, then how could stories be captured on film, rendered in post, and released to the masses-at-large? The pandemic had storytellers racing against the clock to figure out creative ways to assemble their products, but as the plague stretched on ridiculously longer than “30 days to slow the spread,” it became very clear that the cineplexes were damn near doomed to endless repeat engagements of what had was completed, even if it was a healthy handful of titles that would’ve otherwise been released direct-to-DVD. Thankfully, somebody somewhere got the bright idea to pull some of the silver screens latest and greatest classics, giving a solid sampling of flicks from the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, and beyond a wonderful chance to stretch their legs with a return to the shadows and the light. The original Star Wars hit the marquees again, along with such crowd-pleasers as Back To The Future, The Lord Of The Rings, Ghostbusters, and more, all of which brought great joy to film fans around the world.
Furthermore, this trend wasn’t just reserved for the big-name outlets. Smaller venues and bargain theaters picked up on it, many of them crafting their very own classic series to the delight of patrons living on a tighter budget. No longer were such screenings the province of the holiday season, themed throwbacks, or some special engagements, these flicks became part and parcel of the status quo, often times selling more tickets than the latest Disney schlockbuster. I, for one, hope this fad never ever goes out of style, as I do prefer watching so many fabulous motion pictures up on the big screen as was originally intended.
In fact, I recently had the chance to re-experience one of the better films from my high school days: the Joe Dante and Steven Spielberg collaboration Gremlins was something I saw several times in my hometown cinema, and the wifey and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to see this one together again.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A young man inadvertently breaks three important rules concerning his new pet and unleashes a horde of malevolently mischievous monsters on a small town.”
For those who don’t know it, motion picture production simply fell off the map. If actors and actresses weren’t allowed to be in the same working space, then how could stories be captured on film, rendered in post, and released to the masses-at-large? The pandemic had storytellers racing against the clock to figure out creative ways to assemble their products, but as the plague stretched on ridiculously longer than “30 days to slow the spread,” it became very clear that the cineplexes were damn near doomed to endless repeat engagements of what had was completed, even if it was a healthy handful of titles that would’ve otherwise been released direct-to-DVD. Thankfully, somebody somewhere got the bright idea to pull some of the silver screens latest and greatest classics, giving a solid sampling of flicks from the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s, and beyond a wonderful chance to stretch their legs with a return to the shadows and the light. The original Star Wars hit the marquees again, along with such crowd-pleasers as Back To The Future, The Lord Of The Rings, Ghostbusters, and more, all of which brought great joy to film fans around the world.
Furthermore, this trend wasn’t just reserved for the big-name outlets. Smaller venues and bargain theaters picked up on it, many of them crafting their very own classic series to the delight of patrons living on a tighter budget. No longer were such screenings the province of the holiday season, themed throwbacks, or some special engagements, these flicks became part and parcel of the status quo, often times selling more tickets than the latest Disney schlockbuster. I, for one, hope this fad never ever goes out of style, as I do prefer watching so many fabulous motion pictures up on the big screen as was originally intended.
In fact, I recently had the chance to re-experience one of the better films from my high school days: the Joe Dante and Steven Spielberg collaboration Gremlins was something I saw several times in my hometown cinema, and the wifey and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to see this one together again.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A young man inadvertently breaks three important rules concerning his new pet and unleashes a horde of malevolently mischievous monsters on a small town.”
Folks watching closely will notice that there are a great number of shots from Joe Dante’s Gremlins that seem eerily familiar. The streets have this feeling that we’ve been here before. The buildings? Why, I know I’ve seen that one, this one, and the other one, too. Though the faces are different, the whole setting and ambiance carries with it an overwhelming sense of déjà vu … but the truth is that when this picture first aired in theaters quite a bit of this familiarity didn’t quite exist yet … yet it would. Today, a good deal of viewers certainly know these small town streets as being those from the fictional Hill Valley, the setting for the widely popular Back To The Future trilogy – another Steven Spielberg production … one that wouldn’t hit screens until 1985.
Still, I think such recognizability probably gives Gremlins the feel and texture suggesting it could co-exist in the same universe of the Robert Zemeckis’ directed hits. Small towns, after all, aren’t ever all that different from one another, and that’s certainly a sentiment that elevates a good many pictures from the 1980’s. Those of us who grew up in them know such streets by heart – in fact, we might all be still running around in them in the dreams that fill our heads at night – and Gremlins definitely taps into that nostalgic hometown vibe wherein the ideals that built America still means something.
But Chris Columbus’ script actively tried to turn such opinions as much on their head as they paid respect to them.
American ingenuity is openly mocked as inventor Randall Peltzer (played by Hoyt Axton) has neither the brains nor the skills to craft his contraptions so they’ll last beyond their initial usage. Town mogul Mrs. Deagle (Polly Holliday) apparently maintains the property rights on everything in Kingston Falls and exists solely to make everyone’s adult lives a living Hell, even stooping to the threats of killing cats and dogs if it’ll advance her personal agenda. Town fuddy-duddy Mr. Futterman (Dick Miller) can no longer suppress his racist tendencies, and he spouts wild and wilder theories about foreign intervention being the curse the United State has to bear. Up’n’coming yuppie Gerald Hopkins (Judge Reinhold) is willing to pull out whatever stops he must in order to get ahead at the bank, even if that means destroying small-town life in favor of maximum profits. Even local sweetheart Kate (Phoebe Cates) can’t bear another holiday season because it’s a dark reminder of that time her dear dad snapped his neck trying to play Santa Claus himself while climbing recklessly down their own chimney. Long gone are the wholesome apple pie times that built this country; in it’s place is an exposed underbelly bursting at the seams.
Yeah, yeah, and yeah: I realize maybe I’m overthinking it, but I’ve always been the type of sees messaging in every decision – there’s no such thing as coincidence, remember – and I’ve no doubt that these were conscious choices made on Columbus and director Joe Dante’s part. Pull back the glossy veneer and show us what’s truly hiding in the American heartland because, then, we’re really going to mess it up further … this time with Gremlins!
Still, I think such recognizability probably gives Gremlins the feel and texture suggesting it could co-exist in the same universe of the Robert Zemeckis’ directed hits. Small towns, after all, aren’t ever all that different from one another, and that’s certainly a sentiment that elevates a good many pictures from the 1980’s. Those of us who grew up in them know such streets by heart – in fact, we might all be still running around in them in the dreams that fill our heads at night – and Gremlins definitely taps into that nostalgic hometown vibe wherein the ideals that built America still means something.
But Chris Columbus’ script actively tried to turn such opinions as much on their head as they paid respect to them.
American ingenuity is openly mocked as inventor Randall Peltzer (played by Hoyt Axton) has neither the brains nor the skills to craft his contraptions so they’ll last beyond their initial usage. Town mogul Mrs. Deagle (Polly Holliday) apparently maintains the property rights on everything in Kingston Falls and exists solely to make everyone’s adult lives a living Hell, even stooping to the threats of killing cats and dogs if it’ll advance her personal agenda. Town fuddy-duddy Mr. Futterman (Dick Miller) can no longer suppress his racist tendencies, and he spouts wild and wilder theories about foreign intervention being the curse the United State has to bear. Up’n’coming yuppie Gerald Hopkins (Judge Reinhold) is willing to pull out whatever stops he must in order to get ahead at the bank, even if that means destroying small-town life in favor of maximum profits. Even local sweetheart Kate (Phoebe Cates) can’t bear another holiday season because it’s a dark reminder of that time her dear dad snapped his neck trying to play Santa Claus himself while climbing recklessly down their own chimney. Long gone are the wholesome apple pie times that built this country; in it’s place is an exposed underbelly bursting at the seams.
Yeah, yeah, and yeah: I realize maybe I’m overthinking it, but I’ve always been the type of sees messaging in every decision – there’s no such thing as coincidence, remember – and I’ve no doubt that these were conscious choices made on Columbus and director Joe Dante’s part. Pull back the glossy veneer and show us what’s truly hiding in the American heartland because, then, we’re really going to mess it up further … this time with Gremlins!
And that’s precisely what happens. Billy (Zach Galligan) never does anything intentionally to set these wicked series of events into motion, but chaos still results when all is said and done. As the film’s only real protagonist, he proves more than capable of standing up much the same way previous generations stood up when history called upon them. The only shortcoming to all of his heroic efforts here is that, ultimately, it’s the cute and fuzzy Gizmo – the story’s cause and its effect – who saves the day, and Billy even loses ownership rights in the last reel when the mysterious Chinese grandfather shows up to repossess the little creature because it’s best for society. America is a gluttonous buffoon on the world stage, and only a magical foreigner can save it from itself.
Setting aside my obvious gripes with Gremlins’ misplaced messaging, the film works in spite of itself – much like America does, too, folks – and delivers the kind of thrills, chills, and spills audiences have come to love from theatrical experiences. It’s easy to follow, wallows in the requisite amount of warm fuzzies involving our fascination with critters and pets, and isn’t afraid of going into some very, very, very dark places not normally reserved for holiday features. Much of this is thankfully tempered by the fact that the most violent Gremlins wind up being explored more as caricatures than authentic monsters: their lunacy is given an almost cartoonish and/or comic book tone, perhaps even challenging viewers to look past the senseless violence and see it precisely as intended … it’s entertainment. Nothing more.
On that level, Gremlins delivers; and I suspect that’s largely why the production continues to delight those who discover decades later. Like a tuft of cotton candy, it looks delicious, it tastes wonderful, and it goes down without a fight. Sure, you’re likely to be hungry later, but the true joy is found with eating it again and again and again. Though one of the creatures gets beheaded, it’s almost as if it’s a harmless beheading. You didn’t think the thing was real, did you? If you did, then you’re the problem. If you didn’t, then you were definitely in on the joke. Now have yourself another stick of cotton candy; it’ll solve all your troubles each time it’s tried.
Gremlins (1984) was produced by Warner Bros. and Amblin Entertainment.
Highly recommended.
While I’m never a fan of live-action chicanery resembling cartoon sensibilities, that’s a small misstep to forgive with Gremlins (1984). It was made with its narrative heart in the right place, and it continues to endure as audiences embrace it as a holiday classic each silly season. Gizmo is delightful, Stripe is about as frightening as critters come, and the entire cast delivers on smaller standout moments whenever Chris Columbus’ script requires it of them. No reboot necessary, Hollywood! Keep this one as it is, and subsequent generations will continue to enjoy it in the years to come.
In the interests of fairness, I’m beholden to no one for this review of Gremlins (1984) as I took it in as a local budget theater in the area.
-- EZ
Setting aside my obvious gripes with Gremlins’ misplaced messaging, the film works in spite of itself – much like America does, too, folks – and delivers the kind of thrills, chills, and spills audiences have come to love from theatrical experiences. It’s easy to follow, wallows in the requisite amount of warm fuzzies involving our fascination with critters and pets, and isn’t afraid of going into some very, very, very dark places not normally reserved for holiday features. Much of this is thankfully tempered by the fact that the most violent Gremlins wind up being explored more as caricatures than authentic monsters: their lunacy is given an almost cartoonish and/or comic book tone, perhaps even challenging viewers to look past the senseless violence and see it precisely as intended … it’s entertainment. Nothing more.
On that level, Gremlins delivers; and I suspect that’s largely why the production continues to delight those who discover decades later. Like a tuft of cotton candy, it looks delicious, it tastes wonderful, and it goes down without a fight. Sure, you’re likely to be hungry later, but the true joy is found with eating it again and again and again. Though one of the creatures gets beheaded, it’s almost as if it’s a harmless beheading. You didn’t think the thing was real, did you? If you did, then you’re the problem. If you didn’t, then you were definitely in on the joke. Now have yourself another stick of cotton candy; it’ll solve all your troubles each time it’s tried.
Gremlins (1984) was produced by Warner Bros. and Amblin Entertainment.
Highly recommended.
While I’m never a fan of live-action chicanery resembling cartoon sensibilities, that’s a small misstep to forgive with Gremlins (1984). It was made with its narrative heart in the right place, and it continues to endure as audiences embrace it as a holiday classic each silly season. Gizmo is delightful, Stripe is about as frightening as critters come, and the entire cast delivers on smaller standout moments whenever Chris Columbus’ script requires it of them. No reboot necessary, Hollywood! Keep this one as it is, and subsequent generations will continue to enjoy it in the years to come.
In the interests of fairness, I’m beholden to no one for this review of Gremlins (1984) as I took it in as a local budget theater in the area.
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I think I've always been a bit of a rebel rouser. No, I'm not proud of it, but -- at the end of the day -- it is what it is.
I can remember back in my college days when -- in a film course -- I told the professor that I honestly enjoyed 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) -- a sequel to the much-revered 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) -- more than the original because it had an understandable and relatable story. (Yeah, I know, I know.) In fact, I've said as much in a post here online not all that long ago, and I was (cough cough) properly taken to task by some readers who called me 'ignorant' for saying such a thing. (Ask me if I give a damn.) My point was -- and remains -- that 2001 is one of those flicks that I strongly believe meant more to the audience of its day while 2010 presented circumstances that were a bit more understandable. The sequel was a flick you didn't need Cliff Notes to get into, and that's all I meant. Now, if that makes me a fool, then so be it. (Like I said, I really don't give a damn.) I'll always argue on behalf of pictures that audiences can embrace, and both 2001 and its follow-up certainly fit that bill. Who cares that one was less of the mental gymnastics? Well, I do, for one, and I've no problem saying so. I don't hate the first one; it just didn't reach me the way it did others.
Sigh. This is what being a fan of All Things Genre sometimes does to us, though. It divides us. It makes us question our worth and our opinions if we're brave enough to share them on the Information Superhighway (which I do daily). If you're not one who is tolerant of differing opinions, well then perhaps SciFiHistory.Net isn't the site for you; and you're always free to go elsewhere. Me? I like what I like. I speak my own piece. And I try to be both honest and fair. I know not every wordslinger out there operates on such a simple mission, but I do and will always try to stay true to it.
Why do I bring this up?
Well, that's because the great 2010 turns an amazing 39 years young today. It was first released on this day all the way back in 1984 (in the U.S. and behind the Maple Curtain that is Canada), and those who saw it on the big screen likely went in thinking they were going to be treated to something a bit closer to Stanley Kubrick's original. Personally -- as I've said -- I'm glad it was a bit different if for no other reason than who wants to watch an inferior knock-off of something only Kubrick himself could deliver? I know I didn't, and I'm glad those involved didn't even give that attempt a try. Leave classics alone -- especially if you know you can't compete with them -- and offer audiences a diversion that's worth either their time or the price of admission; on that scale, 2010 did just fine in my book. Feel free to disagree. Hell, feel free to start your own blog and blog about it; and I'll applaud your efforts even more.
The more? The merrier!
So celebrate diversity in Science Fiction, if that's what you take from this, and there's a helluva lot more to celebrate if you navigate over to the Daily Citation Page. In case you've missed it, here's the helpful link:
I can remember back in my college days when -- in a film course -- I told the professor that I honestly enjoyed 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) -- a sequel to the much-revered 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) -- more than the original because it had an understandable and relatable story. (Yeah, I know, I know.) In fact, I've said as much in a post here online not all that long ago, and I was (cough cough) properly taken to task by some readers who called me 'ignorant' for saying such a thing. (Ask me if I give a damn.) My point was -- and remains -- that 2001 is one of those flicks that I strongly believe meant more to the audience of its day while 2010 presented circumstances that were a bit more understandable. The sequel was a flick you didn't need Cliff Notes to get into, and that's all I meant. Now, if that makes me a fool, then so be it. (Like I said, I really don't give a damn.) I'll always argue on behalf of pictures that audiences can embrace, and both 2001 and its follow-up certainly fit that bill. Who cares that one was less of the mental gymnastics? Well, I do, for one, and I've no problem saying so. I don't hate the first one; it just didn't reach me the way it did others.
Sigh. This is what being a fan of All Things Genre sometimes does to us, though. It divides us. It makes us question our worth and our opinions if we're brave enough to share them on the Information Superhighway (which I do daily). If you're not one who is tolerant of differing opinions, well then perhaps SciFiHistory.Net isn't the site for you; and you're always free to go elsewhere. Me? I like what I like. I speak my own piece. And I try to be both honest and fair. I know not every wordslinger out there operates on such a simple mission, but I do and will always try to stay true to it.
Why do I bring this up?
Well, that's because the great 2010 turns an amazing 39 years young today. It was first released on this day all the way back in 1984 (in the U.S. and behind the Maple Curtain that is Canada), and those who saw it on the big screen likely went in thinking they were going to be treated to something a bit closer to Stanley Kubrick's original. Personally -- as I've said -- I'm glad it was a bit different if for no other reason than who wants to watch an inferior knock-off of something only Kubrick himself could deliver? I know I didn't, and I'm glad those involved didn't even give that attempt a try. Leave classics alone -- especially if you know you can't compete with them -- and offer audiences a diversion that's worth either their time or the price of admission; on that scale, 2010 did just fine in my book. Feel free to disagree. Hell, feel free to start your own blog and blog about it; and I'll applaud your efforts even more.
The more? The merrier!
So celebrate diversity in Science Fiction, if that's what you take from this, and there's a helluva lot more to celebrate if you navigate over to the Daily Citation Page. In case you've missed it, here's the helpful link:
With that and an incredible 74 others genre trivia citations to enjoy, I think it's safe to suggest that there's something for everyone -- even those who disagree with my particular take on a particular SciFi classic -- so don't be discouraged. Surf on over there and find something you think it worthy of your attention, and it'll be a better day for no other reason than you learned something new and celebrated it in the way only a true genre fan can. That's ultimately what unites us more than anything else divides us, so I'll leave you to it.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A group of young gunmen, led by Billy the Kid, become deputies to avenge the murder of the rancher who became their benefactor. But when Billy takes their authority too far, they become the hunted.”
To be blunt, there’s an upside and a downside in telling any stories from the somewhat celebrated life of William H. Bonney, the notorious gunslinger more commonly known as ‘Billy the Kid.’
The upside? Well, there isn’t a great deal that’s factually known about the life he lived, other than a healthy smattering of biographical facts as well as the surviving anecdotal history available from print media of the day. (And, yes, I say this as one who has read two biographies into his days along with a reasonable amount of treatises exploring the wider history of the American West.)
The downside? Well, there isn’t a great deal that’s factually known about the life he lived, other than a smattering of biographical facts as well as the surviving anecdotal history available from the print media of the day.
The truth is there’s fairly little of substance and specificity, and what exists does include a great deal of speculation, some of which could still suffer from a modicum of exaggeration. Knowing what little I do about Bonney, I suspect that the script – from screenwriter John Fusco – took some creative liberties here and there in order to craft something that would ultimately grow appealing to audiences. First and foremost – in order to be successful at the cineplex – you have to get audiences in their seats, so taking an already mildly larger-than-life personae and sketching a bit bigger and wider and broader certainly swung the saloon doors wide open with this portrait; and yet maybe a case could be made that a better way to go could’ve been spinning an entirely fictional portrait of this young band of gunslingers, a choice that arguably might’ve left room for even more theatrics.
The problem there is that the resulting Young Guns would’ve instead been a pure Western – one that might not have benefited from Bonney’s legacy – and we all know how audiences love a familiar face.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A group of young gunmen, led by Billy the Kid, become deputies to avenge the murder of the rancher who became their benefactor. But when Billy takes their authority too far, they become the hunted.”
To be blunt, there’s an upside and a downside in telling any stories from the somewhat celebrated life of William H. Bonney, the notorious gunslinger more commonly known as ‘Billy the Kid.’
The upside? Well, there isn’t a great deal that’s factually known about the life he lived, other than a healthy smattering of biographical facts as well as the surviving anecdotal history available from print media of the day. (And, yes, I say this as one who has read two biographies into his days along with a reasonable amount of treatises exploring the wider history of the American West.)
The downside? Well, there isn’t a great deal that’s factually known about the life he lived, other than a smattering of biographical facts as well as the surviving anecdotal history available from the print media of the day.
The truth is there’s fairly little of substance and specificity, and what exists does include a great deal of speculation, some of which could still suffer from a modicum of exaggeration. Knowing what little I do about Bonney, I suspect that the script – from screenwriter John Fusco – took some creative liberties here and there in order to craft something that would ultimately grow appealing to audiences. First and foremost – in order to be successful at the cineplex – you have to get audiences in their seats, so taking an already mildly larger-than-life personae and sketching a bit bigger and wider and broader certainly swung the saloon doors wide open with this portrait; and yet maybe a case could be made that a better way to go could’ve been spinning an entirely fictional portrait of this young band of gunslingers, a choice that arguably might’ve left room for even more theatrics.
The problem there is that the resulting Young Guns would’ve instead been a pure Western – one that might not have benefited from Bonney’s legacy – and we all know how audiences love a familiar face.
However, there’s no mistaking Emilio Estevez’s captivating take on one of the West’s more captivating players. His Kid truly is a kid having fun, a fact that’s only made a touch more disturbing when one realizes his form of merriment was professional homicide. The truth is Billy wasn’t so much defending himself from the bulk of these kills – you don’t have to watch closely to see that a good number of them are shot if not in cold blood then very close to it – so when facts don’t sell the sizzle it’s perfectly acceptable in Hollywood of all places to show ‘the legend,’ truth be damned.
What is missing – to a small degree – is any authentic examination of why Billy did so much of what he did, all too often relying on his gun-playing antics as mean-spirited trickery. Fusco’s script suggests that the ill-fated John Tunstall was a central figure in the Kid’s life and times, if even for a short duration. It’s easy to accept that the kind and generous benefactor who kinda/sorta rescued Billy from a life on the run would earn the reverence shown in the set-up, but a more protracted set-up – one that truly put a face on their budding relationship – might’ve given the brief pairing greater narrative weight. Tunstall’s death at the hands of crooked lawmen also should’ve had more focus – it gets mentioned more so as reminder in a few scenes and never really discussed and/or debated – and the result could’ve been not only something special but also the kind of textual material stronger Westerns (i.e. 1952’s High Noon or even 1992’s Unforgiven come to mind) build whole plots around and upon. While good, it’s a bit of a missed opportunity for me.
But, arguably, Young Guns greatest asset is a truly young(ish) cast, one that definitely represents the true age to many of the West’s blazing saddles.
While not a household name, Casey Siemaszko shines in the guise of Charley Bowdre, and his portrait of a young boxer-turned-gunman probably has the best foundation in Fusco’s script; while his journey begins with the lad wishing to exchange blows opposite a deserving opponent, he eventually grows more comfortable spewing lead, even in his final shootout in the climax at Blazer’s Mill. Charlie Sheen plays Dick Brewer – the early leader of Billy’s ‘the Regulators’ gang – but he’s mostly wasted, essentially serving no real purpose other than to argue with the Kid about the best path forward all to often. Dermot Mulroney delivers a nice turn as the constantly tobacco-chewing racist Dirty Steve Stephens, a bit of a caricature of the worst cowboy traits the emerge perhaps more from screen history than reality. The always underrated Lou Diamond Phillips darn near steals every scene he’s in as the Native American Chavez y Chavez, the knife-wielding counterpart who tries to stay true to his people but can’t quite break from his new tribe. Kiefer Sutherland rounds out the posse, but I honestly never quite thought the actor looked all that comfortable in the face of Doc Scurlock. Some of this could be owed to the fact that Fusco’s script required him all too often to stare on in disbelief as Billy did what Billy does, and a few moments descended into mockery because of the overkill.
Still, the big star was and remains Estevez here. His Billy may lack some of the right stuff needed to convey the weight of what truly went through the young mind of an outlaw. Circumstances required more exchanges in lead, and I would’ve appreciated a bit more wordplay whenever the opportunity presented itself. Instead, director Christopher Cain kept the bullets flying and the horses galloping; some quieter and gentler moments could easily have been squeezed into this 107 minute run time had the focus shifted from lesser frolics and more fiction.
What is missing – to a small degree – is any authentic examination of why Billy did so much of what he did, all too often relying on his gun-playing antics as mean-spirited trickery. Fusco’s script suggests that the ill-fated John Tunstall was a central figure in the Kid’s life and times, if even for a short duration. It’s easy to accept that the kind and generous benefactor who kinda/sorta rescued Billy from a life on the run would earn the reverence shown in the set-up, but a more protracted set-up – one that truly put a face on their budding relationship – might’ve given the brief pairing greater narrative weight. Tunstall’s death at the hands of crooked lawmen also should’ve had more focus – it gets mentioned more so as reminder in a few scenes and never really discussed and/or debated – and the result could’ve been not only something special but also the kind of textual material stronger Westerns (i.e. 1952’s High Noon or even 1992’s Unforgiven come to mind) build whole plots around and upon. While good, it’s a bit of a missed opportunity for me.
But, arguably, Young Guns greatest asset is a truly young(ish) cast, one that definitely represents the true age to many of the West’s blazing saddles.
While not a household name, Casey Siemaszko shines in the guise of Charley Bowdre, and his portrait of a young boxer-turned-gunman probably has the best foundation in Fusco’s script; while his journey begins with the lad wishing to exchange blows opposite a deserving opponent, he eventually grows more comfortable spewing lead, even in his final shootout in the climax at Blazer’s Mill. Charlie Sheen plays Dick Brewer – the early leader of Billy’s ‘the Regulators’ gang – but he’s mostly wasted, essentially serving no real purpose other than to argue with the Kid about the best path forward all to often. Dermot Mulroney delivers a nice turn as the constantly tobacco-chewing racist Dirty Steve Stephens, a bit of a caricature of the worst cowboy traits the emerge perhaps more from screen history than reality. The always underrated Lou Diamond Phillips darn near steals every scene he’s in as the Native American Chavez y Chavez, the knife-wielding counterpart who tries to stay true to his people but can’t quite break from his new tribe. Kiefer Sutherland rounds out the posse, but I honestly never quite thought the actor looked all that comfortable in the face of Doc Scurlock. Some of this could be owed to the fact that Fusco’s script required him all too often to stare on in disbelief as Billy did what Billy does, and a few moments descended into mockery because of the overkill.
Still, the big star was and remains Estevez here. His Billy may lack some of the right stuff needed to convey the weight of what truly went through the young mind of an outlaw. Circumstances required more exchanges in lead, and I would’ve appreciated a bit more wordplay whenever the opportunity presented itself. Instead, director Christopher Cain kept the bullets flying and the horses galloping; some quieter and gentler moments could easily have been squeezed into this 107 minute run time had the focus shifted from lesser frolics and more fiction.
Kudos to all involved as the completed picture was awarded the Bronze Wrangler at the 1989 Western Heritage Awards. For those who’ve never heard of it, the Bronze Wrangler is an honor bestowed annually by the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum to those forms of art that represent the very best in Western film and television. Winning such recognition gave Young Guns a spot standing alongside other winners like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, True Grit, and Kevin Costner’s Dances With Wolves. While Billy the Kid might’ve turned up his nose at such spectacle, he still may’ve been honored to know that his reputation survived decades after his death at the hands of Sheriff Pat Garrett … and maybe that should count for something.
Young Guns (1988) was produced by Morgan Creek Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this release celebrating the film’s 35th anniversary) is being coordinated by the good people at Lionsgate. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this 4K Ultra HD pressing were phenomenal: there were a few scenes a bit undercooked, and I can only imagine that’s owed to some weaknesses of the source material. If you’re looking for special features? Though I don’t believe that there’s anything new in this release, I guess it’s still grand to have an audio commentary (featuring a few of the original cast) along with some making-of and a nice Billy the Kid biography to keep you at the campfire well past its embers fading.
Recommended.
As a fan of traditional oaters (aka “Westerns”), I can say that I’ve never been as enamored with Young Guns (1988) as have been most of its fans. There’s just enough story – nor any real introspection – to its characters, and I would’ve liked a bit more even at the expense of adding a few more minutes to an already respectable run time. What I do appreciate is that it’s probably one of the first flicks of my era that I felt truly represented the right age of these infamous gunslingers on the silver screen. I can forgive any screenwriter’s natural tendency to elevate his personal heroes to the status of legend; legends sell, after all, and there may not have been as many as elevated as were the short-lived days of Billy the Kid. He may not exactly rest in peace … but he, undoubtedly, raised more than a little Hell.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD of Young Guns (1988) 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
Young Guns (1988) was produced by Morgan Creek Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this release celebrating the film’s 35th anniversary) is being coordinated by the good people at Lionsgate. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this 4K Ultra HD pressing were phenomenal: there were a few scenes a bit undercooked, and I can only imagine that’s owed to some weaknesses of the source material. If you’re looking for special features? Though I don’t believe that there’s anything new in this release, I guess it’s still grand to have an audio commentary (featuring a few of the original cast) along with some making-of and a nice Billy the Kid biography to keep you at the campfire well past its embers fading.
Recommended.
As a fan of traditional oaters (aka “Westerns”), I can say that I’ve never been as enamored with Young Guns (1988) as have been most of its fans. There’s just enough story – nor any real introspection – to its characters, and I would’ve liked a bit more even at the expense of adding a few more minutes to an already respectable run time. What I do appreciate is that it’s probably one of the first flicks of my era that I felt truly represented the right age of these infamous gunslingers on the silver screen. I can forgive any screenwriter’s natural tendency to elevate his personal heroes to the status of legend; legends sell, after all, and there may not have been as many as elevated as were the short-lived days of Billy the Kid. He may not exactly rest in peace … but he, undoubtedly, raised more than a little Hell.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD of Young Guns (1988) 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
Well, it was my birthday recently, and one of the things I’ve always tried to do on my birthday is to see a movie.
If SciFiHistory.Net is any indication, I’ve always been a fan of the theatrical experiences, and a night out at the movies (or a matinee) is always something to look forward to. The problem historically has often been that – because I can’t control what comes out when – I’ve often had to choose something outside my personal favorite genres – that being Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror – when my special day rolls around: if there were none of those available at the multiplexes, then I’d just scan the titles, read a few plot summaries, and make my selection from something that was playing. It ain’t a perfect world – if it was, then those choices would be playing without pause – but I’ve learned to adjust … and I’ve even found some great Comedies, Mysteries, and Dramas to enjoy in the process.
But, thankfully, the good people at Toho Studios must’ve known that my birthday was right around the corner – and they wanted to make me giddy with delight – as Godzilla Minus One had just graced America’s silver screens in celebration of the big lizard’s seventieth birthday. (Wowza! He looks great for 70, doesn’t he?) I’d read that the picture was produced on an astounding $15 million dollar budget, and – given the fact that I follow the industry fairly closely – I didn’t quite know what to expect. $15 million? Why, in the U.S., actors and actresses often command a $15 million payday for a single role, so how is it that the Japanese can produce an entire picture on such a meager investment?
Well, if you’re anything like me, then you’re about to be thunderstruck, as Godzilla Minus One might just be the best film in all of 2023. It’s an incredible throwback to a time when characters mattered more than story, and there wasn’t an incessant need to push some political message, patron cause, or progressive talking point. What there are are people – real, authentic folks you might even recognize and could be plucked from regular existence – and they’re torn by the decision they made in their past while guiding what their heart tells them today in the present. It’s a respectable morality play set against the backdrop of the screen’s biggest baddie, and everything you’ve heard is true: this one deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
Frankly, it’s everything a movie ought to be. And more.
(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 …)
If SciFiHistory.Net is any indication, I’ve always been a fan of the theatrical experiences, and a night out at the movies (or a matinee) is always something to look forward to. The problem historically has often been that – because I can’t control what comes out when – I’ve often had to choose something outside my personal favorite genres – that being Science Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror – when my special day rolls around: if there were none of those available at the multiplexes, then I’d just scan the titles, read a few plot summaries, and make my selection from something that was playing. It ain’t a perfect world – if it was, then those choices would be playing without pause – but I’ve learned to adjust … and I’ve even found some great Comedies, Mysteries, and Dramas to enjoy in the process.
But, thankfully, the good people at Toho Studios must’ve known that my birthday was right around the corner – and they wanted to make me giddy with delight – as Godzilla Minus One had just graced America’s silver screens in celebration of the big lizard’s seventieth birthday. (Wowza! He looks great for 70, doesn’t he?) I’d read that the picture was produced on an astounding $15 million dollar budget, and – given the fact that I follow the industry fairly closely – I didn’t quite know what to expect. $15 million? Why, in the U.S., actors and actresses often command a $15 million payday for a single role, so how is it that the Japanese can produce an entire picture on such a meager investment?
Well, if you’re anything like me, then you’re about to be thunderstruck, as Godzilla Minus One might just be the best film in all of 2023. It’s an incredible throwback to a time when characters mattered more than story, and there wasn’t an incessant need to push some political message, patron cause, or progressive talking point. What there are are people – real, authentic folks you might even recognize and could be plucked from regular existence – and they’re torn by the decision they made in their past while guiding what their heart tells them today in the present. It’s a respectable morality play set against the backdrop of the screen’s biggest baddie, and everything you’ve heard is true: this one deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
Frankly, it’s everything a movie ought to be. And more.
(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:
“Post war Japan is at its lowest point when a new crisis emerges in the form of a giant monster, baptized in the horrific power of the atomic bomb.”
As a form of art, film has the unique potential to truly transcend any story it delivers while also educating the viewers to, perhaps, take action on some of the more pressing social concerns of the day.
But the single greatest problem with having this potential is that there are a great number of folks working within the wider film industry today who’ve decided to exploit such ends with almost nefarious means. Producers, storytellers, and acting talent have conspired to deliver yarns that are less about the characters they represent and more about ‘The Message’ they want to convey, even at the expense of dwindling box office returns. All one needs to do is take a glance at the financial returns of 2023’s The Marvels and Walt Disney’s Wish to see that if propaganda is all you have to offer then consumers are apt to spend their money elsewhere. Viewers have grown tired with being both preached at and ostracized for daring to have a different worldview than these storytellers; instead of subjecting themselves, their friends, and their families to the latest sermon, they’re going elsewhere for their entertainment … with ‘entertainment’ being the operative word. No one wants to endure such recrimination at the hands of the Harvey Weinstein class, nor should they.
Perhaps this is one of the biggest reasons why I found Godzilla Minus One so refreshing.
It contains none of the usual suspects. There is no self-serving ‘soapbox’ moment by any of the actors at all. While the script does include a minor condemnation about how governments behave in wartime – along with an even lesser reflection on the potential disposability of people and culture at the hands of the political movers and shakers – Godzilla stays true to the old-timey Hollywood formula of just crafting compelling characters and putting their through their respective cases, messages and moralities be damned. The end result is a vividly human story that only gets overshadowed – albeit briefly – when the lumbering monster takes center stage, and his arrival serves the sole purpose of giving his human costars the chance to right the wrongs they’re carrying like chips on their shoulders.
Take note: there’s no discussion about Godzilla’s pronouns. There’s no contemplation of the big guy’s gender. There are no trans players. There’s no token nod for racial equity. There’s no single scene decrying mankind for the lack of inclusivity. There’s no discussion about the patriarchy. There are no soliloquies about pornography being taught in schools, and the Walt Disney Company isn’t trying to get your kid to think he’s a girl when he was born a boy. What there is – and plenty of it – is s-t-o-r-y with c-h-a-r-a-c-t-e-r-s, and all of it still somehow miraculously manages to delight, captivate, and entertain … even though it’s missing everything Hollywood tells you is a prerequisite for Academy Award eligibility. This one is easily the most fun I’ve had at the theater this year, and it never challenged nor approached any criticism of my moral compass.
In perhaps the greatest stroke of brilliance, the Toho Studios epic went with the approach of crafting this celebration of Godzilla as a period piece, taking the monster back to his inception as a consequence of our planet’s Nuclear Age. The behemoth is shown on screen both before and after his atomization – the film unfolds over a few years after the conclusion of World War II – thus showing that it was all of mankind that ushered in its existence but left the Japanese people to fend for themselves in this God-awful aftermath. Well, fend for themselves they did, as Godzilla’s arrival gave the people a chance to truly coalesce around an all-new menace. Instead of following the dire direction of their central government, regular folks came together they way we’ve always hoped they would, and they made a last stand – a last, risky stand – against the monster …
… and they survived.
“Post war Japan is at its lowest point when a new crisis emerges in the form of a giant monster, baptized in the horrific power of the atomic bomb.”
As a form of art, film has the unique potential to truly transcend any story it delivers while also educating the viewers to, perhaps, take action on some of the more pressing social concerns of the day.
But the single greatest problem with having this potential is that there are a great number of folks working within the wider film industry today who’ve decided to exploit such ends with almost nefarious means. Producers, storytellers, and acting talent have conspired to deliver yarns that are less about the characters they represent and more about ‘The Message’ they want to convey, even at the expense of dwindling box office returns. All one needs to do is take a glance at the financial returns of 2023’s The Marvels and Walt Disney’s Wish to see that if propaganda is all you have to offer then consumers are apt to spend their money elsewhere. Viewers have grown tired with being both preached at and ostracized for daring to have a different worldview than these storytellers; instead of subjecting themselves, their friends, and their families to the latest sermon, they’re going elsewhere for their entertainment … with ‘entertainment’ being the operative word. No one wants to endure such recrimination at the hands of the Harvey Weinstein class, nor should they.
Perhaps this is one of the biggest reasons why I found Godzilla Minus One so refreshing.
It contains none of the usual suspects. There is no self-serving ‘soapbox’ moment by any of the actors at all. While the script does include a minor condemnation about how governments behave in wartime – along with an even lesser reflection on the potential disposability of people and culture at the hands of the political movers and shakers – Godzilla stays true to the old-timey Hollywood formula of just crafting compelling characters and putting their through their respective cases, messages and moralities be damned. The end result is a vividly human story that only gets overshadowed – albeit briefly – when the lumbering monster takes center stage, and his arrival serves the sole purpose of giving his human costars the chance to right the wrongs they’re carrying like chips on their shoulders.
Take note: there’s no discussion about Godzilla’s pronouns. There’s no contemplation of the big guy’s gender. There are no trans players. There’s no token nod for racial equity. There’s no single scene decrying mankind for the lack of inclusivity. There’s no discussion about the patriarchy. There are no soliloquies about pornography being taught in schools, and the Walt Disney Company isn’t trying to get your kid to think he’s a girl when he was born a boy. What there is – and plenty of it – is s-t-o-r-y with c-h-a-r-a-c-t-e-r-s, and all of it still somehow miraculously manages to delight, captivate, and entertain … even though it’s missing everything Hollywood tells you is a prerequisite for Academy Award eligibility. This one is easily the most fun I’ve had at the theater this year, and it never challenged nor approached any criticism of my moral compass.
In perhaps the greatest stroke of brilliance, the Toho Studios epic went with the approach of crafting this celebration of Godzilla as a period piece, taking the monster back to his inception as a consequence of our planet’s Nuclear Age. The behemoth is shown on screen both before and after his atomization – the film unfolds over a few years after the conclusion of World War II – thus showing that it was all of mankind that ushered in its existence but left the Japanese people to fend for themselves in this God-awful aftermath. Well, fend for themselves they did, as Godzilla’s arrival gave the people a chance to truly coalesce around an all-new menace. Instead of following the dire direction of their central government, regular folks came together they way we’ve always hoped they would, and they made a last stand – a last, risky stand – against the monster …
… and they survived.
Writer/director Takashi Yamazaki has composed what works like a love letter to these monster movies of old, both giving an affectionate nod to how stories used to work while showing a deft hand at delivering modern day special effects action sequences. While Godzilla looks a bit grittier than I’ve seen before, he sounds exactly the way he should; and his time in the spotlight in Minus One makes for some of the best screen experiences of late. Both in water and on land, he’s a force to be terrified of – an aspect that’s sadly been lost by storytellers in the past few decades – and his arrival has everyone understandably running for the hills. Like Jaws, Godzilla is a threat that isn’t meant to be understood. He’s the traditional representation of a world gone awry, and fear is the only natural response from those who would be his prey.
This is franchise filmmaking, after all, so it’s only natural that Yamazaki leave an opening for a sequel. As mentioned, the original ‘Big Guy’ (screw you, Joe Biden) has been around for 70 years, proving that monsters never quite go out of style. I suppose there are some out there who might think such an obvious turn might cheapen the brew, but I, for one, would welcome a return, especially if it’s handled with some accomplished mythmaking as this celebration was. It’s a surprising home run that deserves to be enjoyed again and again, especially by folks who can appreciate what going to the movies used to be before corporate preachers latched onto it for the purpose of perpetuating their groupthink. That there is a Godzilla society can do without.
Godzilla Minus One (2023) was produced by Robot Communications, Toho Company, and Toho Studios. The film is presently playing theatrically around the world. As for the technical specifications? Wowza. This film looks and sounds astonishing … and all of it was reportedly achieved on a budget of $15 million. (Seriously, folks, you will not believe how damn great this flick both looks and sounds … on $15 million. It seriously blows away a great deal of Hollywood blockbusters that clock in between $200-$300 million.) Lastly, as this was a theatrical screening, there were no special features to consider.
Highest recommendation possible.
At times, Godzilla Minus One (2023) feels like a welcome throwback to the days when monster movies weren’t politicized in any way and simply went for the goal of achieving maximum entertainment potential. Oh, yes, there’s an obvious political jab here and there regarding the philosophy of war and/or government policy during wartimes, but none of that messaging ever overtakes the importance of (A) characters, (B) the principal story, and (C) delivering the goods. In that respect, this Godzilla could serve as a lesson to the film industry around the world but especially in America: give audiences a reason to come to the theaters, and they will come. Leave your token causes like representation, gender fluidity, pronoun usage, and destroying Conservatives on the sidelines; and audiences will most definitely come.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review as I went to see Godzilla Minus One (2023) theatrically on my own dollar … and I’ll be forever glad that I did.
-- EZ
This is franchise filmmaking, after all, so it’s only natural that Yamazaki leave an opening for a sequel. As mentioned, the original ‘Big Guy’ (screw you, Joe Biden) has been around for 70 years, proving that monsters never quite go out of style. I suppose there are some out there who might think such an obvious turn might cheapen the brew, but I, for one, would welcome a return, especially if it’s handled with some accomplished mythmaking as this celebration was. It’s a surprising home run that deserves to be enjoyed again and again, especially by folks who can appreciate what going to the movies used to be before corporate preachers latched onto it for the purpose of perpetuating their groupthink. That there is a Godzilla society can do without.
Godzilla Minus One (2023) was produced by Robot Communications, Toho Company, and Toho Studios. The film is presently playing theatrically around the world. As for the technical specifications? Wowza. This film looks and sounds astonishing … and all of it was reportedly achieved on a budget of $15 million. (Seriously, folks, you will not believe how damn great this flick both looks and sounds … on $15 million. It seriously blows away a great deal of Hollywood blockbusters that clock in between $200-$300 million.) Lastly, as this was a theatrical screening, there were no special features to consider.
Highest recommendation possible.
At times, Godzilla Minus One (2023) feels like a welcome throwback to the days when monster movies weren’t politicized in any way and simply went for the goal of achieving maximum entertainment potential. Oh, yes, there’s an obvious political jab here and there regarding the philosophy of war and/or government policy during wartimes, but none of that messaging ever overtakes the importance of (A) characters, (B) the principal story, and (C) delivering the goods. In that respect, this Godzilla could serve as a lesson to the film industry around the world but especially in America: give audiences a reason to come to the theaters, and they will come. Leave your token causes like representation, gender fluidity, pronoun usage, and destroying Conservatives on the sidelines; and audiences will most definitely come.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one for this review as I went to see Godzilla Minus One (2023) theatrically on my own dollar … and I’ll be forever glad that I did.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to yet one more day in the silly season!
Yes, yes, and yes: I realize that a scant 51 trivia citations is a bit light, so apologies all around. As I said the other day, the start of December is a bit crazy around here as it's not only the onset of the holidays but it's also the start of my birthday month ... so ... what can I say? I get a little bit preoccupied as all of this positive attention draws me elsewhere. Birthdays have always been -- in my life -- the one thing that really should be celebrated as it's really the only single day each of has to commemorate our own uniqueness in all of the cosmos. Maybe I overdue it, but -- as I said -- if I'm going to be spoiled rotten at any time then I'd rather have it be on a day that belongs to me. Just about everything else we celebrate is a 'shared experience,' so forgive me for wanting a day that can be all of my own.
Ok. Off my soapbox now.
Even though the day is a bit light on citations, there are still some incredible ones up in this space. The heavily awarded Jeff Bridges turns another year older and wiser as does the genre-regular favorite of so many Tony Todd. 1980's fun theatrical follow-up to Superman - The Movie -- this one simply titled Superman II -- opened on this day back then, and it did some fabulous box office. Yes, its special effects are radically undercooked and certainly have not aged well, and yet as one who saw this back in the theatres then I can assure you we saw the weaknesses even then and still managed to enjoy the Hell out of it. I did a quick review of my daily archives, and I do have a solid handful or two of updates I can do for the day, but -- as I've already warned -- my time is limited up through this Wedneday ... so this might be my only chance to get in and give you a quick shout.
Rather than look on this assortment as small, look on it as privileged. It's a grand smattering of people, places, and things that deserve our collective attention -- on their own special day -- and find something amongst them to get excited about. I'm sure all of the honorees would approve.
So ... without further delay ...
Yes, yes, and yes: I realize that a scant 51 trivia citations is a bit light, so apologies all around. As I said the other day, the start of December is a bit crazy around here as it's not only the onset of the holidays but it's also the start of my birthday month ... so ... what can I say? I get a little bit preoccupied as all of this positive attention draws me elsewhere. Birthdays have always been -- in my life -- the one thing that really should be celebrated as it's really the only single day each of has to commemorate our own uniqueness in all of the cosmos. Maybe I overdue it, but -- as I said -- if I'm going to be spoiled rotten at any time then I'd rather have it be on a day that belongs to me. Just about everything else we celebrate is a 'shared experience,' so forgive me for wanting a day that can be all of my own.
Ok. Off my soapbox now.
Even though the day is a bit light on citations, there are still some incredible ones up in this space. The heavily awarded Jeff Bridges turns another year older and wiser as does the genre-regular favorite of so many Tony Todd. 1980's fun theatrical follow-up to Superman - The Movie -- this one simply titled Superman II -- opened on this day back then, and it did some fabulous box office. Yes, its special effects are radically undercooked and certainly have not aged well, and yet as one who saw this back in the theatres then I can assure you we saw the weaknesses even then and still managed to enjoy the Hell out of it. I did a quick review of my daily archives, and I do have a solid handful or two of updates I can do for the day, but -- as I've already warned -- my time is limited up through this Wedneday ... so this might be my only chance to get in and give you a quick shout.
Rather than look on this assortment as small, look on it as privileged. It's a grand smattering of people, places, and things that deserve our collective attention -- on their own special day -- and find something amongst them to get excited about. I'm sure all of the honorees would approve.
So ... without further delay ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks even more for sharing ... thanks even more for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and ... WOOF!
Can you see that? Can you see that -- along with that tiny imperfection in the Number 2 above -- we've managed to eek out an incredible 102 different trivia citations for the day? Can you believe it? Can you frakkin' believe it? Why, that's an astonishing amount of data -- if I do say so myself -- and I just glanced into the day's archives and learned that I've an incredible amount more waiting for mention ... if I can just find the free time to get it all up there!
Wowza!
For those of you who don't know it, I'd originally worked very hard on the entire month of December because -- well -- it's my birthday month, and I did want it to be a bit special if for no other reason than to commemorate (sp?) my efforts. There's nothing wrong with a measure of pride in one's work, and here's hoping that I live long enough to get everything I've uncovered with scads and scads and scads of research up in this space. Seriously: I surprise even myself some days with all that I've in my files, and I do know that a few of you who frequent these corners of the Information Superhighway do enjoy this exchange as much as I. So hats off to each of us in our shared appreciation of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and even more!
In case you missed it, I did post a pretty hefty look back into my thoughts regarding 1979's urban thriller The Warriors yesterday (review is here), and -- of course -- I realize that isn't so much related to a great deal of what's up here. However, I stated in the opening that from time-to-time I do wander outside the lines -- especially as it relates to interesting new content -- and The Warriors remains one of the vivid yarns on my youth at the movies ... so there. I hope you can appreciate my column as much as you do the other substance I share, and I'm glad that you'll allow me these other indulgences.
However, I'm busy with the wifey today so I will not be able to get up any other new posts beyond this one. We've got something fun planned, and it's something I look forward to annually. Also, tomorrow, I'm tied up with my volunteer gig all day, so I probably won't have anything fresh and inviting up. I give you my word that I'll try to get the daily post up ... but even that may not quite fit into a very tight schedule.
So ... in the meantime ...
Can you see that? Can you see that -- along with that tiny imperfection in the Number 2 above -- we've managed to eek out an incredible 102 different trivia citations for the day? Can you believe it? Can you frakkin' believe it? Why, that's an astonishing amount of data -- if I do say so myself -- and I just glanced into the day's archives and learned that I've an incredible amount more waiting for mention ... if I can just find the free time to get it all up there!
Wowza!
For those of you who don't know it, I'd originally worked very hard on the entire month of December because -- well -- it's my birthday month, and I did want it to be a bit special if for no other reason than to commemorate (sp?) my efforts. There's nothing wrong with a measure of pride in one's work, and here's hoping that I live long enough to get everything I've uncovered with scads and scads and scads of research up in this space. Seriously: I surprise even myself some days with all that I've in my files, and I do know that a few of you who frequent these corners of the Information Superhighway do enjoy this exchange as much as I. So hats off to each of us in our shared appreciation of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and even more!
In case you missed it, I did post a pretty hefty look back into my thoughts regarding 1979's urban thriller The Warriors yesterday (review is here), and -- of course -- I realize that isn't so much related to a great deal of what's up here. However, I stated in the opening that from time-to-time I do wander outside the lines -- especially as it relates to interesting new content -- and The Warriors remains one of the vivid yarns on my youth at the movies ... so there. I hope you can appreciate my column as much as you do the other substance I share, and I'm glad that you'll allow me these other indulgences.
However, I'm busy with the wifey today so I will not be able to get up any other new posts beyond this one. We've got something fun planned, and it's something I look forward to annually. Also, tomorrow, I'm tied up with my volunteer gig all day, so I probably won't have anything fresh and inviting up. I give you my word that I'll try to get the daily post up ... but even that may not quite fit into a very tight schedule.
So ... in the meantime ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Gentle readers, I’ve confessed that – from time-to-time – I like to wander outside the realms of the Fantastic that are so reverentially covered in this space to review something different.
As I’ve said, I’ve always been a lover of film and not just those which happen to fall under the Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror headings. While I’m not all that much moved by conventional Dramas and Comedies, I still take them in on occasion, especially those that have been recommended to me from the kind folks I meet along the merry way of life. Westerns and Film Noirs are also big, big, big favorites of mine (you’ll see a smattering of columns and reviews on the site covering them); but I do tend to turn my nose up with Musicals. (I just never cared for them.) And when one of these flicks inspires me to think and write about it a bit more, then I’m also apt to cover new releases of them – with the occasional review – in this space because venturing outside my preferred bubble is a solid act of creative renewal. I get to ponder questions that stretch beyond spaceships, aliens, and ray guns; and there’s nothing wrong with pushing one’s brain in a different direction entirely.
Simply put, it’s good for the soul.
Today’s diversion: The Warriors (1979) was an R-rated film I had to sneak into theaters in order to see back in the days of my reckless youth, and I’m glad I did. (I didn’t do that all too often, so, yeah, it was fun.) Though I didn’t quite relish the cinematic adventure as much as did the friends who snuck in with me, I did think it was very well made, told a solid story, and crafted a layer of tension that rarely gets seen that well done up in the lights. It had about everything any deserving tale should have – good characters, vivid scenery, a hint of romance (and some bromance), flashes of action and adventure – and I think it remains one of the better thrillers to come out of the 1970’s.
Recently, Arrow Films announced that they’d be releasing an all-new 4K Ultra HD restoration of the picture in December; and somehow I had the great fortune of scoring myself a pre-release screening copy. With a bit of glee, I sat down and spent a few hours with it – the original cut as well as a director’s version I wasn’t even aware of – so I’m happy to share my thoughts on one of the seminal films of my youth.
(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 …)
As I’ve said, I’ve always been a lover of film and not just those which happen to fall under the Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror headings. While I’m not all that much moved by conventional Dramas and Comedies, I still take them in on occasion, especially those that have been recommended to me from the kind folks I meet along the merry way of life. Westerns and Film Noirs are also big, big, big favorites of mine (you’ll see a smattering of columns and reviews on the site covering them); but I do tend to turn my nose up with Musicals. (I just never cared for them.) And when one of these flicks inspires me to think and write about it a bit more, then I’m also apt to cover new releases of them – with the occasional review – in this space because venturing outside my preferred bubble is a solid act of creative renewal. I get to ponder questions that stretch beyond spaceships, aliens, and ray guns; and there’s nothing wrong with pushing one’s brain in a different direction entirely.
Simply put, it’s good for the soul.
Today’s diversion: The Warriors (1979) was an R-rated film I had to sneak into theaters in order to see back in the days of my reckless youth, and I’m glad I did. (I didn’t do that all too often, so, yeah, it was fun.) Though I didn’t quite relish the cinematic adventure as much as did the friends who snuck in with me, I did think it was very well made, told a solid story, and crafted a layer of tension that rarely gets seen that well done up in the lights. It had about everything any deserving tale should have – good characters, vivid scenery, a hint of romance (and some bromance), flashes of action and adventure – and I think it remains one of the better thrillers to come out of the 1970’s.
Recently, Arrow Films announced that they’d be releasing an all-new 4K Ultra HD restoration of the picture in December; and somehow I had the great fortune of scoring myself a pre-release screening copy. With a bit of glee, I sat down and spent a few hours with it – the original cut as well as a director’s version I wasn’t even aware of – so I’m happy to share my thoughts on one of the seminal films of my youth.
(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 street gang known as The Warriors must fight their way from the Bronx to their home turf on Coney Island when they are falsely accused of assassinating a respected gang leader.”
If the early 1960’s cinematic sensibilities were ultimately responsible for educating mankind to what life on the street looked like, then leave it to the late 1970’s to radically correct that portrait from the sanitized era: Walter Hill’s The Warriors – adapted in part by the director from Sol Yurick’s novel of the same name – delivered the tale of an urban nightmare of survival across the night lights of New York City’s underworld, though at times it felt a bit light in substance if not even a bit glossy with its kinda/sorta embrace of a life in crime. There’s no escaping that one truth, folks, that gangs account for a significant percentage of illegal and illicit activity wherever they do ‘business,’ but The Warriors would have you believing that these young men are just soldiers of a different sort … and nothing – in reality – could be further from the truth.
Naturally, any discussion of The Warriors practically requires an examination of the career of Hill. Today, his may not be a household name, but for those of us who grew up in the 1970’s it was certainly one we recognized. His debut picture – Hard Times (1972) – paired up screen heavyweights Charles Bronson and James Coburn in the story of illegal prize-fighting during the Great Depression. The Warriors followed a few years later, but 1981, 1982, and 1984 respectively truly put the writer/director on the map with flicks like Southern Comfort (another tale of survival thematically similar to The Warriors), the box-office hit 48 Hours (still my favorite Hill picture), and Streets Of Fire (a kinda/sorta urban Thriller also set on the city streets but given a bit of Fantasy spin). Those years alone show an incredible eye with a knack for delivering big scenes when they mattered most, and these films remain impactful – if even a bit cult – to this day.
What many don’t know is that along the way Hill was also expanding his skill set beyond just writing and directing: in 1979, he added ‘Producer’ to his resume in a big way, helping to bring Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking Alien to the silver screen. In fact, Hill’s association with the whole Alien franchise lasted all the way through the somewhat underwhelming 2017 entry Alien: Covenant, a bit of a misfire in that universe so far as this reviewer is concerned. He was a key player in delivering HBO’s award-winning Tales From The Crypt to audiences, and he left his mark on several smaller properties across the 50+ years spanning his career. A glance at his IMDB.com profile suggests that his efforts have fallen off as of late, but count me among those who’d love to see more of his catalogue given the kind of treatment Arrow Films has given this forthcoming celebration of his 1979 sensation.
“A street gang known as The Warriors must fight their way from the Bronx to their home turf on Coney Island when they are falsely accused of assassinating a respected gang leader.”
If the early 1960’s cinematic sensibilities were ultimately responsible for educating mankind to what life on the street looked like, then leave it to the late 1970’s to radically correct that portrait from the sanitized era: Walter Hill’s The Warriors – adapted in part by the director from Sol Yurick’s novel of the same name – delivered the tale of an urban nightmare of survival across the night lights of New York City’s underworld, though at times it felt a bit light in substance if not even a bit glossy with its kinda/sorta embrace of a life in crime. There’s no escaping that one truth, folks, that gangs account for a significant percentage of illegal and illicit activity wherever they do ‘business,’ but The Warriors would have you believing that these young men are just soldiers of a different sort … and nothing – in reality – could be further from the truth.
Naturally, any discussion of The Warriors practically requires an examination of the career of Hill. Today, his may not be a household name, but for those of us who grew up in the 1970’s it was certainly one we recognized. His debut picture – Hard Times (1972) – paired up screen heavyweights Charles Bronson and James Coburn in the story of illegal prize-fighting during the Great Depression. The Warriors followed a few years later, but 1981, 1982, and 1984 respectively truly put the writer/director on the map with flicks like Southern Comfort (another tale of survival thematically similar to The Warriors), the box-office hit 48 Hours (still my favorite Hill picture), and Streets Of Fire (a kinda/sorta urban Thriller also set on the city streets but given a bit of Fantasy spin). Those years alone show an incredible eye with a knack for delivering big scenes when they mattered most, and these films remain impactful – if even a bit cult – to this day.
What many don’t know is that along the way Hill was also expanding his skill set beyond just writing and directing: in 1979, he added ‘Producer’ to his resume in a big way, helping to bring Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking Alien to the silver screen. In fact, Hill’s association with the whole Alien franchise lasted all the way through the somewhat underwhelming 2017 entry Alien: Covenant, a bit of a misfire in that universe so far as this reviewer is concerned. He was a key player in delivering HBO’s award-winning Tales From The Crypt to audiences, and he left his mark on several smaller properties across the 50+ years spanning his career. A glance at his IMDB.com profile suggests that his efforts have fallen off as of late, but count me among those who’d love to see more of his catalogue given the kind of treatment Arrow Films has given this forthcoming celebration of his 1979 sensation.
Evaluating The Warriors as one of his earlier prospects kinda/sorta diminishes the impact the project had in its time and place, but history is always written by the victors … am I right? Depending upon where one searches and reads, it was released without much fanfare with a good number of professional critics drubbing it as low-brow entertainment beneath their (cough cough) deserving attention. In fact, I’ve read that The Warriors both was and wasn’t a box office sensation; having lived through those days, I can tell you that it wasn’t much talked about that I can recall, but I caution readers to keep in mind that I was just entering high school at that point and didn’t follow industry trends as closely as I do today. I’ve also read that the production grossed a surprisingly low $23 million at the box office, but that’s still not so awful given its reported $4 million budget. Over time, I think it’s undisputed that the film has become a cult hit as well as one of those ‘closeted favorites’ of a great many storytellers, and it’s always great when classics find new life with younger viewers.
So, yes, I’ll agree to having a fondness for it, most of which I honestly ascribe to my appreciation of Hill’s particularly gritty style and his handling of like-minded subject matter. The Warriors sounds, looks, and feels like a great hard-boiled novel (I’ve heard that the source material really only taps such territory), and its various characters arguably don’t have much depth beyond there respective place and circumstances. In fact, audiences learn very little about The Warriors’ war chief Swan (played by Michael Beck) and are instead merely forced to accept his leadership bona fides because ‘they are what they are.’ He never quite demonstrates a knack for inspiring others and/or team-building, and every man on his squad (mostly) goes along with his leadership because … well … that’s what one does. The only real challenge to his leadership comes from Ajax – an impressive screen job done by James Remar, one of my all-time personal favorite actors – and, yet again, we’re really only treated to their behaviors – his being rebellious – and given no wider context for who he is and why he resents authority the way he does.
However, I think it was writer, director, and actor Sylvester Stallone who once preached about the greatness of 90-minute films. (For the uninformed, The Warriors clocks in at a lean and mean 93 minutes.) Theater owners have long professed that such features give them the greatest bang for their buck – meaning that they can schedule the right number of showing for the right number of audiences to maintain peak profitability – and studios were all-to-happy back in the day to follow suit. Because thrillers and action films chiefly attract young males (with some females, too), it’s often been suggested that character is less important and can be sacrificed in favor of greater pacing along with solid action sequences. In this respect, I suppose it’s safe to safe that The Warriors fit the bill almost perfectly, dialing back such narrative nuance in favor of letting Hill truly do what he does best. Me? Well, I’d much rather a storyteller add ten-minutes to the run-time if that means I get to know a bit more about who these people are, why they behave a certain way, and maybe even a hint of what they hope to get out of life … beyond simply surviving.
None of this is meant to dismiss how effective The Warriors is at what it does best, and mostly it sets up this slim universe for the sole purpose of setting its characters in motion. On that front, it achieves a measure of greatness few followers can hope to achieve, and I think that speaks to Hill’s driving focus on the page and behind the camera. After its initial set-up, The Warriors – like its protagonists – are always in flight, be in walking or running or riding the subway. They won’t stop until they’re home, and only then do they realize that maybe such sacred pastures aren’t even safe any longer. But as it’s suggested that they somehow stood up for themselves by running and surviving, they’re granted a reprieve by the big baddies, The Riffs.
So, yes, I’ll agree to having a fondness for it, most of which I honestly ascribe to my appreciation of Hill’s particularly gritty style and his handling of like-minded subject matter. The Warriors sounds, looks, and feels like a great hard-boiled novel (I’ve heard that the source material really only taps such territory), and its various characters arguably don’t have much depth beyond there respective place and circumstances. In fact, audiences learn very little about The Warriors’ war chief Swan (played by Michael Beck) and are instead merely forced to accept his leadership bona fides because ‘they are what they are.’ He never quite demonstrates a knack for inspiring others and/or team-building, and every man on his squad (mostly) goes along with his leadership because … well … that’s what one does. The only real challenge to his leadership comes from Ajax – an impressive screen job done by James Remar, one of my all-time personal favorite actors – and, yet again, we’re really only treated to their behaviors – his being rebellious – and given no wider context for who he is and why he resents authority the way he does.
However, I think it was writer, director, and actor Sylvester Stallone who once preached about the greatness of 90-minute films. (For the uninformed, The Warriors clocks in at a lean and mean 93 minutes.) Theater owners have long professed that such features give them the greatest bang for their buck – meaning that they can schedule the right number of showing for the right number of audiences to maintain peak profitability – and studios were all-to-happy back in the day to follow suit. Because thrillers and action films chiefly attract young males (with some females, too), it’s often been suggested that character is less important and can be sacrificed in favor of greater pacing along with solid action sequences. In this respect, I suppose it’s safe to safe that The Warriors fit the bill almost perfectly, dialing back such narrative nuance in favor of letting Hill truly do what he does best. Me? Well, I’d much rather a storyteller add ten-minutes to the run-time if that means I get to know a bit more about who these people are, why they behave a certain way, and maybe even a hint of what they hope to get out of life … beyond simply surviving.
None of this is meant to dismiss how effective The Warriors is at what it does best, and mostly it sets up this slim universe for the sole purpose of setting its characters in motion. On that front, it achieves a measure of greatness few followers can hope to achieve, and I think that speaks to Hill’s driving focus on the page and behind the camera. After its initial set-up, The Warriors – like its protagonists – are always in flight, be in walking or running or riding the subway. They won’t stop until they’re home, and only then do they realize that maybe such sacred pastures aren’t even safe any longer. But as it’s suggested that they somehow stood up for themselves by running and surviving, they’re granted a reprieve by the big baddies, The Riffs.
Who knows how long the peace will last?
Thankfully, there was no follow-up, as that would’ve only cheapened the whole affair.
Still, sometime in 2005, Hill was encouraged to somewhat reconsider his nifty little epic with the issuance of a director’s cut. While I’m generally a fan of such ‘reconsiderations,’ I can tell you that this time the whole premise really falls flat. (In fact, I think I laughed once or twice at these weird revisions.) In a pre-taped introduction to the piece, Hill kinda/sorta alludes to the fact that he always viewed The Warriors as soldiers, though he never clarifies what war they were waging. Basically, he tacked on an opening narrative that compares these gangbangers to Greek soldiers trying to march through enemy territory, and – I’m sorry, folks – all of it felt incredibly stupid. (Thankfully, it’s very brief.) Then, he essentially reworked the existing films transitions with some curious comic book style graphics … and really? Good grief. Stick with the original, people. It’s what works best and might just be timeless all on its own.
The Warriors (1979) was produced by Paramount Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good people at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … wow. This restoration both looks and sounds absolutely fabulous, so much so that one might think all of this was originally shot on digital. (There is one scene very late in the picture that an alarming degree of grain, and I can only assume that this must be owed to an inferior source material.) If you’re looking for special features? Well, once again, this is Arrow Films; and they never disappoint. (At least, they’ve not disappointed me.) Because this is voluminous, I’m going to do the obligatory copy-and-paste from their press materials, as that’s the only way to truly do it justice. The collection boasts:
Thankfully, there was no follow-up, as that would’ve only cheapened the whole affair.
Still, sometime in 2005, Hill was encouraged to somewhat reconsider his nifty little epic with the issuance of a director’s cut. While I’m generally a fan of such ‘reconsiderations,’ I can tell you that this time the whole premise really falls flat. (In fact, I think I laughed once or twice at these weird revisions.) In a pre-taped introduction to the piece, Hill kinda/sorta alludes to the fact that he always viewed The Warriors as soldiers, though he never clarifies what war they were waging. Basically, he tacked on an opening narrative that compares these gangbangers to Greek soldiers trying to march through enemy territory, and – I’m sorry, folks – all of it felt incredibly stupid. (Thankfully, it’s very brief.) Then, he essentially reworked the existing films transitions with some curious comic book style graphics … and really? Good grief. Stick with the original, people. It’s what works best and might just be timeless all on its own.
The Warriors (1979) was produced by Paramount Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good people at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … wow. This restoration both looks and sounds absolutely fabulous, so much so that one might think all of this was originally shot on digital. (There is one scene very late in the picture that an alarming degree of grain, and I can only assume that this must be owed to an inferior source material.) If you’re looking for special features? Well, once again, this is Arrow Films; and they never disappoint. (At least, they’ve not disappointed me.) Because this is voluminous, I’m going to do the obligatory copy-and-paste from their press materials, as that’s the only way to truly do it justice. The collection boasts:
- EXCLUSIVE NEW 4K RESTORATIONS OF THE THEATRICAL AND DIRECTOR'S CUT OF THE FILM sourced from the original camera negative, supervised by Arrow Films and approved by director Walter Hill
- Theatrical Cut presented in original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 for the first time on home video
- Original uncompressed mono, plus stereo 2.0 and Dolby Atmos audio options for the Theatrical Cut, plus stereo 2.0 and DTS-HD MA 5.1 for the 2005 Alternate Version
- Optional English Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- 100-page perfect-bound collector's book containing new writing by film critic Dennis Cozzalio plus select archival material
- Limited Edition packaging with reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Laurie Greasley
- Double-sided fold-out poster featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Laurie Greasley
- 6 postcard-sized reproduction artcards
- Gang logo stickers
DISC ONE: THEATRICAL CUT
Despite any shortcomings, this one still comes … Highly Recommended.
Dismissing the fact that The Warriors (1979) is only sparingly grounded in reality is honestly the best way to enjoy this sometimes thrilling, sometimes chilling meditation on – of all things – survival. You can throw any other themes and/or messages out the window because – in this world – these streetwise punks band together out of necessity and then stick to their colors for the same purpose: alone, they’d be struck down one-by-one, but together they just might make it home alive. Cinematography is excellent, pacing and editing is exceptional, and performances are about as good as they get in this universe. Imagine that you’re watching a carnival theme park ride into the ultimate haunted house, and this journey continues to delight decades after its initial release. Easily, this marks as one of Walter Hill’s crowning achievements.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screening copy of The Warriors (1979) 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
- New audio commentary by film critic Walter Chaw, author of A Walter Hill Film
- War Stories, a new interview with director Walter Hill
- A new roundtable discussion in which filmmakers Josh Olson (A History of Violence), Lexi Alexander (Green Street), and Robert D. Kryzkowski (The Man Who Killed Hitler and then Bigfoot) discuss their love of The Warriors and the work of director Walter Hill
- Battling Boundaries, a new interview with editor Billy Weber
- Gang Style, a new interview with costume designer Bobbie Mannix
- Armies of the Night, a new exclusive look at costume designs and photographs from the archive of designer Bobbie Mannix
- Sound of the Streets, a new appreciation of composer Barry De Vorzon and the music of The Warriors by film historian Neil Brand
- Isolated score option
- Come Out to Play, a new look at the iconic locations of the Warriors' Coney Island home turf
- The Beginning, an archival extra looking back on how The Warriors came to be, featuring interviews with producer Lawrence Gordon, actor James Remar, editor David Holden and writer/director Walter Hill
- Battleground, an archival extra in which director Walter Hill and assistant director David O. Sosna look back at the difficulties of shooting on location in New York City
- The Way Home, an archival extra focusing on the look of film with contributions from director of photography Andrew Laszlo
- The Phenomenon, an archival extra featuring director Walter Hill and the cast of The Warriors
- Theatrical trailer
- Image gallery
- Archive introduction by director Walter Hill
Despite any shortcomings, this one still comes … Highly Recommended.
Dismissing the fact that The Warriors (1979) is only sparingly grounded in reality is honestly the best way to enjoy this sometimes thrilling, sometimes chilling meditation on – of all things – survival. You can throw any other themes and/or messages out the window because – in this world – these streetwise punks band together out of necessity and then stick to their colors for the same purpose: alone, they’d be struck down one-by-one, but together they just might make it home alive. Cinematography is excellent, pacing and editing is exceptional, and performances are about as good as they get in this universe. Imagine that you’re watching a carnival theme park ride into the ultimate haunted house, and this journey continues to delight decades after its initial release. Easily, this marks as one of Walter Hill’s crowning achievements.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screening copy of The Warriors (1979) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Linnea Quigley plays Malicia Tombs, a well-known horror actress who dies in a car accident under mysterious circumstances after leaving the set of her latest movie. Fans and co-workers alike reflect on her life. But someone believes she was murdered and sets out to get revenge for her death!”
Readers, I have occasionally taken IMDB’s plot summaries to task over their (cough cough) inaccuracies; and, sadly, that’s the case this morning. While the provided synopsis has a modest element of truth to it, I might argue that it’s also blatantly misleading. Now, I’ll not spoil it directly, but I would caution you that the summary feels like it was written to kinda/sorta deliver a classic misdirection: in fact, such a misdirection is probably a necessary component of getting viewers to watch this incredibly low-budget slasher production. Otherwise, I wonder if anyone would’ve shown up at all.
Well … okay. Maybe that sounded a bit harsh. Apologies.
The name of Linnea Quigley brings with it a certain aura. This celebrated actress long ago earned the title of ‘Scream Queen’ for her resume, one rich in the realm of Horror and Fantasy. She’s definitely fashioned a career out of blood and guts on screens big and small, but – and this is only my observation – it would seem that of late she’s been relegated to increasingly smaller independent Horror outings, the likes of which tend to end up shuffled to pay cable channels or direct-to-video are that rarely gets authentic media coverage. Yes, it sucks getting older, but Quigley’s fans understandably appreciate all that the lady does, so her reputation and appearance alone does guarantee a small measure of success for budding auteurs who might cast her in their forthcoming frights.
I have read a bit about Scream Queen (2002), and I’ve come to understand its production was somewhat fractured. As I understand, it began life in the late 1990’s, but filming stalled at some point over what was likely a loss of capital. Eventually, the project was completed, and it was released on home video with, probably, very little fanfare. Though I’ve no way of knowing, I suspect this one was overlooked by a mainstream crowd, perhaps only finding embrace from the most ardent purveyors of the Horror section in Blockbuster stores of the day. Such a thing happens to many small(ish), independent works, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Still, it’s kinda/sorta hard to muster up any serious praise for the effort expended.
Thankfully, it’s lean, clocking in at just under 80 minutes; and it largely sticks to what might say is an almost ‘classical’ slasher structure. Following the format of an Agatha Christie outing, it’s basically a mildly bloody yarn about folks called to one mansion on a dark and stormy night wherein they’re dispatched to the afterlife one-by-one as viewers have to figure out whodunit. (This is what I mean when I suggest it’s ‘classical’ in nature.) Alas, it ain’t all that hard to reach that conclusion – again, trying to avoid spoiling any major details – but maybe I’ve seen too many iterations of this formula, leaving this one with a decided lack of freshness.
So … despite the fact that – quite literally – Scream Queen looks like it had no extraordinary budget (it could’ve been shot in any residential home by an assortment of gathered friends), it’s hard to fault this cast and crew for showing up and giving it an honest attempt. It sticks too closely to meeting expectations of the narrative – the kiss of death for damn near any low-budget chiller to break into profitability – and never tries anything new, different, or inviting. This kinda thing has been done to death in the Scream franchise alone, and I’m not sure those storytelling mechanics truly lend themselves to modestly budgeted knockoffs. Quigley’s involvement alone – as welcome as that may’ve been – was just not enough to ‘burn the barn’ over such a bland concoction.
A noble attempt, true. Just not revolutionary by any measurable standard.
Scream Queen (2002) was produced by … well, unfortunately I’ve no idea. The usually reliable IMDB.com has no information and not even this release’s packaging gives me the specificity I look for. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance. As for the technical specifications? Ouch. This is a tough one, readers, because what you’re looking at – from the original – is some very dated and underattended source material. While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure you that the provided sights and sounds are well below the bar for what’s available today. But if you’re looking for special features? Wowza! Visual Vengeance has certainly rolled out the red carpet with this collection, and I’m doing the copy-and-paste for those interested in this sort of detail below. It’s a fabulous assortment that should be the envy of any genre nut worldwide. Take a gander:
Alas … it’s hard to give this one a ringing endorsement on any level. I would say that Quigley’s fans will find it mildly delightful – a bit of a stretch – and why not? Scream Queen stars one of the truly original scream queens ever to grace the screen, so I can appreciate the obvious irony of casting a major Horror talent to star as a major Horror talent in a low-budget send-up of indie-set slasher scene. Sadly, it’s only occasionally fun and really only rarely finds a tone deserving attention … and by this time you can see whodunit from a mile away … which, incidentally, I think the camera may’ve been located a mile away from some of these fuzzy shots.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Scream Queen (2002) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Linnea Quigley plays Malicia Tombs, a well-known horror actress who dies in a car accident under mysterious circumstances after leaving the set of her latest movie. Fans and co-workers alike reflect on her life. But someone believes she was murdered and sets out to get revenge for her death!”
Readers, I have occasionally taken IMDB’s plot summaries to task over their (cough cough) inaccuracies; and, sadly, that’s the case this morning. While the provided synopsis has a modest element of truth to it, I might argue that it’s also blatantly misleading. Now, I’ll not spoil it directly, but I would caution you that the summary feels like it was written to kinda/sorta deliver a classic misdirection: in fact, such a misdirection is probably a necessary component of getting viewers to watch this incredibly low-budget slasher production. Otherwise, I wonder if anyone would’ve shown up at all.
Well … okay. Maybe that sounded a bit harsh. Apologies.
The name of Linnea Quigley brings with it a certain aura. This celebrated actress long ago earned the title of ‘Scream Queen’ for her resume, one rich in the realm of Horror and Fantasy. She’s definitely fashioned a career out of blood and guts on screens big and small, but – and this is only my observation – it would seem that of late she’s been relegated to increasingly smaller independent Horror outings, the likes of which tend to end up shuffled to pay cable channels or direct-to-video are that rarely gets authentic media coverage. Yes, it sucks getting older, but Quigley’s fans understandably appreciate all that the lady does, so her reputation and appearance alone does guarantee a small measure of success for budding auteurs who might cast her in their forthcoming frights.
I have read a bit about Scream Queen (2002), and I’ve come to understand its production was somewhat fractured. As I understand, it began life in the late 1990’s, but filming stalled at some point over what was likely a loss of capital. Eventually, the project was completed, and it was released on home video with, probably, very little fanfare. Though I’ve no way of knowing, I suspect this one was overlooked by a mainstream crowd, perhaps only finding embrace from the most ardent purveyors of the Horror section in Blockbuster stores of the day. Such a thing happens to many small(ish), independent works, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Still, it’s kinda/sorta hard to muster up any serious praise for the effort expended.
Thankfully, it’s lean, clocking in at just under 80 minutes; and it largely sticks to what might say is an almost ‘classical’ slasher structure. Following the format of an Agatha Christie outing, it’s basically a mildly bloody yarn about folks called to one mansion on a dark and stormy night wherein they’re dispatched to the afterlife one-by-one as viewers have to figure out whodunit. (This is what I mean when I suggest it’s ‘classical’ in nature.) Alas, it ain’t all that hard to reach that conclusion – again, trying to avoid spoiling any major details – but maybe I’ve seen too many iterations of this formula, leaving this one with a decided lack of freshness.
So … despite the fact that – quite literally – Scream Queen looks like it had no extraordinary budget (it could’ve been shot in any residential home by an assortment of gathered friends), it’s hard to fault this cast and crew for showing up and giving it an honest attempt. It sticks too closely to meeting expectations of the narrative – the kiss of death for damn near any low-budget chiller to break into profitability – and never tries anything new, different, or inviting. This kinda thing has been done to death in the Scream franchise alone, and I’m not sure those storytelling mechanics truly lend themselves to modestly budgeted knockoffs. Quigley’s involvement alone – as welcome as that may’ve been – was just not enough to ‘burn the barn’ over such a bland concoction.
A noble attempt, true. Just not revolutionary by any measurable standard.
Scream Queen (2002) was produced by … well, unfortunately I’ve no idea. The usually reliable IMDB.com has no information and not even this release’s packaging gives me the specificity I look for. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance. As for the technical specifications? Ouch. This is a tough one, readers, because what you’re looking at – from the original – is some very dated and underattended source material. While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure you that the provided sights and sounds are well below the bar for what’s available today. But if you’re looking for special features? Wowza! Visual Vengeance has certainly rolled out the red carpet with this collection, and I’m doing the copy-and-paste for those interested in this sort of detail below. It’s a fabulous assortment that should be the envy of any genre nut worldwide. Take a gander:
- NEW SD MASTER APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR
- NEW Linnea Quigley Interview
- Audio Commentary with Writer / Director Brad Sykes
- Once Upon A Time In Horrorwood: Behind the Scenes Documentary
- Second Feature: Original Producer's Cut of Movie
- Editor Mark Polonia Interview
- Behind The Scenes Image Gallery
- Linnea Quigley Image Gallery
- Original Script Selects
- Original Trailer
- Visual Vengeance Trailers
- Six-page liner notes by Tony Strauss of Weng's Chop Magazine
- Collectible Linnea Quigley folded mini-poster
- 'Stick your own' VHS sticker set
- Reversible sleeve featuring original home video art
- Optional English subtitles
- REGION-FREE
Alas … it’s hard to give this one a ringing endorsement on any level. I would say that Quigley’s fans will find it mildly delightful – a bit of a stretch – and why not? Scream Queen stars one of the truly original scream queens ever to grace the screen, so I can appreciate the obvious irony of casting a major Horror talent to star as a major Horror talent in a low-budget send-up of indie-set slasher scene. Sadly, it’s only occasionally fun and really only rarely finds a tone deserving attention … and by this time you can see whodunit from a mile away … which, incidentally, I think the camera may’ve been located a mile away from some of these fuzzy shots.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Scream Queen (2002) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ