- Published on
I’ve always – always – been the sucker for a good monster story.
As I’ve often said, monster movies – for me, that is – don’t even have to be great because even a bare bones serviceable yarn which hits all the basic monster requirements has enough foundation to pique my interest. While those conditions do vary from viewer to viewer, I’ve read some online commentary that suggests that the two big ticket items invariably show up on everyone’s lists: (1) creature design and (2) compelling story/mythology woven around the creature. So, yes, there are more, but if I concede critical ground so that I’m minimally in the same ballpark as others, then I’m happy to count myself in the wide, wide universe of those loving to be scared silly by any ogre a filmmaker ever captured in light and shadows.
Even under such a meager measure, 1932’s The Mummy comes up kinda/sorta short. Respectfully, there’s very little creature design work after the flick’s opening set-up. The overall look of the seminal beast is grand, but – ten minutes in – it’s all but gone from the journey as headliner Boris Karloff plays out the rest of the affair in some exceedingly pale makeover. While the mummy does have an incredible backstory – one all wrapped up in personal and social rejection as well as the loss of love – it appears so very late in the picture I can’t help but wonder why screenwriters Nina Wilcox Putnam, Richard Schayer, and John L. Balderston held up on the reveal for so, so, so long. In fact, introducing a few of those tidbits earlier would’ve improved some of the character relationships … but I don’t want to get too ahead of myself.
It's an imperfect addition to the Universal Monsters Movie Universe, but one that still deserves to remain on the pedestal alongside some of the filmdom’s most classic scares.
(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 resurrected Egyptian mummy searches Cairo for the girl he believes to be his long-lost princess.”
Confession time: by best estimates, it’s been an incredible four decades since I last watched The Mummy.
And, yes, this was a deliberate choice on my part. Having seen it twice in my youth that I can recall, my impression of it has never been all that favorable. It isn’t that I dislike it, because that couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that – as a monster movie – I’ve just never been all that moved by it. It’s not all that scary, and there’s so little investment and/or attention truly given to a monster, so what’s all the buzz about? At times, it really feels more like a haphazard magic movie than anything else (seeing as how the supposed curse plays out), so I’ve pretty much left it alone, instead watching damn near any newfangled iteration that’s come out on the big or small screen. (No, not a fan of the Brendan Fraser films, either, but that’s an entirely different discussion …)
As I’ve often said, monster movies – for me, that is – don’t even have to be great because even a bare bones serviceable yarn which hits all the basic monster requirements has enough foundation to pique my interest. While those conditions do vary from viewer to viewer, I’ve read some online commentary that suggests that the two big ticket items invariably show up on everyone’s lists: (1) creature design and (2) compelling story/mythology woven around the creature. So, yes, there are more, but if I concede critical ground so that I’m minimally in the same ballpark as others, then I’m happy to count myself in the wide, wide universe of those loving to be scared silly by any ogre a filmmaker ever captured in light and shadows.
Even under such a meager measure, 1932’s The Mummy comes up kinda/sorta short. Respectfully, there’s very little creature design work after the flick’s opening set-up. The overall look of the seminal beast is grand, but – ten minutes in – it’s all but gone from the journey as headliner Boris Karloff plays out the rest of the affair in some exceedingly pale makeover. While the mummy does have an incredible backstory – one all wrapped up in personal and social rejection as well as the loss of love – it appears so very late in the picture I can’t help but wonder why screenwriters Nina Wilcox Putnam, Richard Schayer, and John L. Balderston held up on the reveal for so, so, so long. In fact, introducing a few of those tidbits earlier would’ve improved some of the character relationships … but I don’t want to get too ahead of myself.
It's an imperfect addition to the Universal Monsters Movie Universe, but one that still deserves to remain on the pedestal alongside some of the filmdom’s most classic scares.
(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 resurrected Egyptian mummy searches Cairo for the girl he believes to be his long-lost princess.”
Confession time: by best estimates, it’s been an incredible four decades since I last watched The Mummy.
And, yes, this was a deliberate choice on my part. Having seen it twice in my youth that I can recall, my impression of it has never been all that favorable. It isn’t that I dislike it, because that couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that – as a monster movie – I’ve just never been all that moved by it. It’s not all that scary, and there’s so little investment and/or attention truly given to a monster, so what’s all the buzz about? At times, it really feels more like a haphazard magic movie than anything else (seeing as how the supposed curse plays out), so I’ve pretty much left it alone, instead watching damn near any newfangled iteration that’s come out on the big or small screen. (No, not a fan of the Brendan Fraser films, either, but that’s an entirely different discussion …)
In fact, I’ve often suggested that The Mummy’s best moments are the film’s set-up: archaeologists uncover an Egyptian crypt with a sarcophagus and inhabitant that don’t quite fit with the required norms, and this leads them to discover the curse their efforts inadvertently set in motion. After that first death, we’re catapulted ten years into the future, where in the bulk of the narrative now unfolds with – gasp! – no authentic mummy but the wan face of Boris Karloff instead.
What I find even more frustrating about the whole affair is that the audience really isn’t let in on what’s happening with the curse and the apparently seduction of Helen Grosvenor (played by Zita Johann) to very late in the film, leaving us to ‘fill in the gaps’ a bit too often in order to make sense of just how and why the lovely lady has been so easily co-opted by Karloff’s machinations. A bit more focus earlier on would’ve averted some of the confusion, and this could’ve been accomplished in any number of available exchanges (because there are plenty). But … as is? Well, it’s just a bit unclear until later.
What The Mummy does have consistently from start-to-finish is some very solid production detail. The sets are particularly impressive – even an obvious faux-Egyptian museum environment perfectly incorporates everything viewers would want to craft this atmosphere – and director Karl Freund uses light and shadow in equally clever ways to give even small scenes a welcome bit of texture. While performances are all good, it’s very clear that Karloff and Johann were the centerpieces to this elaborate event; at this point in his career, Karloff had probably forgotten more about commanding a close-up than most actors ever learn, and the story as conceived gives Johann equal balance, albeit her work is occasionally weighed down with some melodramatics of the damsel-in-distress. But a bit of extra focus here-and-there on the supporting players would’ve elevated this one beyond the murkiness that exists even to this day.
If nothing else, the film looks a helluva lot tighter, stronger, and more dramatic than its dialogue would have you believe, so kudos to the craftsmen for giving us something extra special with a feast for the eyes.
Where I personally struggle with embracing The Mummy as strongly as I have others in the Universal Pictures line-up is the fact that – setting aside the obvious atmospherics – its story just doesn’t resonate. Its monster – unlike Dracula, Frankenstein, or the Wolfman – never quite achieves mythic status, and too much of his impact comes from the recitation of the legend and so very little of what Karloff does onscreen. In that delicate balance of ‘telling’ versus ‘showing,’ I’ve always thought this Mummy showed too little, and that lessened the dark fairy tale quality that so winningly echoes from other creature features. It isn’t absent; it’s just very thin, making me care so little for who he is, where he’s come from, and what he’s trying to accomplish.
The Mummy (1932) was produced by Universal Pictures. The film is presently widely available for purchase and/or rental on a variety of internet streaming platforms. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this classic monster movie were pretty fabulous. The production has some exceptional set decoration, and it all looks very good, even despite the obvious aging.
Recommended.
If I’m being perfectly honest about my ongoing love affair with all of the (original) Universal Monsters Universe, then I’d have to confess that The Mummy (1932) is only a passing flirtation … and even that’s owed to the flick’s solid production detail and an interesting (at best) performance from Karloff that anchors everything in here. I’ve always found its rewatchability pretty low as its 73-minute runtime never quite does all that much with the seminal monster, instead relying on Karloff to sell what sizzle there is under a mostly pasty guise. Good? Yes. Great. Meh.
-- EZ
What I find even more frustrating about the whole affair is that the audience really isn’t let in on what’s happening with the curse and the apparently seduction of Helen Grosvenor (played by Zita Johann) to very late in the film, leaving us to ‘fill in the gaps’ a bit too often in order to make sense of just how and why the lovely lady has been so easily co-opted by Karloff’s machinations. A bit more focus earlier on would’ve averted some of the confusion, and this could’ve been accomplished in any number of available exchanges (because there are plenty). But … as is? Well, it’s just a bit unclear until later.
What The Mummy does have consistently from start-to-finish is some very solid production detail. The sets are particularly impressive – even an obvious faux-Egyptian museum environment perfectly incorporates everything viewers would want to craft this atmosphere – and director Karl Freund uses light and shadow in equally clever ways to give even small scenes a welcome bit of texture. While performances are all good, it’s very clear that Karloff and Johann were the centerpieces to this elaborate event; at this point in his career, Karloff had probably forgotten more about commanding a close-up than most actors ever learn, and the story as conceived gives Johann equal balance, albeit her work is occasionally weighed down with some melodramatics of the damsel-in-distress. But a bit of extra focus here-and-there on the supporting players would’ve elevated this one beyond the murkiness that exists even to this day.
If nothing else, the film looks a helluva lot tighter, stronger, and more dramatic than its dialogue would have you believe, so kudos to the craftsmen for giving us something extra special with a feast for the eyes.
Where I personally struggle with embracing The Mummy as strongly as I have others in the Universal Pictures line-up is the fact that – setting aside the obvious atmospherics – its story just doesn’t resonate. Its monster – unlike Dracula, Frankenstein, or the Wolfman – never quite achieves mythic status, and too much of his impact comes from the recitation of the legend and so very little of what Karloff does onscreen. In that delicate balance of ‘telling’ versus ‘showing,’ I’ve always thought this Mummy showed too little, and that lessened the dark fairy tale quality that so winningly echoes from other creature features. It isn’t absent; it’s just very thin, making me care so little for who he is, where he’s come from, and what he’s trying to accomplish.
The Mummy (1932) was produced by Universal Pictures. The film is presently widely available for purchase and/or rental on a variety of internet streaming platforms. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this classic monster movie were pretty fabulous. The production has some exceptional set decoration, and it all looks very good, even despite the obvious aging.
Recommended.
If I’m being perfectly honest about my ongoing love affair with all of the (original) Universal Monsters Universe, then I’d have to confess that The Mummy (1932) is only a passing flirtation … and even that’s owed to the flick’s solid production detail and an interesting (at best) performance from Karloff that anchors everything in here. I’ve always found its rewatchability pretty low as its 73-minute runtime never quite does all that much with the seminal monster, instead relying on Karloff to sell what sizzle there is under a mostly pasty guise. Good? Yes. Great. Meh.
-- EZ
- Published on
There it is, gentle readers ... can you feel that? That's the sensation of it being Friday, and I'm here this morning to give you an incredible 67 reasons -- and more, if I keep adding items from my Archives -- to celebrate the end of the work week and the start of the weekend!
Woohoo!
Furthermore, here's hoping that you not only enjoyed a good week but that you have something extra special on tap for the next two days. Saturdays and Sundays are great to refreshing both the mind and body. Get out. Go to a movie. Have a nice meal. Hang out with friends. Binge some Netflix. Toss around the softball. Try out those new Pickleball rackets you picked up from Amazon. Run down an escaped fugitive. Start foiling your nemesis's evil plans. Begin thinking about global domination. Create your own YouTube.com Channel. Whatever it is that your soul tells you to begin, there's no better time than the present. Roll up your sleeves. Have yourself a Coke and a smile. Chase those dreams. Tickle those fancies. There really is no better time.
Me? Oh, thanks for asking. Yesterday, I picked up the DVD release of Hulu's Prey -- another visit into the Predator franchise -- so I'm hoping to squeeze that in for a viewing. Don't know if I'll get to it, but that's what I intend to do. Weekends are funny 'round here: we always have a billion things we want to get to, but we're lucky if we can shift around our schedules to enjoy but a few. Such is life in the big city, I guess.
Yesterday afternoon, I enjoyed an all-new Horror release via a complimentary streaming, and I'll likely be tinkering this morning on a review. I watched 2023's When Evil Lurks, and, yes, I definitely have something to say about it. I mulled over a few points just last night, and I'm crafting a response that should be up in not too long. The short skinny: I was very impressed. The longer version: well, not all of it made perfect sense ... but that could be by design. You'll know more once you read my review. So ... keep your eyes peeled.
Still ... it's grand to have choices, no? My local cheapie theater -- just this weekend -- has a line-up consisting of all The Lord Of The Rings pictures, 1979's Alien, 1932's The Mummy, and 1931's Dracula. Can you believe it? Can you effing believe that? What a great, great, great time it is to be alive and to be a fan of genre properties, no? I don't know how I'll fit all of it into a single weekend.
In any event, here's the real reason that you're here ...
Woohoo!
Furthermore, here's hoping that you not only enjoyed a good week but that you have something extra special on tap for the next two days. Saturdays and Sundays are great to refreshing both the mind and body. Get out. Go to a movie. Have a nice meal. Hang out with friends. Binge some Netflix. Toss around the softball. Try out those new Pickleball rackets you picked up from Amazon. Run down an escaped fugitive. Start foiling your nemesis's evil plans. Begin thinking about global domination. Create your own YouTube.com Channel. Whatever it is that your soul tells you to begin, there's no better time than the present. Roll up your sleeves. Have yourself a Coke and a smile. Chase those dreams. Tickle those fancies. There really is no better time.
Me? Oh, thanks for asking. Yesterday, I picked up the DVD release of Hulu's Prey -- another visit into the Predator franchise -- so I'm hoping to squeeze that in for a viewing. Don't know if I'll get to it, but that's what I intend to do. Weekends are funny 'round here: we always have a billion things we want to get to, but we're lucky if we can shift around our schedules to enjoy but a few. Such is life in the big city, I guess.
Yesterday afternoon, I enjoyed an all-new Horror release via a complimentary streaming, and I'll likely be tinkering this morning on a review. I watched 2023's When Evil Lurks, and, yes, I definitely have something to say about it. I mulled over a few points just last night, and I'm crafting a response that should be up in not too long. The short skinny: I was very impressed. The longer version: well, not all of it made perfect sense ... but that could be by design. You'll know more once you read my review. So ... keep your eyes peeled.
Still ... it's grand to have choices, no? My local cheapie theater -- just this weekend -- has a line-up consisting of all The Lord Of The Rings pictures, 1979's Alien, 1932's The Mummy, and 1931's Dracula. Can you believe it? Can you effing believe that? What a great, great, great time it is to be alive and to be a fan of genre properties, no? I don't know how I'll fit all of it into a single weekend.
In any event, here's the real reason that you're here ...
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for being a fan ... thanks for sharing ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I’ve always been picked on by friends when it comes to my opinions of movies.
Oh, no, no, no: that doesn’t necessarily mean that they disagree with what I might have to say. Rather, the issue has always been that they’re long argued that I’m too hard on so many flicks. I think the sum total of their minor complaint is the usual trope – “it’s only a movie” – which somehow implies to me that it’s okay to have imperfections, it’s acceptable to be occasionally nonsensical, and it shouldn’t matter than not everything add up to a big finish. I’ve always countered that I do have a solid list of productions I watch solely to be entertained, but we – as people – should never relax our standards so far that we accept or elevate a C-graded effort to B-movie status – nor should we recognize B-movies as the best Hollywood has to offer – so it’s perfectly tolerable to expect storytellers to hit a homerun with each and every time at bat.
Will they? Can they? Must they?
Of course not, and therein lies the beauty of the experience.
Pushing others to do better is part and parcel of crafting not only better art but also a better society. By elevating all boats, everyone benefits. Yes, yes, and yes: we’ll endure something less than perfect because it won’t be achieved every time. Yet, we should never expect less. That usually only puts us on the road to mediocrity, and no one likes being average.
This is precisely why I’ll champion a film like writer/director Demián Rugna’s When Evil Lurks (2023) every time I see one. While it has imperfections here and there and – as something that required a heavy amount of world-building to craft this visual and cerebral Horror – it might come up short on a few levels, it still achieves an incredible atmosphere on rugged, sometimes bare-bones performances. It introduces audiences to a time and a place that they should truly be frightened of even though they may not grasp all of what’s at play and at stake. When it stumbles, then it’s a glorious failure … and who wouldn’t want to be part of something glorious, eh?
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In a remote village, two brothers find a demon-infected man just about to give birth to evil itself. They decide to get rid of the man but merely succeed in helping him to deliver the inferno.”
Oh, no, no, no: that doesn’t necessarily mean that they disagree with what I might have to say. Rather, the issue has always been that they’re long argued that I’m too hard on so many flicks. I think the sum total of their minor complaint is the usual trope – “it’s only a movie” – which somehow implies to me that it’s okay to have imperfections, it’s acceptable to be occasionally nonsensical, and it shouldn’t matter than not everything add up to a big finish. I’ve always countered that I do have a solid list of productions I watch solely to be entertained, but we – as people – should never relax our standards so far that we accept or elevate a C-graded effort to B-movie status – nor should we recognize B-movies as the best Hollywood has to offer – so it’s perfectly tolerable to expect storytellers to hit a homerun with each and every time at bat.
Will they? Can they? Must they?
Of course not, and therein lies the beauty of the experience.
Pushing others to do better is part and parcel of crafting not only better art but also a better society. By elevating all boats, everyone benefits. Yes, yes, and yes: we’ll endure something less than perfect because it won’t be achieved every time. Yet, we should never expect less. That usually only puts us on the road to mediocrity, and no one likes being average.
This is precisely why I’ll champion a film like writer/director Demián Rugna’s When Evil Lurks (2023) every time I see one. While it has imperfections here and there and – as something that required a heavy amount of world-building to craft this visual and cerebral Horror – it might come up short on a few levels, it still achieves an incredible atmosphere on rugged, sometimes bare-bones performances. It introduces audiences to a time and a place that they should truly be frightened of even though they may not grasp all of what’s at play and at stake. When it stumbles, then it’s a glorious failure … and who wouldn’t want to be part of something glorious, eh?
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In a remote village, two brothers find a demon-infected man just about to give birth to evil itself. They decide to get rid of the man but merely succeed in helping him to deliver the inferno.”
I’ve often said that I struggle with Horror productions because – in a general sense – I just don’t find them all that frightening; and yet – when I least suspect it – I find myself suddenly catapulted into a world I don’t quite understand and yet cannot pull away from. Rugna’s When Evil Lurks is a curious contraption that lured me in with its quiet nuance – a grotesque bedridden possessed man; inhabitants who fully understand their dire predicament but are torn between keeping their worldly possessions and fleeing for their lives; the quizzically lost expressions on the faces of children whose souls are no longer their own – and never let me go.
Pedro (Ezequiel Rodríguez) and Jimmy (Demián Salomón) are brothers who one night hear distant gunshots on their property and go exploring the next morning to find out who might’ve trespassed. When they find a fully dismembered body – along with a briefcase of a curious instrument Jimmy vaguely recognizes – they check up on the nearest neighbor (a wellness visit) in an act of kindness. To their surprise, they discover that the elderly woman’s oldest son has turned into one of the feared ‘The Rotten.’ Swollen to grotesque proportions and covering with rashes and boils, the victim has been possessed by a form of evil that – if unleashed – will infect humans and animals alike as well as put a curse on the land on which they all live.
When they realize that they’ve no way to have the young man properly “cleaned” of this entity (the suggestion of an exorcism but something we learn to be a bit more complex), the brothers join forces with another neighbor in transporting the bloated human carcass miles away. However, when they arrive, they’re shocked to discover that the contaminated has vanished – perhaps having rolled out of the truck bed – and is on-the-loose. With no other course of action, they return home to take refuge, fearing that the worst is yet to come as this unpredictable source of evil is likely going to be delivering Hell on Earth for those it can debase.
Can I just say: “Wow.”
I went into When Evil Lurks completely blind to it, never having even seen a coming attraction or reading deeply into the provided advertising materials that came to via a distributor relationship. In fact, I only saw that it was a Horror, scanned the materials enough to know what I was loosely getting into, and was stunned with just how mesmerizing Rugna crafted the whole event. Bluntly, it is a slow-burning thriller – the script approaches both its mythology and methodology with a randomness that never quite serves the film as effectively as it could – and yet I was pleasantly surprised as the resulting ambiguity never hurt the forward momentum nor got in the way of enjoying one dark chill after another.
Pedro (Ezequiel Rodríguez) and Jimmy (Demián Salomón) are brothers who one night hear distant gunshots on their property and go exploring the next morning to find out who might’ve trespassed. When they find a fully dismembered body – along with a briefcase of a curious instrument Jimmy vaguely recognizes – they check up on the nearest neighbor (a wellness visit) in an act of kindness. To their surprise, they discover that the elderly woman’s oldest son has turned into one of the feared ‘The Rotten.’ Swollen to grotesque proportions and covering with rashes and boils, the victim has been possessed by a form of evil that – if unleashed – will infect humans and animals alike as well as put a curse on the land on which they all live.
When they realize that they’ve no way to have the young man properly “cleaned” of this entity (the suggestion of an exorcism but something we learn to be a bit more complex), the brothers join forces with another neighbor in transporting the bloated human carcass miles away. However, when they arrive, they’re shocked to discover that the contaminated has vanished – perhaps having rolled out of the truck bed – and is on-the-loose. With no other course of action, they return home to take refuge, fearing that the worst is yet to come as this unpredictable source of evil is likely going to be delivering Hell on Earth for those it can debase.
Can I just say: “Wow.”
I went into When Evil Lurks completely blind to it, never having even seen a coming attraction or reading deeply into the provided advertising materials that came to via a distributor relationship. In fact, I only saw that it was a Horror, scanned the materials enough to know what I was loosely getting into, and was stunned with just how mesmerizing Rugna crafted the whole event. Bluntly, it is a slow-burning thriller – the script approaches both its mythology and methodology with a randomness that never quite serves the film as effectively as it could – and yet I was pleasantly surprised as the resulting ambiguity never hurt the forward momentum nor got in the way of enjoying one dark chill after another.
In fact, there are times that the nebulousness of just how this evil McGuffin permeates this small world. Set in what’s clearly a small village where hints are dropped that things outside of rural confines may or may no longer be safe for society at large, When Evil Lurks is almost constantly raising questions – what ripped apart the body in the forest; how exactly the first victim got infected; why the authorities are unconcerned about stopping its spread; etc. – but never really answering them. To do so? Well, that might get in the way of what Rugna and his willing conspirators have in store next, so they keep the wheel turning, and the Funhouse doors are never closed to business. While I’m traditionally unaffected by jump scares, this film delivered a few moments that gave me pause … and that, my friends, is saying something.
Still, I’d be a fool if I lied. I did want more answers that what I was given; and – after the ride had stopped and I had stepped out of the carriage – I was disappointed that I didn’t understand more of what I had just shuddered my way through. But because everything came off without a hitch, I’ll easily forgive all involved. It’s rare that – at my old age – I’m left asking for more, especially when it comes to thrillers and chillers of this variety. Though I enjoy Horror films immensely, I’m rarely moved by them. What can I say? It’s just how I’m wired.
And yet this one left me hungry for another visit … just like its featured Evil.
When Evil Lurks (2023) was produced by Aramos Cinema, La Puerta Roja, Machaco Films, and Shudder. A quick search of Google.com shows that the film is available theatrically nationwide as of today’s date. As for the technical specifications? Incredible! While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds of this Spanish-language production to be seriously top-notch. A good deal of it – thankfully – is some in-camera trickery, the type which this old dog loves. As for the special features? As I was invited to stream this online, there were no additional materials under consideration.
Highly recommended.
I tried to be clear above that – though I didn’t quite understand all the pieces in motion – When Evil Lurks was one of the finest, visceral frights I’ve experienced in quite some time. Its central premise – though a bit nebulous – made just enough sense to keep me invested. Its shock moments – though reasonably sparse – were very good. Its building sense of doom-and-gloom – though mildly predictable – was smartly delivered. No imperfection or the lack of perfect clarity kept me from having a wonderful time with this film; and I highly recommend it to folks who want to see something uniquely different in the field of demonic possession. It ain’t perfect … but it’s sometimes scary as Hell itself.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder and Machaco Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to When Evil Lurks (2023) 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
Still, I’d be a fool if I lied. I did want more answers that what I was given; and – after the ride had stopped and I had stepped out of the carriage – I was disappointed that I didn’t understand more of what I had just shuddered my way through. But because everything came off without a hitch, I’ll easily forgive all involved. It’s rare that – at my old age – I’m left asking for more, especially when it comes to thrillers and chillers of this variety. Though I enjoy Horror films immensely, I’m rarely moved by them. What can I say? It’s just how I’m wired.
And yet this one left me hungry for another visit … just like its featured Evil.
When Evil Lurks (2023) was produced by Aramos Cinema, La Puerta Roja, Machaco Films, and Shudder. A quick search of Google.com shows that the film is available theatrically nationwide as of today’s date. As for the technical specifications? Incredible! While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds of this Spanish-language production to be seriously top-notch. A good deal of it – thankfully – is some in-camera trickery, the type which this old dog loves. As for the special features? As I was invited to stream this online, there were no additional materials under consideration.
Highly recommended.
I tried to be clear above that – though I didn’t quite understand all the pieces in motion – When Evil Lurks was one of the finest, visceral frights I’ve experienced in quite some time. Its central premise – though a bit nebulous – made just enough sense to keep me invested. Its shock moments – though reasonably sparse – were very good. Its building sense of doom-and-gloom – though mildly predictable – was smartly delivered. No imperfection or the lack of perfect clarity kept me from having a wonderful time with this film; and I highly recommend it to folks who want to see something uniquely different in the field of demonic possession. It ain’t perfect … but it’s sometimes scary as Hell itself.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder and Machaco Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to When Evil Lurks (2023) 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
Confession time: generally speaking – if you haven’t noticed – I don’t spend all that much time reflecting on films from my youth unless they’re ones I haven’t seen.
This has been a conscious decision on my part, and I know that it’s occasionally frustrated some of my regular readership. I’m contacted from time-to-time and asked why I’ve rarely spoken up or provided reviews of some of the genre’s biggest hits, and my response is usually the same: I only venture into such territory when I can assure myself that nostalgia will play little to no part in what I have to say. You see, I’m human (after all), and I know that there are some projects that I just can’t dissect impartially because they mean too much to me on a personal level. As such, I’ll shut these away – considering many of them rainy day pursuits, if and when the mood strikes – and only bring them up once I know I can separate my younger self from my older self for the purpose of critiquing what was.
Well, I think it’s more than past time that I start sounding off on a few of them, and perhaps the first big blow will be a critical look at 1984’s The Toxic Avenger.
For those caught unawares, it’s the film that truly put Troma, Tromaville, and Troma Entertainment on the map. According to a blurb online, founders Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz put together their operation focused on the creation and distribution of B-movies; and they’ve had the good fortune of releasing well over 1,000 titles across their trail-blazing careers. While I’ll never concede that Troma products are for everyone, I think there will always likely be an audience for such subversive fare because we’re arguably a society of voyeurs. We can’t look away, no matter how good or how bad or how bloody or how silly some moments might be; and Troma has been proudly ‘disrupting’ entertainment in only the way it truly can.
So buckle up, friends, and let’s take a deep dive into the world’s first superhero … from New Jersey!
This has been a conscious decision on my part, and I know that it’s occasionally frustrated some of my regular readership. I’m contacted from time-to-time and asked why I’ve rarely spoken up or provided reviews of some of the genre’s biggest hits, and my response is usually the same: I only venture into such territory when I can assure myself that nostalgia will play little to no part in what I have to say. You see, I’m human (after all), and I know that there are some projects that I just can’t dissect impartially because they mean too much to me on a personal level. As such, I’ll shut these away – considering many of them rainy day pursuits, if and when the mood strikes – and only bring them up once I know I can separate my younger self from my older self for the purpose of critiquing what was.
Well, I think it’s more than past time that I start sounding off on a few of them, and perhaps the first big blow will be a critical look at 1984’s The Toxic Avenger.
For those caught unawares, it’s the film that truly put Troma, Tromaville, and Troma Entertainment on the map. According to a blurb online, founders Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz put together their operation focused on the creation and distribution of B-movies; and they’ve had the good fortune of releasing well over 1,000 titles across their trail-blazing careers. While I’ll never concede that Troma products are for everyone, I think there will always likely be an audience for such subversive fare because we’re arguably a society of voyeurs. We can’t look away, no matter how good or how bad or how bloody or how silly some moments might be; and Troma has been proudly ‘disrupting’ entertainment in only the way it truly can.
So buckle up, friends, and let’s take a deep dive into the world’s first superhero … from New Jersey!
(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:
“Tromaville has a monstrous new hero. The Toxic Avenger is born when meek mop boy Melvin falls into a vat of toxic waste. Now evildoers will have a lot to lose.”
OK. A little information about myself.
I was in high school during the early 1980’s, and – like most teenagers – I absorbed more than my fair share of movies. I grew up in a small town in the middle of Nowhere, America, so a good portion of my and my friends’ free time was spent watching movies on VHS and/or laserdisc. (Ask your grandparents, kids.) And precisely because we weren’t what you’d call ‘discerning viewers,’ we’d watch damn near anything that looked like it could get a rise out of us, a sentiment that most definitely carried over into my college experience (with all new friends) as well. Such is the nature of being young and inexperienced: you’re willing to enjoy the good, the bad, and the ugly until you either grow up and/or know better.
Flash-forward to 2022: I’m older – probably not a whole lot wiser, mind you – and one of my side interests is serving as a volunteer judge for the state’s high school speech and debate program. (Yes, in my youth, I participated as a speaker, so I have some modest experience upon which I can offer advice to some of these young skulls.) In fairness, speech team is a reasonably ‘highbrow’ affair – you work with some exceptionally talented youngsters who have a lot of fire and passion about some of our society’s most pressing issues – but there are a few events that allow and encourage these young clowns to have a bit of fun.
One such speaking event that lends itself to some interesting choices is called Humorous Interpretation. These speakers are tasked with delivering a ten-minute program wherein they bring to life a work with comic sensibilities. A huge trend on the circuit – for better or for worse – is that these students have taken to adapting some of their favorite films into this vastly shorter speaking format. As you can guess, this isn’t always an easy affair – for example, most films are 90-minutes or more, so compressing a tale and preserving an understandable arc, message, or moral to the story presents challenges – and you might equally acknowledge that judging such an effort can be difficult as well.
Lo and behold, one contestant got up to the stagefront, introduced himself, and announced that he’d be performing his Humorous Interpretation of “The Toxic Avenger.”
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Tromaville has a monstrous new hero. The Toxic Avenger is born when meek mop boy Melvin falls into a vat of toxic waste. Now evildoers will have a lot to lose.”
OK. A little information about myself.
I was in high school during the early 1980’s, and – like most teenagers – I absorbed more than my fair share of movies. I grew up in a small town in the middle of Nowhere, America, so a good portion of my and my friends’ free time was spent watching movies on VHS and/or laserdisc. (Ask your grandparents, kids.) And precisely because we weren’t what you’d call ‘discerning viewers,’ we’d watch damn near anything that looked like it could get a rise out of us, a sentiment that most definitely carried over into my college experience (with all new friends) as well. Such is the nature of being young and inexperienced: you’re willing to enjoy the good, the bad, and the ugly until you either grow up and/or know better.
Flash-forward to 2022: I’m older – probably not a whole lot wiser, mind you – and one of my side interests is serving as a volunteer judge for the state’s high school speech and debate program. (Yes, in my youth, I participated as a speaker, so I have some modest experience upon which I can offer advice to some of these young skulls.) In fairness, speech team is a reasonably ‘highbrow’ affair – you work with some exceptionally talented youngsters who have a lot of fire and passion about some of our society’s most pressing issues – but there are a few events that allow and encourage these young clowns to have a bit of fun.
One such speaking event that lends itself to some interesting choices is called Humorous Interpretation. These speakers are tasked with delivering a ten-minute program wherein they bring to life a work with comic sensibilities. A huge trend on the circuit – for better or for worse – is that these students have taken to adapting some of their favorite films into this vastly shorter speaking format. As you can guess, this isn’t always an easy affair – for example, most films are 90-minutes or more, so compressing a tale and preserving an understandable arc, message, or moral to the story presents challenges – and you might equally acknowledge that judging such an effort can be difficult as well.
Lo and behold, one contestant got up to the stagefront, introduced himself, and announced that he’d be performing his Humorous Interpretation of “The Toxic Avenger.”
Normally, judges are pretty stoic – pretty reserved – at this point in the program. But I quickly held up my hand – signaling I had a question before he began – and asked, “Wait … are you talking about the 1984 film? You’re doing that Toxic Avenger?”
To my surprise, he was. He was surprised that I’d heard of it. I told him that not only had I heard of it but that I’d interacted a few times with the film’s creator on Twitter. The kid was obviously impressed, and that’s where I left it, telling him to go ahead and begin when he was ready.
And he did a spectacular job.
Succinctly, The Toxic Avenger is that kind of film that probably means more to folks who discover it when they’re of a certain age. This isn’t to say that older viewers won’t appreciate its wonders and lunacy; rather, the kind of general silliness at work from start-to-finish just typically resonates more with those who haven’t been worn down by the weight of life on their shoulders. There isn’t a serious thread in its glorious 82-minutes, and this kind of seditious humor may not exactly be found all that funny if you’ve cut your teeth on the latest Merchant Ivory production. This isn’t Academy Award stuff, and it shows.
However, Avenger still retains a great deal of relevance from the era in which it came to be.
For example, toxic waste was just an emerging issue in the 1980’s. Such subject matter had become a talking point on the evening news, and anyone who was a prominent figure in news circles most definitely had an opinion of how such corporate run-off was ruining our cities and the environment. Tromaville – as the toxic waste capital of the world – pulled that focus as much from the front page as it did from the pages of the comic book, using these magical and mystical substances as the catalyst for transforming the nebbish Melvin Junko (played by Mark Torgl) into the hulking and deformed street vigilante eventually known as ‘Toxie.’ Hell, even Peter Parker needed to be bitten by a radioactive spider, so what’s to say falling face-first into a drum of green-glowing sludge couldn’t produce a modern Prometheus?
Furthermore, the health club was really assuming its place in the American consciousness. As much as it was a place for men and women to go to bulk up, it became a hunting ground for where males and females could watch one another, talk with one another, and – dare I say? – hit on one another. The sexual revolution would face an all-new battleground, so it was only natural for Melvin to draw the ire and condemnation of his genetic betters. He was ostracized by everyone there, putting our collective fear of being inferior up in the light for Troma to exploit.
And even more topical was the reality that places like fast food restaurants were drawing the unwanted and unwelcome lunatics of society’s most violent. Back in the 1980’s, lunatics had begun acting out on their darkest desires, and it became daily news when the corner McDonalds or Burger King restaurants were sites for major shoot-outs the way some grade schools have become targets for such evil today. So the inclusion of such an incident – in which Toxie shows up to save the day eventually – represented just how Troma had its finger on the pulse of the era.
To my surprise, he was. He was surprised that I’d heard of it. I told him that not only had I heard of it but that I’d interacted a few times with the film’s creator on Twitter. The kid was obviously impressed, and that’s where I left it, telling him to go ahead and begin when he was ready.
And he did a spectacular job.
Succinctly, The Toxic Avenger is that kind of film that probably means more to folks who discover it when they’re of a certain age. This isn’t to say that older viewers won’t appreciate its wonders and lunacy; rather, the kind of general silliness at work from start-to-finish just typically resonates more with those who haven’t been worn down by the weight of life on their shoulders. There isn’t a serious thread in its glorious 82-minutes, and this kind of seditious humor may not exactly be found all that funny if you’ve cut your teeth on the latest Merchant Ivory production. This isn’t Academy Award stuff, and it shows.
However, Avenger still retains a great deal of relevance from the era in which it came to be.
For example, toxic waste was just an emerging issue in the 1980’s. Such subject matter had become a talking point on the evening news, and anyone who was a prominent figure in news circles most definitely had an opinion of how such corporate run-off was ruining our cities and the environment. Tromaville – as the toxic waste capital of the world – pulled that focus as much from the front page as it did from the pages of the comic book, using these magical and mystical substances as the catalyst for transforming the nebbish Melvin Junko (played by Mark Torgl) into the hulking and deformed street vigilante eventually known as ‘Toxie.’ Hell, even Peter Parker needed to be bitten by a radioactive spider, so what’s to say falling face-first into a drum of green-glowing sludge couldn’t produce a modern Prometheus?
Furthermore, the health club was really assuming its place in the American consciousness. As much as it was a place for men and women to go to bulk up, it became a hunting ground for where males and females could watch one another, talk with one another, and – dare I say? – hit on one another. The sexual revolution would face an all-new battleground, so it was only natural for Melvin to draw the ire and condemnation of his genetic betters. He was ostracized by everyone there, putting our collective fear of being inferior up in the light for Troma to exploit.
And even more topical was the reality that places like fast food restaurants were drawing the unwanted and unwelcome lunatics of society’s most violent. Back in the 1980’s, lunatics had begun acting out on their darkest desires, and it became daily news when the corner McDonalds or Burger King restaurants were sites for major shoot-outs the way some grade schools have become targets for such evil today. So the inclusion of such an incident – in which Toxie shows up to save the day eventually – represented just how Troma had its finger on the pulse of the era.
So for all its blemishes (this is B-Movie territory, after all), I’ve always thought that Avenger handled itself about as well as any A production could. None of that excludes the zaniness inherent in transforming a 90-pound weakling into a mutated version of bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger (who also rose to prominence in the fertile 1980’s), but I’d still encourage viewers to not be fooled by the Troma label and reputation: there’s a bit of genius to all of it, and its strengths might always overcome whatever weakness a low-to-modestly budgeted package all involved could afford. Even the fact that Toxie ultimately has to make a stand against the New Jersey political machine in a bid to be left alone and continuing to serve his fellow men and women shows that Kaufman and fellow screenwriters Joe Ritter, Gay Terry, and Stuart Strutin were doing far more than indulging their vices with their outing. Whether they intended to or not, they crafted what was – and what remains – Troma’s most accessible theatrical property to date … and that’s saying something.
The Toxic Avenger (1984) was produced by Troma Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release as being one part of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K) is being handled by the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can happily assure you that this is likely the best the film has ever looked: Bluray.com reports that this is an all-new 4K restoration, and – despite some of the usual flaws to things shot fast and on-the-cheap – it’s an impressive upgrade from what I’ve encountered with the flick previously.
Lastly, as for the special features? Wow. This is an impressive collection, indeed. The disc boasts two audio commentaries along with some newly produced introductions and a prologue. Furthermore, there are cast and crew interviews, a handful of making-of bits, and the usual assortment of photo galleries and theatrical trailers. As this is coming available at this time as part of an all-new 4K release, there are some additional extras – packaging and artwork stuff – thrown in for good measure as well. I suspect fans will be happy to spend the bucks necessary to pick this one up fresh off the shelves. Yes, it’s that good.
Highly recommended.
As much as any other high-fallutin’ film of the 1980’s, The Toxic Avenger taps into so much of what was going on socially and culturally in its day that I’ve always argued there are more than a few kernels of genius in its sometimes-shoddy framework. Rarely does high camp resonate with so many social observations – especially with the passage of time – but this one undeniably captures the trends of its era and adds a measure of comic absurdity for pure entertainment value. Of course, Avenger isn’t going to be for everyone – no film ever truly is – but the audience that has found this little gem and continues to enjoy its humble wonders is as special as Toxie himself.
Long live Toxie!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group provided me with a complimentary set of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The Toxic Avenger (1984) was produced by Troma Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release as being one part of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K) is being handled by the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can happily assure you that this is likely the best the film has ever looked: Bluray.com reports that this is an all-new 4K restoration, and – despite some of the usual flaws to things shot fast and on-the-cheap – it’s an impressive upgrade from what I’ve encountered with the flick previously.
Lastly, as for the special features? Wow. This is an impressive collection, indeed. The disc boasts two audio commentaries along with some newly produced introductions and a prologue. Furthermore, there are cast and crew interviews, a handful of making-of bits, and the usual assortment of photo galleries and theatrical trailers. As this is coming available at this time as part of an all-new 4K release, there are some additional extras – packaging and artwork stuff – thrown in for good measure as well. I suspect fans will be happy to spend the bucks necessary to pick this one up fresh off the shelves. Yes, it’s that good.
Highly recommended.
As much as any other high-fallutin’ film of the 1980’s, The Toxic Avenger taps into so much of what was going on socially and culturally in its day that I’ve always argued there are more than a few kernels of genius in its sometimes-shoddy framework. Rarely does high camp resonate with so many social observations – especially with the passage of time – but this one undeniably captures the trends of its era and adds a measure of comic absurdity for pure entertainment value. Of course, Avenger isn’t going to be for everyone – no film ever truly is – but the audience that has found this little gem and continues to enjoy its humble wonders is as special as Toxie himself.
Long live Toxie!
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Entertainment Group provided me with a complimentary set of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Thursday, gentle readers! The work week is starting to wind down -- finally -- so why not take a moment to enjoy an incredible 66 genre trivia citations, eh? Why, you may as well consider that ... Order 66! Hahahahahahaha ...
I know, I know, I know ... don't stick to comedy. I hear you.
In any event, welcome to the day, nonetheless.
Only but a few moments ago, I posted my review for the all-new Ultra HD 4K restoration of the incredible 1984 cult flick The Toxic Avenger (link is here), and I wanted to encourage folks to check that out, of course. It's definitely a B-movie from back in the day, but -- despite what you may've heard -- it's one of the smarter B-movies, and that's saying something. High camp and a modest bit of social commentary were blended together in a bawdy concoction that came down the pike from the fine folks at Troma Entertainment. While the end result is probably as good and as flawed as is any B-movie, good ol' Toxie deserves a chance to be rediscovered in his natural form ... for those unaware, there's a theatrical reboot that's currently making the festival rounds even as I write this. So maybe spend time with the original, eh? You might just learn why some creative folks felt that the intellectual property was ripe for a contemporary do-over.
While I'm on the subject, let me alert readers that I'll be covering the entire original Avenger franchise as the good people over at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary set of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K which is set to 'street' later this month. It's an impressive assortment, and I'm only just beginning to unpack its loveliness. Keep your eyes on this space.
I know, I know, I know ... don't stick to comedy. I hear you.
In any event, welcome to the day, nonetheless.
Only but a few moments ago, I posted my review for the all-new Ultra HD 4K restoration of the incredible 1984 cult flick The Toxic Avenger (link is here), and I wanted to encourage folks to check that out, of course. It's definitely a B-movie from back in the day, but -- despite what you may've heard -- it's one of the smarter B-movies, and that's saying something. High camp and a modest bit of social commentary were blended together in a bawdy concoction that came down the pike from the fine folks at Troma Entertainment. While the end result is probably as good and as flawed as is any B-movie, good ol' Toxie deserves a chance to be rediscovered in his natural form ... for those unaware, there's a theatrical reboot that's currently making the festival rounds even as I write this. So maybe spend time with the original, eh? You might just learn why some creative folks felt that the intellectual property was ripe for a contemporary do-over.
While I'm on the subject, let me alert readers that I'll be covering the entire original Avenger franchise as the good people over at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary set of The Toxic Avenger Collection 4K which is set to 'street' later this month. It's an impressive assortment, and I'm only just beginning to unpack its loveliness. Keep your eyes on this space.
Holy mother of Dragons, has it been 32 years already?
Why, it seems like it was just yesterday that audiences of U.S. television syndication were first being introduced to the fan-favorite character of Ensign Ro Laren aboard her very own self-titled episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Actress Michelle Forbes was a solid phenomenon in the role of the Bajoran fighter who hitched her wagon to Starfleet in the aftermath of the Cardassian invasion. The character quickly rose to prominence in fandom, giving the actress the possibility to return to the airwaves for a solid two handfuls of episodes; and -- believe it or not -- she even enjoyed a resurgence in popularity not all that long ago when Ro herself turned up to deliver Admiral Jean-Luc Picard a dire warning in Picard's third (and final) season. (Interested in my thoughts on the season? Readers can find my review right here.)
It goes without saying the TNG crafted a solid assortment of secondary characters, but not all that many went on to establish the prominence that Ro did. I think of good deal of that is owed to the actress' abilities to both hit her dramatic marks and look good, which Forbes certainly did and does. While it's a shame that the Picard show gave her a kinda/sorta dark fate, I think it was clear that Ro was one never destined for a happy ending, per se. Still, it was great to know her when we did, and she'll live on in fan fiction and reruns in perpetuity.
Why, it seems like it was just yesterday that audiences of U.S. television syndication were first being introduced to the fan-favorite character of Ensign Ro Laren aboard her very own self-titled episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Actress Michelle Forbes was a solid phenomenon in the role of the Bajoran fighter who hitched her wagon to Starfleet in the aftermath of the Cardassian invasion. The character quickly rose to prominence in fandom, giving the actress the possibility to return to the airwaves for a solid two handfuls of episodes; and -- believe it or not -- she even enjoyed a resurgence in popularity not all that long ago when Ro herself turned up to deliver Admiral Jean-Luc Picard a dire warning in Picard's third (and final) season. (Interested in my thoughts on the season? Readers can find my review right here.)
It goes without saying the TNG crafted a solid assortment of secondary characters, but not all that many went on to establish the prominence that Ro did. I think of good deal of that is owed to the actress' abilities to both hit her dramatic marks and look good, which Forbes certainly did and does. While it's a shame that the Picard show gave her a kinda/sorta dark fate, I think it was clear that Ro was one never destined for a happy ending, per se. Still, it was great to know her when we did, and she'll live on in fan fiction and reruns in perpetuity.
Still, I know why you're here, at this point. Yes, it's always good to have a reflection or two or three upon the day -- highlighting if nothing else some individual person, place, or thing that makes it so special -- but let's get down to brass tacks. Here's what you're really looking for ...
That, my friends, is all I have for now.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Well, well, well … where do I begin?
At the start of the season for Ahsoka, I questioned the validity of investing an entire series around Ahsoka Tano, the kinda/sorta fallen/redeemed Jedi/nonJedi that writer/director Dave Filoni clings to with an almost fetishistic attachment. It isn’t that I disliked the character because nothing could be further from the truth; she was a solid and relevant addition to Star Wars: The Clone Wars, but I thought she grew a bit uncharacteristically wise with her portrait in Star Wars Rebels. There was just no connective tissue to justify the Togruta’s evolution from scrappy warrior to self-appointed sainthood, though I’m guessing Dave was tickled pink with such private knowledge. I did keep watching, however, hoping that the gap would eventually be filled, but such information was never forthcoming. A few hints and/or suggestions don’t make up the absence of pure facts, so I – and anyone else watching along in confusion – were just along for the ride.
But my point remains: at best, Tano was still a fringe addition – one known only to diehard fans of Star Wars animation – and regular viewers were going to need a helluva lot more to invest in someone appearing practically out of nowhere (from their perspective) who was being awarded a reputation equally Obi-Wan Kenobi’s, Darth Vader’s, and Luke Skywalker’s. Perhaps this series was going to do that; and, if so, this would be effectively both ‘righting the ship’ and positioning the franchise for its next, fateful chapter.
And – if I’m being both perfectly fair and honest – Star Wars, to a degree, does have to evolve. No, no, and no: I’m not insisting that, thematically, it’s old or worn out because nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that there will always be an audience for stories of good versus evil, and what better universe to set such yarns in as one with space warriors, flying starcraft, laser swords, blasters, robots, and princesses? None of these exist in our everyday and humdrum reality, so these elements are best suited for those hungry to escape somewhere far, far away.
Still, the sad truth is that no actor or actress lives forever – so far as earning a paycheck is concerned – and the real-life loss of Carrie Fisher won’t be the last change felt on show and movie production. Eventually – if Star Wars is to survive – someone will assume the role of Princess Leia Organa – be it live-action and/or canonical animation – and I read some commentary yesterday of Lucasfilm considering such an effort for 2024. Think what you may, that ‘deep fake’ technology can only prop up a franchise for so long, so audiences might want to prepare themselves emotionally for such a change now.
At the start of the season for Ahsoka, I questioned the validity of investing an entire series around Ahsoka Tano, the kinda/sorta fallen/redeemed Jedi/nonJedi that writer/director Dave Filoni clings to with an almost fetishistic attachment. It isn’t that I disliked the character because nothing could be further from the truth; she was a solid and relevant addition to Star Wars: The Clone Wars, but I thought she grew a bit uncharacteristically wise with her portrait in Star Wars Rebels. There was just no connective tissue to justify the Togruta’s evolution from scrappy warrior to self-appointed sainthood, though I’m guessing Dave was tickled pink with such private knowledge. I did keep watching, however, hoping that the gap would eventually be filled, but such information was never forthcoming. A few hints and/or suggestions don’t make up the absence of pure facts, so I – and anyone else watching along in confusion – were just along for the ride.
But my point remains: at best, Tano was still a fringe addition – one known only to diehard fans of Star Wars animation – and regular viewers were going to need a helluva lot more to invest in someone appearing practically out of nowhere (from their perspective) who was being awarded a reputation equally Obi-Wan Kenobi’s, Darth Vader’s, and Luke Skywalker’s. Perhaps this series was going to do that; and, if so, this would be effectively both ‘righting the ship’ and positioning the franchise for its next, fateful chapter.
And – if I’m being both perfectly fair and honest – Star Wars, to a degree, does have to evolve. No, no, and no: I’m not insisting that, thematically, it’s old or worn out because nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect that there will always be an audience for stories of good versus evil, and what better universe to set such yarns in as one with space warriors, flying starcraft, laser swords, blasters, robots, and princesses? None of these exist in our everyday and humdrum reality, so these elements are best suited for those hungry to escape somewhere far, far away.
Still, the sad truth is that no actor or actress lives forever – so far as earning a paycheck is concerned – and the real-life loss of Carrie Fisher won’t be the last change felt on show and movie production. Eventually – if Star Wars is to survive – someone will assume the role of Princess Leia Organa – be it live-action and/or canonical animation – and I read some commentary yesterday of Lucasfilm considering such an effort for 2024. Think what you may, that ‘deep fake’ technology can only prop up a franchise for so long, so audiences might want to prepare themselves emotionally for such a change now.
Way on that other side of the creative spectrum, Star Trek fans have already had to endure not only one new face wearing the big shoes of Captain James T. Kirk but two: in 2009, franchise killer JJ Abrams cast actor Chris Pine as the swashbuckling Starfleet captain-of-legend, and in 2022 anti-Trekker Alex Kurtzman hired Paul Wesley to go boldly where no one had gone before aboard Paramount+’s Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Naturally, there was a bit of backlash on both occasions – it’s never easy accepting that acting heroes like William Shatner grow older much less having to come to grips with that reality as a long-time fan myself – but with each successive outing and/or episode I think viewers have begrudgingly accepted such changes. No, no, and no: it doesn’t mean they have to like it. It just means that the initial ruckus – the pulling off the band-aid, as they say – is done, and now we can go about the business of liking and/or hating the experience on another level.
The same must happen in Star Wars.
Of course, haters will immediately shriek and point their fingers at 2018’s Solo: A Star Wars Story as evidence to suggest such a change will fail; and they’re entitled to their opinion. No one ever said change was easy; the point is that it’s a necessary evil for long-term stability. Because I’m of the generation that grew up with Harrison Ford in the role, I understandably might have the greatest difficulty accepting any other face in the captain’s chair of the Millennium Falcon. Still, it will and should happen. I can only hope that there will be greater attention paid to what stories to tell at that time: most of my gripes with Solo involved why this particular collection of vignettes were chosen, but I’ll leave such dissection for another day.
So … in one regard, I think Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy, creative director Dave Filoni, and anyone else involved in the production of Ahsoka thought they were, instead, positioning Star Wars to go off on a somewhat different trajectory, falsely believing “this is the way.” Dare I say – now that all episodes of Ahsoka’s first season have aired – they’ve erred in their strategy?
Here is just a short list of narrative shortcomings exhibited across these eight installments:
The same must happen in Star Wars.
Of course, haters will immediately shriek and point their fingers at 2018’s Solo: A Star Wars Story as evidence to suggest such a change will fail; and they’re entitled to their opinion. No one ever said change was easy; the point is that it’s a necessary evil for long-term stability. Because I’m of the generation that grew up with Harrison Ford in the role, I understandably might have the greatest difficulty accepting any other face in the captain’s chair of the Millennium Falcon. Still, it will and should happen. I can only hope that there will be greater attention paid to what stories to tell at that time: most of my gripes with Solo involved why this particular collection of vignettes were chosen, but I’ll leave such dissection for another day.
So … in one regard, I think Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy, creative director Dave Filoni, and anyone else involved in the production of Ahsoka thought they were, instead, positioning Star Wars to go off on a somewhat different trajectory, falsely believing “this is the way.” Dare I say – now that all episodes of Ahsoka’s first season have aired – they’ve erred in their strategy?
Here is just a short list of narrative shortcomings exhibited across these eight installments:
- Ahsoka Tano really had no effective introduction. Audiences were given no affirmative reasoning as to why they should spend time with her and journey with her into Star Wars’ future. Instead – as many pointed out – the show felt better when the character wasn’t even around. While she may’ve had a redemption arc, far too much subtext and context was required of new watchers for it to feel truly authentic.
- Grand Admiral Thrawn was positioned as being the greatest threat to galactic peace without there being any demonstrated background as to how this level of threat was established. There were no hints of things he’d done previously. There was no discussion of dastardly doings in his dark past. Instead, viewers were prompted to accept such a reputation at face value, never being given so much as a single visual accounting of what Thrawn’s tactics would mean for all of civilization. None. Zero. Zilch.
- Ezra Bridger was – equally – positioned as ‘a new hope’ that would be the only effective counter to Thrawn’s treachery. Here was a character that – like the grand admiral – apparently had history-altering potential; and yet the Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm couldn’t be bothered with showing so much as a single scene of his purported greatness on film. (None. Zero. Zilch. Again.) Once more, the audience was assured ‘just wait until you see what this guy is capable of,’ and there was no effective delivery of how Bridger was gifted with such legendary status.
- Introduced as a Jedi Knight who had mysterious avoided the big purge, Baylan Skoll did have scenes and sequences demonstrating his skills and prowess with a lightsaber; and viewers were treated to vignettes of his managerial competence … which, sadly, boiled down to his standing around, looking menacing, and yet sending off his apprentice Shin Hati to do all the dirty work. Always mysterious, he remained steadfast in his commitment to a personal mission, one that was given absolutely zero explanation throughout these eight episodes. We were treated to his standing on a big statue – much like a pigeon does on monuments in parks all across America – and you can color me underwhelmed.
Folks, what astoundingly pisses me off at this point is that – if I chose to – I could go on. (I have gone on with each episode, and I encourage you to check out the individual review episodes for greater specifics, if you’re interested.) These narrative deficiencies are, frankly, just the big fish as I see them all swimming in the murky pond that was so much of Ahsoka Tano’s inaugural season. We have heroes who are heroes because that’s how they’re written, and we have villains who are villains only because the story as told needed something – you can’t have good without bad, you see – but the whole affair lacked any of the real substance necessary to give this adventure any reliable foundation. Good characters can exist in bad writing, and even bad writing can have good ideas; but it grew increasingly problematic to tell good from bad the more this series wore on.
All of that said, I’ll concede that Ahsoka – as a standalone entity – might not have been a complete failure.
Its viewership stats – depending entirely upon which version you believe (Disney has been pushing numbers which could be true based “on a person’s point of view”) – haven’t been impressive, but even they suggest that “if you build it people will come.” There’s an old adage in stage theater that simply goes, “Some audience is better than no audience,” and maybe that’s all Lucasfilm wanted. Perhaps all they intended to do was gauge the percentage of viewers who would show up for something different, that way the company could effectively diagnose how much money and resources to expend on like-minded fare in the future. Yes, that’s risky and isn’t exactly good business sense, but Mouse House’s track record in this regard hasn’t been – shall we say? – admirable at this juncture. Now that they know what potential market share Ahsoka might command, maybe they’re better positioned for a second season, as one has been long promised.
Clearly, Lucasfilm wanted the show to be a massive, cultural investment in girl power. Hell, even Dave Filoni is on record insisting that anyone showing up for this next chapter in the expanding Star Wars Universe had better damn well get comfortable with women calling the shots (interesting that he’s a male, no?). The heroes were female, the villains were female, and even The Force itself is female (if you believe Kathleen Kennedy). The New Republic is seemingly being run entirely by females, so maybe it isn’t any wonder why such a galactic government is doomed to fail – sorry, haters, but it does fail, as anyone can tell you if he’s seen the Sequel Trilogy. So … how’s that girl power looking now, folks?
And might I point out: the single Force ghost watching over all of it and seemingly powerless to do anything about it in the season’s closing scenes?
It was a man.
In case you missed it, Dave and Kathy? It was a man who brought balance to the Force.
True story.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one to provide a review of Star Wars: Ahsoka streaming series as I’m presently a subscriber to Disney+ … which might be changing in the future as their programming has really gotten a bit stale.
-- EZ
All of that said, I’ll concede that Ahsoka – as a standalone entity – might not have been a complete failure.
Its viewership stats – depending entirely upon which version you believe (Disney has been pushing numbers which could be true based “on a person’s point of view”) – haven’t been impressive, but even they suggest that “if you build it people will come.” There’s an old adage in stage theater that simply goes, “Some audience is better than no audience,” and maybe that’s all Lucasfilm wanted. Perhaps all they intended to do was gauge the percentage of viewers who would show up for something different, that way the company could effectively diagnose how much money and resources to expend on like-minded fare in the future. Yes, that’s risky and isn’t exactly good business sense, but Mouse House’s track record in this regard hasn’t been – shall we say? – admirable at this juncture. Now that they know what potential market share Ahsoka might command, maybe they’re better positioned for a second season, as one has been long promised.
Clearly, Lucasfilm wanted the show to be a massive, cultural investment in girl power. Hell, even Dave Filoni is on record insisting that anyone showing up for this next chapter in the expanding Star Wars Universe had better damn well get comfortable with women calling the shots (interesting that he’s a male, no?). The heroes were female, the villains were female, and even The Force itself is female (if you believe Kathleen Kennedy). The New Republic is seemingly being run entirely by females, so maybe it isn’t any wonder why such a galactic government is doomed to fail – sorry, haters, but it does fail, as anyone can tell you if he’s seen the Sequel Trilogy. So … how’s that girl power looking now, folks?
And might I point out: the single Force ghost watching over all of it and seemingly powerless to do anything about it in the season’s closing scenes?
It was a man.
In case you missed it, Dave and Kathy? It was a man who brought balance to the Force.
True story.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one to provide a review of Star Wars: Ahsoka streaming series as I’m presently a subscriber to Disney+ … which might be changing in the future as their programming has really gotten a bit stale.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers ... and it's Wednesday! Welcome to 'The Hump!'
Not a whole lot to report functionally for today, but I'm tinkering behind-the-scenes on adding a few additional trivia citations to the day, so keep your eyes peeled in that respect. I'm also tinkering on another review from something I watched yesterday, but I'll leave that stuff for later if I get to it. Crafting new content for the MainPage is its own particular brand of Hell, folks, and I'll never argue otherwise. It ain't always easy coming up with something to say about what makes All Things Genre important to me -- and to you -- but I'll keep puttering. It's my lot in life ... at least at present.
I did manage to (cough cough) make my way through the big, big, big finale for Star Wars' Disney+ series Ahsoka -- pronounced 'Meh-soka.' Sigh. I won't get into nitpicks -- honestly, the episode had a great number of WTF moments that kinda/sorta defied logic, but I skipped recounting them even in my review after I read it and found the whole affair too exhausting. Instead, I went with my general impressions for the whole of the run. Suffice it to say that things don't exactly look bright -- from this desk -- in the FiloniVerse. The Book Of Boba Fett was awful. The Mandalorian Season 3 was about as bad as it could get. And the uneven presentation for Ahsoka has really put a bad taste in my mouth for anything going forward. I'll have to decide -- with the wifey's input -- about cancelling Disney+. There's just so little to watch on there anyway.
Interested in my two cents on the Ahsoka finale? Readers can find them right here.
Otherwise, here's what you're really looking for, and I hope you like it:
Not a whole lot to report functionally for today, but I'm tinkering behind-the-scenes on adding a few additional trivia citations to the day, so keep your eyes peeled in that respect. I'm also tinkering on another review from something I watched yesterday, but I'll leave that stuff for later if I get to it. Crafting new content for the MainPage is its own particular brand of Hell, folks, and I'll never argue otherwise. It ain't always easy coming up with something to say about what makes All Things Genre important to me -- and to you -- but I'll keep puttering. It's my lot in life ... at least at present.
I did manage to (cough cough) make my way through the big, big, big finale for Star Wars' Disney+ series Ahsoka -- pronounced 'Meh-soka.' Sigh. I won't get into nitpicks -- honestly, the episode had a great number of WTF moments that kinda/sorta defied logic, but I skipped recounting them even in my review after I read it and found the whole affair too exhausting. Instead, I went with my general impressions for the whole of the run. Suffice it to say that things don't exactly look bright -- from this desk -- in the FiloniVerse. The Book Of Boba Fett was awful. The Mandalorian Season 3 was about as bad as it could get. And the uneven presentation for Ahsoka has really put a bad taste in my mouth for anything going forward. I'll have to decide -- with the wifey's input -- about cancelling Disney+. There's just so little to watch on there anyway.
Interested in my two cents on the Ahsoka finale? Readers can find them right here.
Otherwise, here's what you're really looking for, and I hope you like 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:
“An old woman coughs up what she believes to be a tumor. While asleep, the thing crawls inside of her son and reproduces inside him, then causes him to go on a killing spree to feed it.”
From the forgotten films from the days of the corner video store comes another magnum opus (snicker snicker): writer/director Bret McCormick’s The Abomination is seeing the light of day after lying in wait for oh so long. I suspect fans of obscure titles and/or old school guerilla filmmaking along with practical effects aficionados might trumpet the news to the four corners of the Earth, but look for little more than looks of confusion on the face of mainstream viewers who are likely to find this over-long diversion a bit too looney for the rest of mankind’s entertainment diet.
I’ve been searching my brain since absorbing this one yesterday afternoon. Honestly, I thought I’d seen it before – having grown up in that era as well as having worked a few years in video retail, the name was very, very, very familiar – but I may’ve confused it with another film entirely or perhaps I watched a vastly shorter version of it. (I recognize the creature effects, but the story as presented didn’t ring any particular bells.) Basically, what one has with it is little more than a backwoods kinda/sorta monster movie – with a small-town shack being healthily drenched in buckets of blood – and there likely were a good handful of such horrors back in the day. The fact that it might resemble such like-minded fodder should come as no surprise.
As for the story, The Abomination is little more than a community theater interpretation of Roger Corman’s Little Shop Of Horrors (either the 1960 original or the big budget remake in 1986). Cody (played by Scott Davis) inadvertently digests the living tumor his mother coughed up the night before – it’s apparently the spawn of a local farting televangelist who goes by the name of Brother Fogg (Rex Morton). The monster somehow seizes control of Cody’s mind – even after being coughed back up by him —and it forces him to seek out the necessary flesh and blood for sustenance. Naturally, everyone in this backwater suburb is fated to be eaten alive, so a good time will not be had by all.
Credited as McCormick’s debut picture, The Abomination both is and isn’t an abomination all its own. The pacing for this 100-minute fare is entirely (entirely!) too long – there isn’t more than 30 minutes of plot and probably not even 15 minutes of dialogue from start-to-finish – and it feels as if the production was padded even unnecessarily to prolong the experience. Sequences stretch on interminably long – well past the point of any logical reason – and the whole thing is kinda/sorta plagued with continuity issues. The audio commentary and interviews suggest that it was largely a family affair, so it goes without saying that the acting for all involved is a bit substandard. The sum total of what’s supposed to instill a sense of terror or fright in the audience will likely have most folks laughing outright if not reaching for the fast-forward button on the DVD player remote. (Yes, it’s that drawn out.)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An old woman coughs up what she believes to be a tumor. While asleep, the thing crawls inside of her son and reproduces inside him, then causes him to go on a killing spree to feed it.”
From the forgotten films from the days of the corner video store comes another magnum opus (snicker snicker): writer/director Bret McCormick’s The Abomination is seeing the light of day after lying in wait for oh so long. I suspect fans of obscure titles and/or old school guerilla filmmaking along with practical effects aficionados might trumpet the news to the four corners of the Earth, but look for little more than looks of confusion on the face of mainstream viewers who are likely to find this over-long diversion a bit too looney for the rest of mankind’s entertainment diet.
I’ve been searching my brain since absorbing this one yesterday afternoon. Honestly, I thought I’d seen it before – having grown up in that era as well as having worked a few years in video retail, the name was very, very, very familiar – but I may’ve confused it with another film entirely or perhaps I watched a vastly shorter version of it. (I recognize the creature effects, but the story as presented didn’t ring any particular bells.) Basically, what one has with it is little more than a backwoods kinda/sorta monster movie – with a small-town shack being healthily drenched in buckets of blood – and there likely were a good handful of such horrors back in the day. The fact that it might resemble such like-minded fodder should come as no surprise.
As for the story, The Abomination is little more than a community theater interpretation of Roger Corman’s Little Shop Of Horrors (either the 1960 original or the big budget remake in 1986). Cody (played by Scott Davis) inadvertently digests the living tumor his mother coughed up the night before – it’s apparently the spawn of a local farting televangelist who goes by the name of Brother Fogg (Rex Morton). The monster somehow seizes control of Cody’s mind – even after being coughed back up by him —and it forces him to seek out the necessary flesh and blood for sustenance. Naturally, everyone in this backwater suburb is fated to be eaten alive, so a good time will not be had by all.
Credited as McCormick’s debut picture, The Abomination both is and isn’t an abomination all its own. The pacing for this 100-minute fare is entirely (entirely!) too long – there isn’t more than 30 minutes of plot and probably not even 15 minutes of dialogue from start-to-finish – and it feels as if the production was padded even unnecessarily to prolong the experience. Sequences stretch on interminably long – well past the point of any logical reason – and the whole thing is kinda/sorta plagued with continuity issues. The audio commentary and interviews suggest that it was largely a family affair, so it goes without saying that the acting for all involved is a bit substandard. The sum total of what’s supposed to instill a sense of terror or fright in the audience will likely have most folks laughing outright if not reaching for the fast-forward button on the DVD player remote. (Yes, it’s that drawn out.)
Still – and I add this because I’m entirely a fan of old-school in-camera effects work – The Abomination has a modest measure of charm when it comes to being a monster movie. Though the creature is a bit ridiculous at times (seeing so much of it in long takes was a mistake), it still functions the way intended, and I’ve little doubt that the behind-the-scenes techs – probably also family members – had a lot of fun both assembling and bringing the modest giant to screen life. It ain’t perfect. Hell, it likely wasn’t intended to be. And yet … it works just fine. Kudos to the effort.
But because this was a debut experience (for what I suspect was possibly everyone involved), The Abomination is plagued with one huge narrative shortcoming that stuck with me, and it’s almost a ‘how-to-NOT’ to craft a story of this type.
Our lead Cody begins the film by narrating a session with what sounds like a psychotherapist or analyst, detailing some of his dreams along with the events of the bloody episode we see unfolding in camera. Well, it isn’t too long in, and he starts to even detail some happenings that he both wasn’t and couldn’t have been present to observe; and this is where the wheels started to come off the bus for me. (For some, this is a phenomenon called the ‘unreliable narrator,’ but I won’t get into those particulars.) Because he couldn’t have had direct knowledge of moments he wasn’t present to witness, I started to question the nature of his accounting. While I won’t spoil the ‘twist’ McCormick tries to spin in the last reel, let’s just say that I was on the right track to defusing the bomb, thus cheapening its impact.
The Abomination (1986) was produced by Donna Michelle Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing. As for the technical specifications? Erm … well, while I’m no trained video expert, I can assure you that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the amount of grain along with the occasional lack of focus that’s a bit pervasive to this extremely low-budget thriller/chiller. This was likely shot on video back in the day, and it looks it. Also, the sound leaves a good deal to the imagination. It’s bearable but not much else.
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Visual Vengeance has served up a wealth of materials for this otherwise forgotten flick from yesterday. The product packaging indicates that this is an all-new SD master, and they’ve dished up a pair of audio commentaries. The disc also boasts a handful of talent interviews along with some respectable behind-the-scenes featurettes, some short films, trailers, and a bit more. It also bears mentioning that the product packaging includes some nifty extras – artwork, collector’s booklet, poster, stickers, etc. – and that is a very nice and nostalgic touch, indeed. Well done, Visual Vengeance!
Alas … only mildly recommended.
I’ve no doubt that The Abomination might very well have been a bit of a corner video store sensation back in the fertile 1980’s. It has a hint of such appeal – a young antagonist/protagonist, a direct-to-video hook, and some probable bloody packaging – but could it both build and sustain an audience today? I’m inclined to think otherwise. Still, film nerds might find a bit to enjoy – along with learning some lessons about how to affordably package their own monstrous efforts – in this slim treasure.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Abomination (1986) 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
But because this was a debut experience (for what I suspect was possibly everyone involved), The Abomination is plagued with one huge narrative shortcoming that stuck with me, and it’s almost a ‘how-to-NOT’ to craft a story of this type.
Our lead Cody begins the film by narrating a session with what sounds like a psychotherapist or analyst, detailing some of his dreams along with the events of the bloody episode we see unfolding in camera. Well, it isn’t too long in, and he starts to even detail some happenings that he both wasn’t and couldn’t have been present to observe; and this is where the wheels started to come off the bus for me. (For some, this is a phenomenon called the ‘unreliable narrator,’ but I won’t get into those particulars.) Because he couldn’t have had direct knowledge of moments he wasn’t present to witness, I started to question the nature of his accounting. While I won’t spoil the ‘twist’ McCormick tries to spin in the last reel, let’s just say that I was on the right track to defusing the bomb, thus cheapening its impact.
The Abomination (1986) was produced by Donna Michelle Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing. As for the technical specifications? Erm … well, while I’m no trained video expert, I can assure you that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the amount of grain along with the occasional lack of focus that’s a bit pervasive to this extremely low-budget thriller/chiller. This was likely shot on video back in the day, and it looks it. Also, the sound leaves a good deal to the imagination. It’s bearable but not much else.
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Visual Vengeance has served up a wealth of materials for this otherwise forgotten flick from yesterday. The product packaging indicates that this is an all-new SD master, and they’ve dished up a pair of audio commentaries. The disc also boasts a handful of talent interviews along with some respectable behind-the-scenes featurettes, some short films, trailers, and a bit more. It also bears mentioning that the product packaging includes some nifty extras – artwork, collector’s booklet, poster, stickers, etc. – and that is a very nice and nostalgic touch, indeed. Well done, Visual Vengeance!
Alas … only mildly recommended.
I’ve no doubt that The Abomination might very well have been a bit of a corner video store sensation back in the fertile 1980’s. It has a hint of such appeal – a young antagonist/protagonist, a direct-to-video hook, and some probable bloody packaging – but could it both build and sustain an audience today? I’m inclined to think otherwise. Still, film nerds might find a bit to enjoy – along with learning some lessons about how to affordably package their own monstrous efforts – in this slim treasure.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Abomination (1986) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to Tuesday, October 3rd! Here's hoping that now that your God-awful Monday is done and over with that your week is shaping up quite nicely! I know mine's looking good!
Had to run a few quick errands this morning, so this post is a bit behind schedule, as they say. I did come back to a nice email from a reader who wondered what my "predictions" might be for the season finale of Star Wars Disney+'s Ahsoka series, so I thought I'd sound off on that prospect for just a wee bit.
Now ... don't take this the wrong way, folks, but I'm not really in the predictions business. Because I consider myself somewhat trained in the art of thinking and reacting to art, I've never found it easy to prognosticate about stories, twists, and the like. Sure, I suppose I might have an insight or two every now and then that bears fruit, but as I've made no bones about anything other than finished products I'm just not comfy postulating what we might see develop in finales. I will say that I can't even begin to imagine any way that Dave Filoni can successfully answer all of the questions he's kinda/sorta dangled along the way, and I suspect the design of the show is to keep viewers guessing on some points in order to entice them to come back for another season. At this juncture -- as I've even hinted in reviews -- I think I'm done with the show as of tonight's big finish. While it's had a few tidbits I've enjoyed here and there, I've been overall disappointed with its tone and general goofiness. Who knows? Maybe I've finally gotten too old to enjoy some elements of Star Wars ... or I've grown disinterested in what the Mouse House is telling us is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Also, I've often had to remind readers that -- unlike other outlets -- I've no Hollywood spies or industry insiders feeding me any amount of private content. Hell, I don't even have much interest in things like 'sources,' mostly because I do like to go into stories with a reasonable degree of blindness. It just helps me enjoy the developments a bit more, and it certainly shows me whether or not such twists are more authentic than anything else. Such is just the way my brain is wired.
Lastly, I will venture to guess that those of us who have been mostly disappointed with the show are likely going to go out on that same note. The fan contingent -- those who either refuse to see flawed writing and/or curiously out-of-place performances -- that has worshipped the show will likely christen it the greatest thing to come from that galaxy far, far away in decades; and each and every one of us is entitled to his or her opinion. I just see no way for that to change in what's purported to be one more 45-minute episode ... but who knows? Maybe Filoni will surprise us all.
Had to run a few quick errands this morning, so this post is a bit behind schedule, as they say. I did come back to a nice email from a reader who wondered what my "predictions" might be for the season finale of Star Wars Disney+'s Ahsoka series, so I thought I'd sound off on that prospect for just a wee bit.
Now ... don't take this the wrong way, folks, but I'm not really in the predictions business. Because I consider myself somewhat trained in the art of thinking and reacting to art, I've never found it easy to prognosticate about stories, twists, and the like. Sure, I suppose I might have an insight or two every now and then that bears fruit, but as I've made no bones about anything other than finished products I'm just not comfy postulating what we might see develop in finales. I will say that I can't even begin to imagine any way that Dave Filoni can successfully answer all of the questions he's kinda/sorta dangled along the way, and I suspect the design of the show is to keep viewers guessing on some points in order to entice them to come back for another season. At this juncture -- as I've even hinted in reviews -- I think I'm done with the show as of tonight's big finish. While it's had a few tidbits I've enjoyed here and there, I've been overall disappointed with its tone and general goofiness. Who knows? Maybe I've finally gotten too old to enjoy some elements of Star Wars ... or I've grown disinterested in what the Mouse House is telling us is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Also, I've often had to remind readers that -- unlike other outlets -- I've no Hollywood spies or industry insiders feeding me any amount of private content. Hell, I don't even have much interest in things like 'sources,' mostly because I do like to go into stories with a reasonable degree of blindness. It just helps me enjoy the developments a bit more, and it certainly shows me whether or not such twists are more authentic than anything else. Such is just the way my brain is wired.
Lastly, I will venture to guess that those of us who have been mostly disappointed with the show are likely going to go out on that same note. The fan contingent -- those who either refuse to see flawed writing and/or curiously out-of-place performances -- that has worshipped the show will likely christen it the greatest thing to come from that galaxy far, far away in decades; and each and every one of us is entitled to his or her opinion. I just see no way for that to change in what's purported to be one more 45-minute episode ... but who knows? Maybe Filoni will surprise us all.
While we're on the topic of Mr. Filoni, can I just give the proper birthday/anniversary shout-out to his incredible television property, Star Wars: The Clone Wars?
I know, I know, I know: not everyone out there is a fan of the animated incarnations of this intellectual property, but I remain a huge, huge, huge fan of The Clone Wars. I think it was a solid return to form for all of Star Wars -- one that didn't have to so much concern itself with filling the holes left in the movies and, instead, could just focus on delivering good stories against the backdrop of a galaxy in conflict. The vast array of episodes gave writers the chance to focus on main players as well as some familiar faces who always deserved a bit more screen time; and that flexibility meant that fans were treated to some of the greatest explorations of these people, places, and events possible. In fact, I'd argue that it's a format that never really has to end: new side stories -- ones involving other planets and other people -- could go on into perpetuity if the producers were so inclined. I'd love to see more of it.
Readers are encouraged to take a gander at the show's IMDB.com profile for further details. Its run consisted of an astonishing 133 episodes, and it racked up an impressive number of awards and nominations across the entirety of its existence.
The Force was strong with it. Indeed.
I know, I know, I know: not everyone out there is a fan of the animated incarnations of this intellectual property, but I remain a huge, huge, huge fan of The Clone Wars. I think it was a solid return to form for all of Star Wars -- one that didn't have to so much concern itself with filling the holes left in the movies and, instead, could just focus on delivering good stories against the backdrop of a galaxy in conflict. The vast array of episodes gave writers the chance to focus on main players as well as some familiar faces who always deserved a bit more screen time; and that flexibility meant that fans were treated to some of the greatest explorations of these people, places, and events possible. In fact, I'd argue that it's a format that never really has to end: new side stories -- ones involving other planets and other people -- could go on into perpetuity if the producers were so inclined. I'd love to see more of it.
Readers are encouraged to take a gander at the show's IMDB.com profile for further details. Its run consisted of an astonishing 133 episodes, and it racked up an impressive number of awards and nominations across the entirety of its existence.
The Force was strong with it. Indeed.
Six years ago today, the unthinkable happened when writer/director Denis Villeneuve tapped into the dire straits of tomorrow: Blade Runner 2049 brought back Harrison Ford to a role he made famous all the way back in 1982, and another chapter exploring what it means to be alive unfolded in the dark world of a bleak future. Like the original, I think the sequel will likely require a bit of time before its true greatness is recognized, but society sometimes requires a bit of space to catch up with where the rest of us might be.
For what it's worth, I wasn't a huge fan of the original when I first saw it on the silver screen. What can I say? I was young, and I needed a bit more time to digest the ideas at play throughout so much of it. I've always loved its style, but I believe that its message of trying to find peace with who and/or what you are just didn't resonate with me then. In fact, it wasn't until I watched it again and again (and again!) on laser disc that it grew to me vastly more relevant. Some stories just work that way.
Naturally, I think folks who love the follow-up right away did so because the road was already paved with the original, meaning that they didn't have to go on any journey of discovery the way I did back in '82, '83, and '84. The beauty to all of this is that the two films definitely complement one another in remarkable ways, and I'm glad someone had the stones to even attempt a sequel.
For what it's worth, I wasn't a huge fan of the original when I first saw it on the silver screen. What can I say? I was young, and I needed a bit more time to digest the ideas at play throughout so much of it. I've always loved its style, but I believe that its message of trying to find peace with who and/or what you are just didn't resonate with me then. In fact, it wasn't until I watched it again and again (and again!) on laser disc that it grew to me vastly more relevant. Some stories just work that way.
Naturally, I think folks who love the follow-up right away did so because the road was already paved with the original, meaning that they didn't have to go on any journey of discovery the way I did back in '82, '83, and '84. The beauty to all of this is that the two films definitely complement one another in remarkable ways, and I'm glad someone had the stones to even attempt a sequel.
Well, well, well ...
That's all I have for now, folks. I do have a few flicks downstairs that are just begging for my attention, so I might be up to that this afternoon, along with a few chores around the house. Laundry is always worth filling up some free time, and what better way to space out the movies?
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, gentle readers ... and welcome to the month of things that go bump in the night!
Ahhh, it's one of the most wonderful times of the year as we come into Halloween, isn't it? I love that -- over the years -- it's become far more common for houses to decorate in such a way as to send out the proper chills and thrills for everyone to see. We, too, have increased our humble decor we each passing year, mostly because the collection of skulls and bones keeps growing. We like to call it 'the Boneyard,' and I've been known to receive a good deal of complimentary statements from those driving past and/or taking a stroll through the neighborhood. Honestly, it isn't anything all that elaborate, but it's a helluva lot of fun ... and that's all that matters.
It was a reasonably quiet weekend 'round the house, so much so that I was able to squeeze in a few movies on the television as well as one trip out to the local cheapie theater. On the silver screen, the wifey and I took in a showing of The Fellowship Of The Ring -- one of my all-time favorite flicks -- and at home I managed to work my way through the Apocalypse/Thriller called The Divide and then followed that up with a little something something called Sin City: A Dame To Kill For. I'm thinking about penning a few shorter style reviews for the MainPage, but I'll probably mull that over before committing anything to print.
And speaking of the local cheapie theater? That place has an INCREDIBLE October on tap for genre fans. They'd already announced that they were showing Alien and Aliens this month, and then over the weekend I learned that they were adding eight of the Universal Pictures Monster Classics to the rotation ... obviously in honor of Shocktober. This means that I can finally get to see flicks like Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and a few more up on the silver screen the way those pictures were fully intended. I couldn't be happier. And, yes, I'll likely take them in and pen reviews for SciFiHistory.Net. It's only proper.
Well ... that's all I have for now ... so how about a few highlights for October 2nd's trivia?
Ahhh, it's one of the most wonderful times of the year as we come into Halloween, isn't it? I love that -- over the years -- it's become far more common for houses to decorate in such a way as to send out the proper chills and thrills for everyone to see. We, too, have increased our humble decor we each passing year, mostly because the collection of skulls and bones keeps growing. We like to call it 'the Boneyard,' and I've been known to receive a good deal of complimentary statements from those driving past and/or taking a stroll through the neighborhood. Honestly, it isn't anything all that elaborate, but it's a helluva lot of fun ... and that's all that matters.
It was a reasonably quiet weekend 'round the house, so much so that I was able to squeeze in a few movies on the television as well as one trip out to the local cheapie theater. On the silver screen, the wifey and I took in a showing of The Fellowship Of The Ring -- one of my all-time favorite flicks -- and at home I managed to work my way through the Apocalypse/Thriller called The Divide and then followed that up with a little something something called Sin City: A Dame To Kill For. I'm thinking about penning a few shorter style reviews for the MainPage, but I'll probably mull that over before committing anything to print.
And speaking of the local cheapie theater? That place has an INCREDIBLE October on tap for genre fans. They'd already announced that they were showing Alien and Aliens this month, and then over the weekend I learned that they were adding eight of the Universal Pictures Monster Classics to the rotation ... obviously in honor of Shocktober. This means that I can finally get to see flicks like Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and a few more up on the silver screen the way those pictures were fully intended. I couldn't be happier. And, yes, I'll likely take them in and pen reviews for SciFiHistory.Net. It's only proper.
Well ... that's all I have for now ... so how about a few highlights for October 2nd's trivia?
For those of you who didn't know, the character of Flash Gordon was actually a bit of a cultural afterthought.
See, back in the day (circa the 1930's), Buck Rogers was all the rage in the daily comic strips. (Yes, yes, and yes: Buck Rogers is more properly known under the name of Buck Rogers In The 25th Century, you purists!) Appearing originally in 1929, Buck had established himself as a contender amongst readers, and King Features -- as the story goes -- wanted something that could compete with this man of tomorrow. According to Wikipedia.org, company president Joe Connolly gave his arist Alex Raymond the inspiration to craft something that might draw inspiration from the works of Jules Verne, and -- you guessed it -- Flash Gordon was officially born from Raymond's fertile imagination.
Sigh.
For a man whose creations brought an incredible degree of joy to readers, Raymond had a somewhat tortured life, at least this can be said regarding his demise. Killed in a car crash in 1956, there has been speculation that he actually committed suicide-by-automobile as he'd been involved in a previous four similar altercations very, very, very recently. There was talk that he was distraught over his marital relations, and some suggest this led him to take his life. If this is true, then that's a sad predicament for a man whose stories and artwork inspired so many, including George Lucas. The Star Wars creator is on record as attributing Raymond's works as one of his chief fascinations.
See, back in the day (circa the 1930's), Buck Rogers was all the rage in the daily comic strips. (Yes, yes, and yes: Buck Rogers is more properly known under the name of Buck Rogers In The 25th Century, you purists!) Appearing originally in 1929, Buck had established himself as a contender amongst readers, and King Features -- as the story goes -- wanted something that could compete with this man of tomorrow. According to Wikipedia.org, company president Joe Connolly gave his arist Alex Raymond the inspiration to craft something that might draw inspiration from the works of Jules Verne, and -- you guessed it -- Flash Gordon was officially born from Raymond's fertile imagination.
Sigh.
For a man whose creations brought an incredible degree of joy to readers, Raymond had a somewhat tortured life, at least this can be said regarding his demise. Killed in a car crash in 1956, there has been speculation that he actually committed suicide-by-automobile as he'd been involved in a previous four similar altercations very, very, very recently. There was talk that he was distraught over his marital relations, and some suggest this led him to take his life. If this is true, then that's a sad predicament for a man whose stories and artwork inspired so many, including George Lucas. The Star Wars creator is on record as attributing Raymond's works as one of his chief fascinations.
And speaking of inspirations ...
Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone first premiered on U.S. television sets on this day all the way back in 1959; and -- unless someone can prove to me otherwise -- it paved the way toward changing the way business was done in the realm of homespun Fantasy. The show lasted for an incredible five seasons, and -- across a wide spectrum of folks 'in the know' -- it's arguably considered one of the greatest programs of all time. Structured around an anthology format and casting both newcomers as well as established talent, The Twilight Zone become a cornerstore in the world of genre entertainment, and its legacy endures even to this day.
While I'll admit to probably not even having seen all of it (it just didn't run in broadcast syndication anywhere in my youth), I have seen enough of it -- likely half -- to both understand and appreciate why so many find it required viewing of anyone who thinks and/or writes about entertainment of that bygone era. Its performances are always pretty spot on, and the program surprisingly had few blemishes. Some of this is most likely owed to the fact that Serling himself oversaw so very much of the adventures, giving it a measure of narrative consistency many other anthologies of the day lacked.
Furthermore, the fact that Zone has been retooled on more than one occasion and has been re-introduced to contemporary audiences shows that its a formula that multiple generations can appreciate and relate to. It'll likely be with us so long as we're among the living in this wide, wide universe ... and each of us owes a debt to Serling we'll never repay.
Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone first premiered on U.S. television sets on this day all the way back in 1959; and -- unless someone can prove to me otherwise -- it paved the way toward changing the way business was done in the realm of homespun Fantasy. The show lasted for an incredible five seasons, and -- across a wide spectrum of folks 'in the know' -- it's arguably considered one of the greatest programs of all time. Structured around an anthology format and casting both newcomers as well as established talent, The Twilight Zone become a cornerstore in the world of genre entertainment, and its legacy endures even to this day.
While I'll admit to probably not even having seen all of it (it just didn't run in broadcast syndication anywhere in my youth), I have seen enough of it -- likely half -- to both understand and appreciate why so many find it required viewing of anyone who thinks and/or writes about entertainment of that bygone era. Its performances are always pretty spot on, and the program surprisingly had few blemishes. Some of this is most likely owed to the fact that Serling himself oversaw so very much of the adventures, giving it a measure of narrative consistency many other anthologies of the day lacked.
Furthermore, the fact that Zone has been retooled on more than one occasion and has been re-introduced to contemporary audiences shows that its a formula that multiple generations can appreciate and relate to. It'll likely be with us so long as we're among the living in this wide, wide universe ... and each of us owes a debt to Serling we'll never repay.
That's all I have for now, faithful readers, but keep your eyes peeled. I may have a bit more new content coming for the MainPage over the day. It just depends on how much I can get done over the next few hours.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for being a fan ... thanks for sharing ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ