- 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 show’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Dark instincts reveal themselves as Maggie and Negan for a strategy; Armstrong is tested; Ginny embarks on a daring journey.”
Sigh.
Yes, folks, that’s an actual sigh.
I know I sigh a lot these days, but it’s really grown pretty tiresome for having to spend so much time recounting just how much bad writing would seem to have proliferated so many of fandom’s greater and greatest franchises. Star Wars has suffered from it, as have a good deal of the Marvel properties on streaming or the multiplexes. Don’t get me started on Star Trek: Discovery or the general state of the Gene Roddenberry property, or I might just cry. The latest Indiana Jones tentpole feature is replete with an awful lot of undercooked ideas and even more than a few half-baked assumptions about characters, careers, and circumstances.
Like I said: sigh.
Yes, I realize some who pen and speak criticism online regarding The Walking Dead have said the show has waded through a mountain of it for a few seasons, but – in some frank honesty here – I just didn’t see it. This isn’t in any way to malign those who did or even suggest that perhaps it was there and I missed it: rather, it’s a confession that I had a fundamental disagreement with those who do what I do, and I interpreted some of the show’s developments as being an organic attempt to try something different, to try to accomplish more with less. It may not have been fresh. It may not have been effective. But I saw it as a concerted effort to turn the show in a different direction, and this happens from time-to-time when casts evolve, screenwriters come-and-go, and even showrunners and networks ask for a bit of reinvention.
But – damn – Dead City is truly reeking of something greater than the decomposing Walking Dead these days, and it would appear that no effort is being expended to change the narrative. In fact, it looks like “People Are A Resource” (Season 1, Episode 3) is doubling-down on stupid, and they’re now pushing creative boundaries with bad puns. (Without spoiling it, let’s just say that viewers should be watching for ‘people are a resource’ to have a double meaning.)
Yikes!
In my own defense, however, I will point out that I haven’t been all that enamored with Dead City since its premiere. (Interested readers can find my reviews of Episode 1 and Episode 2 respectively.) While “Who’s There?” did offer me a brief return-to-form (thanks, Negan, for what might be the series’ highlight) and maybe even a fleeting hope that the ship would be sailing in a favorable direction, “People Are A Resource” rather quickly squashed out those creative embers by resorting to the franchise’s long and tired fascination with the usual suspects: flashbacks, sidebars, and long, steely looks.
Seriously? Is there nothing more in this tank?
The installment opens up with yet more screen time dedicated to Ginny – Negan’s surrogate daughter – who has now – with apparently no difficulty whatsoever – arrived at the shores opposite the infamous New York City. Before you know it, why, she’s gone and done what Maggie led us to believe early on was downright unthinkable: wasn’t it implied, at the very least, that getting across to Manhattan Island was a difficult prospect? Here, Ginny experienced absolutely no challenges, and – in the last frames of the episode – we’re shown that she’s already made it (in a single episode) damn near as far as our show’s headliners have … so what in the Holy Hell was all of the fuss about after all? Perhaps the showrunners and producers could’ve saved themselves some behind-the-scenes money by jettisoning Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s salary and instead made the show about Maggie and Ginny’s quest to recover Maggie’s abducted son.
(Relax, haters: that’s what old dogs like me call a joke. I likely wouldn’t have tuned in to a Dead-themed Thelma and Louise, nor would much of fandom.)
The remainder of the episode again explores Negan and Maggie’s still tenuous relationship (which it’s always been), both with themselves and these islanders, as well as expands upon New Babylon Marshal Armstrong’s plight as he’s been abducted by ‘The Croat’ our dynamic duo are trying to reach. So … are I suggest that maybe just being captured would’ve been a better course of action after all for Maggie and Negan? Wouldn’t that, too, have taken them exactly where they wanted to go? It certainly would’ve saved viewers these flashbacks and sidebars which only serve to kill whatever forward progress Dead City has developed.
From the show’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Dark instincts reveal themselves as Maggie and Negan for a strategy; Armstrong is tested; Ginny embarks on a daring journey.”
Sigh.
Yes, folks, that’s an actual sigh.
I know I sigh a lot these days, but it’s really grown pretty tiresome for having to spend so much time recounting just how much bad writing would seem to have proliferated so many of fandom’s greater and greatest franchises. Star Wars has suffered from it, as have a good deal of the Marvel properties on streaming or the multiplexes. Don’t get me started on Star Trek: Discovery or the general state of the Gene Roddenberry property, or I might just cry. The latest Indiana Jones tentpole feature is replete with an awful lot of undercooked ideas and even more than a few half-baked assumptions about characters, careers, and circumstances.
Like I said: sigh.
Yes, I realize some who pen and speak criticism online regarding The Walking Dead have said the show has waded through a mountain of it for a few seasons, but – in some frank honesty here – I just didn’t see it. This isn’t in any way to malign those who did or even suggest that perhaps it was there and I missed it: rather, it’s a confession that I had a fundamental disagreement with those who do what I do, and I interpreted some of the show’s developments as being an organic attempt to try something different, to try to accomplish more with less. It may not have been fresh. It may not have been effective. But I saw it as a concerted effort to turn the show in a different direction, and this happens from time-to-time when casts evolve, screenwriters come-and-go, and even showrunners and networks ask for a bit of reinvention.
But – damn – Dead City is truly reeking of something greater than the decomposing Walking Dead these days, and it would appear that no effort is being expended to change the narrative. In fact, it looks like “People Are A Resource” (Season 1, Episode 3) is doubling-down on stupid, and they’re now pushing creative boundaries with bad puns. (Without spoiling it, let’s just say that viewers should be watching for ‘people are a resource’ to have a double meaning.)
Yikes!
In my own defense, however, I will point out that I haven’t been all that enamored with Dead City since its premiere. (Interested readers can find my reviews of Episode 1 and Episode 2 respectively.) While “Who’s There?” did offer me a brief return-to-form (thanks, Negan, for what might be the series’ highlight) and maybe even a fleeting hope that the ship would be sailing in a favorable direction, “People Are A Resource” rather quickly squashed out those creative embers by resorting to the franchise’s long and tired fascination with the usual suspects: flashbacks, sidebars, and long, steely looks.
Seriously? Is there nothing more in this tank?
The installment opens up with yet more screen time dedicated to Ginny – Negan’s surrogate daughter – who has now – with apparently no difficulty whatsoever – arrived at the shores opposite the infamous New York City. Before you know it, why, she’s gone and done what Maggie led us to believe early on was downright unthinkable: wasn’t it implied, at the very least, that getting across to Manhattan Island was a difficult prospect? Here, Ginny experienced absolutely no challenges, and – in the last frames of the episode – we’re shown that she’s already made it (in a single episode) damn near as far as our show’s headliners have … so what in the Holy Hell was all of the fuss about after all? Perhaps the showrunners and producers could’ve saved themselves some behind-the-scenes money by jettisoning Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s salary and instead made the show about Maggie and Ginny’s quest to recover Maggie’s abducted son.
(Relax, haters: that’s what old dogs like me call a joke. I likely wouldn’t have tuned in to a Dead-themed Thelma and Louise, nor would much of fandom.)
The remainder of the episode again explores Negan and Maggie’s still tenuous relationship (which it’s always been), both with themselves and these islanders, as well as expands upon New Babylon Marshal Armstrong’s plight as he’s been abducted by ‘The Croat’ our dynamic duo are trying to reach. So … are I suggest that maybe just being captured would’ve been a better course of action after all for Maggie and Negan? Wouldn’t that, too, have taken them exactly where they wanted to go? It certainly would’ve saved viewers these flashbacks and sidebars which only serve to kill whatever forward progress Dead City has developed.
Besides, haven’t we done all of this before?
I’m not trying to pick on the fallen law officer, but Armstrong – like Ginny – just isn’t all that interesting a character to begin with. At this point, he could have any backstory – he could be any number of disposal or displaceable faces – because he’s never been fully vetted by the viewing audiences. We have no attachment to him and his adventure, so it’s an entirely meaningless series of exchanges only meant to show what life is like for ‘The Croat’ and his people. But couldn’t we have been shown this had Maggie and Negan been captured? Wouldn’t that have been more relevant? Wouldn’t that also give our supposed series heroes the opportunity to show us exactly why they’ve been blessed with this spin-off? Up to now, they’re basically just standing still or shooting knowing glances at one another, and here I tuned in thinking I was going to see them back in action.
I’ve no idea how much Dead City costs AMC, and I’m not really in any position to determine whether or not their investment could’ve been better spent. My point is that spin-offs are never easy sells to begin with, and what endears us to players that do get the opportunity to move along in new iterations may not be what transpires in the expanded universe. Aboard The Walking Dead, Maggie was all about her relationships with others as well as the exalted position she had earned amongst them there; in Dead City, she’s spent a lot of time just glaring at people, places, and things. She’s constantly angry or borderline teary, never showing us the resolve that fueled her actions in the previous show. Also aboard TWD, Negan, too, had lost a bit of his violent edge but had gained a greater understanding of the fact that maybe – just maybe – he had something more to offer the survivors of the human race other than an obvious lust and fascination with killing, doing mankind’s dirtiest work ever. Here, like Maggie, he’s fixing his eyes on stuff, grimacing for the camera, or nodding quietly, never showing only an inkling of what made him worth watching in the first place.
Complaints aside, there are threads that suggest that perhaps the show’s writers may still have a little ‘something something’ in their bag of tricks they’re trying to conceal in the all-too-brief six-episode run/arc.
I’ve often argued that there can be nuggets of good writing wrapped up within the bad, and that’s possibly no different than what audiences might be seeing here. Often times, creators have a knack for crafting solid beginnings, fabulous little filler scenes (Negan’s return to form in Episode 2’s closing moments), or bigger-than-life finales or cliffhangers; but they tend to lose focus on putting as much effort into making that line between points A and B and C as memorable as they could, would, and should be. In the 1980’s, it was somewhat famously reported that certain big name marquee talents (i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone) often employed their own ghost writers to board each and every new project, review the current draft of the shooting script, and inject said tale with some of these characteristic big ticket plot points or even great one-liners. Like athletes, writers do have their own set of strengths – things they’re uniquely good at – and a room filled with screenwriters might achieve weaker results because of the old ‘too many cooks spoil the meal’ adage.
For example, both central characters Maggie and Negan are clearly seeking a kind of shared redemption here. Maggie and son Hershel didn’t part on the best of terms before his abduction, so she’s wanting to make things right and continue that ongoing challenge that parenting can be while there’s still a chance. And even an immeasurable and violent heavy like Negan is personally troubled that – when he had a chance in his past to rid the world of ‘The Croat’ – he failed to make even his world a better place. The scribes have found ways to dangle these ideas in each of the program’s three episodes, and – while such hints have been somewhat obvious and repetitive – there’s always reason to hope that such flirtation might eventually bode some wonderful rewards. In that respect, only time will tell.
Essentially, I think fans were promised something greater if not different with this show other than a TV-grade version of John Carpenter’s Escape From New York (1981), this one with literal zombies replacing the figurative zombified criminal establishment incarcerated within what was left of the Big Apple. Still, the coincidences aren’t looking so coincidental at this point in Dead City’s run. Isolated big city? Check! Subterranean cannibals? Check. Break in, locate the missing, and get back out? Check! And – for that matter – the similarities don’t stop there, but I’ll happily leave it at that as I think my point has been made. We were promised something different, but we’re getting more of the same.
Were I an investor, I’d be asking AMC for my money back.
In the interests of fairness, I’m thrilled to disclose that – like so many of you – I’ve simply recorded and watched The Walking Dead: Dead City’s “People Are A Resource” (S01E03) as it aired on AMC, so I’m beholden to no one to provide a review other than myself.
-- EZ
I’m not trying to pick on the fallen law officer, but Armstrong – like Ginny – just isn’t all that interesting a character to begin with. At this point, he could have any backstory – he could be any number of disposal or displaceable faces – because he’s never been fully vetted by the viewing audiences. We have no attachment to him and his adventure, so it’s an entirely meaningless series of exchanges only meant to show what life is like for ‘The Croat’ and his people. But couldn’t we have been shown this had Maggie and Negan been captured? Wouldn’t that have been more relevant? Wouldn’t that also give our supposed series heroes the opportunity to show us exactly why they’ve been blessed with this spin-off? Up to now, they’re basically just standing still or shooting knowing glances at one another, and here I tuned in thinking I was going to see them back in action.
I’ve no idea how much Dead City costs AMC, and I’m not really in any position to determine whether or not their investment could’ve been better spent. My point is that spin-offs are never easy sells to begin with, and what endears us to players that do get the opportunity to move along in new iterations may not be what transpires in the expanded universe. Aboard The Walking Dead, Maggie was all about her relationships with others as well as the exalted position she had earned amongst them there; in Dead City, she’s spent a lot of time just glaring at people, places, and things. She’s constantly angry or borderline teary, never showing us the resolve that fueled her actions in the previous show. Also aboard TWD, Negan, too, had lost a bit of his violent edge but had gained a greater understanding of the fact that maybe – just maybe – he had something more to offer the survivors of the human race other than an obvious lust and fascination with killing, doing mankind’s dirtiest work ever. Here, like Maggie, he’s fixing his eyes on stuff, grimacing for the camera, or nodding quietly, never showing only an inkling of what made him worth watching in the first place.
Complaints aside, there are threads that suggest that perhaps the show’s writers may still have a little ‘something something’ in their bag of tricks they’re trying to conceal in the all-too-brief six-episode run/arc.
I’ve often argued that there can be nuggets of good writing wrapped up within the bad, and that’s possibly no different than what audiences might be seeing here. Often times, creators have a knack for crafting solid beginnings, fabulous little filler scenes (Negan’s return to form in Episode 2’s closing moments), or bigger-than-life finales or cliffhangers; but they tend to lose focus on putting as much effort into making that line between points A and B and C as memorable as they could, would, and should be. In the 1980’s, it was somewhat famously reported that certain big name marquee talents (i.e. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone) often employed their own ghost writers to board each and every new project, review the current draft of the shooting script, and inject said tale with some of these characteristic big ticket plot points or even great one-liners. Like athletes, writers do have their own set of strengths – things they’re uniquely good at – and a room filled with screenwriters might achieve weaker results because of the old ‘too many cooks spoil the meal’ adage.
For example, both central characters Maggie and Negan are clearly seeking a kind of shared redemption here. Maggie and son Hershel didn’t part on the best of terms before his abduction, so she’s wanting to make things right and continue that ongoing challenge that parenting can be while there’s still a chance. And even an immeasurable and violent heavy like Negan is personally troubled that – when he had a chance in his past to rid the world of ‘The Croat’ – he failed to make even his world a better place. The scribes have found ways to dangle these ideas in each of the program’s three episodes, and – while such hints have been somewhat obvious and repetitive – there’s always reason to hope that such flirtation might eventually bode some wonderful rewards. In that respect, only time will tell.
Essentially, I think fans were promised something greater if not different with this show other than a TV-grade version of John Carpenter’s Escape From New York (1981), this one with literal zombies replacing the figurative zombified criminal establishment incarcerated within what was left of the Big Apple. Still, the coincidences aren’t looking so coincidental at this point in Dead City’s run. Isolated big city? Check! Subterranean cannibals? Check. Break in, locate the missing, and get back out? Check! And – for that matter – the similarities don’t stop there, but I’ll happily leave it at that as I think my point has been made. We were promised something different, but we’re getting more of the same.
Were I an investor, I’d be asking AMC for my money back.
In the interests of fairness, I’m thrilled to disclose that – like so many of you – I’ve simply recorded and watched The Walking Dead: Dead City’s “People Are A Resource” (S01E03) as it aired on AMC, so I’m beholden to no one to provide a review other than myself.
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, I've said many, many, many times in this space that it's incredibly difficult -- damn near impossible, if you will -- to blend Comedy and Science Fiction seamlessly.
Honestly, it just doesn't happen all that often. Some of this is owed to the fact that both genres do have their own respective requirements, and those separate elements don't often merge together without a bit of push and shove in some places. Forced humor? Ach. It never works. Never mind the fact that making a movie is already an incredible number of movie parts -- from writing, design, casting, directing, etc. -- but to also add into this elaborate puzzle the narrative requirements of two types of film just tends to push this thing into overdrive. It's a rare occurrence when it's done so well that the flick can become a box office sensation, but Back To The Future went a step further, creating an all-new franchise that continues to resonate with fans old and new each and every time it's given release. That truly is remarkable.
And from the reading I've done into the film, this isn't to say that it didn't have a respectful number of challenges to overcome in the process. Every story -- in going from a simple idea to a finished product -- endures a number of obstacles that serve to derail it at any point in the process. Back To The Future had its own as well -- including casting and scripting hiccups that had to be overcome -- and I've got nothing to say but "hats off" to the folks who rode this one out. Perhaps they knew going in that they had something special, but to produce an intellectual property that decades later is still relevant and funny is no small feat.
I promise that -- at some point -- I'll sit down and pen a little 'something something' about the film in this space. It's one of those that I truly love, and I probably do have a few words that might tell you why it holds a special place in my heart and mind. It's a vastly more personal story than ones I often spin for SciFiHistory.Net, but I think -- if and when I tell it -- you'll come to understand just how deeply my love of film goes.
Honestly, it just doesn't happen all that often. Some of this is owed to the fact that both genres do have their own respective requirements, and those separate elements don't often merge together without a bit of push and shove in some places. Forced humor? Ach. It never works. Never mind the fact that making a movie is already an incredible number of movie parts -- from writing, design, casting, directing, etc. -- but to also add into this elaborate puzzle the narrative requirements of two types of film just tends to push this thing into overdrive. It's a rare occurrence when it's done so well that the flick can become a box office sensation, but Back To The Future went a step further, creating an all-new franchise that continues to resonate with fans old and new each and every time it's given release. That truly is remarkable.
And from the reading I've done into the film, this isn't to say that it didn't have a respectful number of challenges to overcome in the process. Every story -- in going from a simple idea to a finished product -- endures a number of obstacles that serve to derail it at any point in the process. Back To The Future had its own as well -- including casting and scripting hiccups that had to be overcome -- and I've got nothing to say but "hats off" to the folks who rode this one out. Perhaps they knew going in that they had something special, but to produce an intellectual property that decades later is still relevant and funny is no small feat.
I promise that -- at some point -- I'll sit down and pen a little 'something something' about the film in this space. It's one of those that I truly love, and I probably do have a few words that might tell you why it holds a special place in my heart and mind. It's a vastly more personal story than ones I often spin for SciFiHistory.Net, but I think -- if and when I tell it -- you'll come to understand just how deeply my love of film goes.
Unquestionably, I think one of the greatest honors bestowed upon Back To The Future is the fact that -- in 2007 -- it was inducted into the U.S. National Film Registry.
For those unaware, the National Film Registry is the part of America's Library of Congress that seeks to preserve only the productions that have demonstrated some lasting artistic, cultural, or aesthetic contribution to film as a medium of art. Given the fact that our cultural betters tend to look down their noses at Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror releases in general, I find it exciting to know that even they can't dismiss the 'Power Of Love' that's displayed so winning in each and every frame of Back To The Future. Having such a perfect experience standing shoulder-to-shoulder with some of film's finest should be reward enough to last a lifetime.
For those unaware, the National Film Registry is the part of America's Library of Congress that seeks to preserve only the productions that have demonstrated some lasting artistic, cultural, or aesthetic contribution to film as a medium of art. Given the fact that our cultural betters tend to look down their noses at Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror releases in general, I find it exciting to know that even they can't dismiss the 'Power Of Love' that's displayed so winning in each and every frame of Back To The Future. Having such a perfect experience standing shoulder-to-shoulder with some of film's finest should be reward enough to last a lifetime.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Again, folks, I'll go to my grave living by the motto of "Don't expect me to agree."
After coming out of the theater witnessing Terminator 2: Judgment Day, we were all naturally excited if not overwhelmed with our own thoughts on the visual feast. Certainly, James Cameron -- along with his willing cast and crew -- had added and expanded on the whole Terminator mythology in ways I don't think any of us had quite expected, but I also remember feeling a bit confused. I couldn't say why exactly, but it was there. When I was asked what I thought of the film, I said that I didn't think it was as perfect as everyone else in the group did ... but I did say it was a perfect follow-up to exactly how things left with the first Terminator flick.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: I've said many times that I'm hard on films, folks. So sue me.
Thinking back on the experience, it may've been a bit of exhaustion that kept me from loving what we had just seen as much as my friends. Terminator 2 -- once it truly gets going -- maintains an incredible, frenetic pace from start-to-finish, rarely letting up on the action and ideas, so much so that I was likely all tuckered out. (I had the same experience watching Robin Williams perform stand-up: I would always reach a point wherein I just couldn't laugh any more, and the material grew tiresome to me as a viewer. I'm not saying it wasn't genius; I'm just saying it was too much too fast for my old brain to process.) T2 was an evolution -- it's arguably one of the greatest sequels in all of filmdom, and that's for a variety of reasons -- and maybe I was getting by on overload at that point.
But as I said the other day in the post wherein I was reflecting on Terminator 3, there's absolutely no denying the power of the first two Terminator features. They're the perfect companion pieces, and you can't watch either of them without thinking of the other. That's a rare feat for Cameron to have accomplished -- deepening and lengthening the themes of the inaugural adventure by reshaping the whole damn universe in the follow-up -- and I've always said that's what endears me to the franchise more than the flash, the effects, the performances, etc. It's almost like they're cerebrally organic experiences, always giving the audience something to think about in subsequent viewings, and that doesn't happen very often in Hollywood.
After coming out of the theater witnessing Terminator 2: Judgment Day, we were all naturally excited if not overwhelmed with our own thoughts on the visual feast. Certainly, James Cameron -- along with his willing cast and crew -- had added and expanded on the whole Terminator mythology in ways I don't think any of us had quite expected, but I also remember feeling a bit confused. I couldn't say why exactly, but it was there. When I was asked what I thought of the film, I said that I didn't think it was as perfect as everyone else in the group did ... but I did say it was a perfect follow-up to exactly how things left with the first Terminator flick.
Yeah, yeah, yeah: I've said many times that I'm hard on films, folks. So sue me.
Thinking back on the experience, it may've been a bit of exhaustion that kept me from loving what we had just seen as much as my friends. Terminator 2 -- once it truly gets going -- maintains an incredible, frenetic pace from start-to-finish, rarely letting up on the action and ideas, so much so that I was likely all tuckered out. (I had the same experience watching Robin Williams perform stand-up: I would always reach a point wherein I just couldn't laugh any more, and the material grew tiresome to me as a viewer. I'm not saying it wasn't genius; I'm just saying it was too much too fast for my old brain to process.) T2 was an evolution -- it's arguably one of the greatest sequels in all of filmdom, and that's for a variety of reasons -- and maybe I was getting by on overload at that point.
But as I said the other day in the post wherein I was reflecting on Terminator 3, there's absolutely no denying the power of the first two Terminator features. They're the perfect companion pieces, and you can't watch either of them without thinking of the other. That's a rare feat for Cameron to have accomplished -- deepening and lengthening the themes of the inaugural adventure by reshaping the whole damn universe in the follow-up -- and I've always said that's what endears me to the franchise more than the flash, the effects, the performances, etc. It's almost like they're cerebrally organic experiences, always giving the audience something to think about in subsequent viewings, and that doesn't happen very often in Hollywood.
Can I also just say that nobody -- and I do mean nobody -- writes tough female characters like James Cameron does?
I'm not saying that every single female character he's ever crafted for film is a perfect specimen because that's probably not the case. There are background characters and supporting players who do end up being little more than screen fodder -- incidentals that really only serve a single purpose and then are gone in an instant -- and that's the forgivable part of being a storyteller. Sometimes, they're pawns, both men and women. It's just how things work. But in creating lead characters that have the intestinal constitution to do some unthinkable things when the chips are down, Cameron has really pushed the industry in directions it likely may not have gone ... and that's definitely something that should be commended.
I'm not saying that every single female character he's ever crafted for film is a perfect specimen because that's probably not the case. There are background characters and supporting players who do end up being little more than screen fodder -- incidentals that really only serve a single purpose and then are gone in an instant -- and that's the forgivable part of being a storyteller. Sometimes, they're pawns, both men and women. It's just how things work. But in creating lead characters that have the intestinal constitution to do some unthinkable things when the chips are down, Cameron has really pushed the industry in directions it likely may not have gone ... and that's definitely something that should be commended.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Well ...
As I've often said, the beauty of doing so much reading and research into the worlds of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror is that I do come across some things from the ash heap of history. Some of them I've honestly never heard about -- nor do I remember seeing in my youth -- and that means I'll have very little to say about them in this space. If something does tickle my fancy, then I'm inclined to do a bit of research; and yet the older I grow the more I just have to accept that I just won't get around to profiling each of these things ... be they good, bad, or downright ugly.
Today's entry from the 'Most Likely It Was Ugly' Department was a little 'something something' that came to life thanks to the early days of genre maestro Roger Corman: 1958's Teenage Caveman apparently cast Robert Vaughn in the role of a ... well ... teenage caveman. For those of you who don't know the name, I'd encourage a Googling. Any of the hundreds of pictures available of the late actor you can find should demonstrate my befuddlement: with his chiseled good looks and clearly photogenic features, Vaughn looks probably about as far from a caveman, cavewoman, or caveperson than anyone has likely ever been.
Honestly, there's not a lot of information available about the film out there on the Information Superhighway. IMDB.com's Trivia Page for the flick states that Vaughn considered this one of the worst films ever made, and I guess that might be all I really have to say about the feature at this point. Pictures are below via the lobby cards available on IMDB.com, and I think it's safe to suggest that we chalk this merry little excursion up to the safest rule ever written: "Buyer beware."
As I've often said, the beauty of doing so much reading and research into the worlds of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror is that I do come across some things from the ash heap of history. Some of them I've honestly never heard about -- nor do I remember seeing in my youth -- and that means I'll have very little to say about them in this space. If something does tickle my fancy, then I'm inclined to do a bit of research; and yet the older I grow the more I just have to accept that I just won't get around to profiling each of these things ... be they good, bad, or downright ugly.
Today's entry from the 'Most Likely It Was Ugly' Department was a little 'something something' that came to life thanks to the early days of genre maestro Roger Corman: 1958's Teenage Caveman apparently cast Robert Vaughn in the role of a ... well ... teenage caveman. For those of you who don't know the name, I'd encourage a Googling. Any of the hundreds of pictures available of the late actor you can find should demonstrate my befuddlement: with his chiseled good looks and clearly photogenic features, Vaughn looks probably about as far from a caveman, cavewoman, or caveperson than anyone has likely ever been.
Honestly, there's not a lot of information available about the film out there on the Information Superhighway. IMDB.com's Trivia Page for the flick states that Vaughn considered this one of the worst films ever made, and I guess that might be all I really have to say about the feature at this point. Pictures are below via the lobby cards available on IMDB.com, and I think it's safe to suggest that we chalk this merry little excursion up to the safest rule ever written: "Buyer beware."
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Perfection is a hard act to follow.
Now, far be it from me to christen 1984's The Terminator and 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day as perfect films. If I had to, then I could probably pony up a few issues that I had with each of the flicks separately ... but collectively? Well, when you look at them together, they're actually a pretty awesome one-two punch to introduce an incredible franchise to the worlds of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Aren't they though? Aren't they just about the best first and second films in any intellectual property out there today? Certainly, they're among the rare air, and I believe most folks -- even people who aren't exactly fans specifically of SciFi -- would likely agree.
So, again, I say, "Perfection is a hard act to follow."
In some respects, I think Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines was destined to fail. Coming on the heels of that one-two punch, how could anything truly reach for the bar that was set so damn high? I don't say this in any way to fault the efforts put forth by director Jonathan Mostow, any of the attached screenwriters, or even the cast and crew. At some point, an entry was bound to miss the mark; and seeing that creator James Cameron had left to pursue other projects then maybe -- just maybe -- Rise had an uphill battle that not even a T-800 could climb.
Also, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that -- unlike so many fans of the franchise -- I'm actually quite fond of Rise. Hate me if you must, but I thought the film -- in its conclusion -- delivered a kinda/sorta perfect coda to the property, showing its characters that despite how hard you might work to change the fate of the planet you very well might be doomed anyway. Wasn't it Jeff Goldblum's line that warned each and every one of us (in Jurassic Park) that life (or nature) finds a way? Well, in the case of Rise, I'd like to think that the universe found a way to reach out and strike back against the Terminator, the Connor family, and anyone else who dared to take a chance.
And, of course, I'm well aware of the backlash I may suffer for saying such a thing. When you do offer a position that the majority of fans disagree with, they tend to rise up, call you names, and look at you like you shot their dog. Mind you: I never said -- nor would I ever imply -- that Rise is the best in all of the Terminator series. I simply am saying that where it all went -- the finality of the flick's message -- resonated with me. Perhaps it's that I'm a bit older than most. Perhaps it's that I do tend to gravitate toward darker material. Whatever the case, I liked it, and I thought it set up the property for a great new direction ... but we've never seen a legitimate follow-up in that respect. I will give you that.
Now, far be it from me to christen 1984's The Terminator and 1991's Terminator 2: Judgment Day as perfect films. If I had to, then I could probably pony up a few issues that I had with each of the flicks separately ... but collectively? Well, when you look at them together, they're actually a pretty awesome one-two punch to introduce an incredible franchise to the worlds of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Aren't they though? Aren't they just about the best first and second films in any intellectual property out there today? Certainly, they're among the rare air, and I believe most folks -- even people who aren't exactly fans specifically of SciFi -- would likely agree.
So, again, I say, "Perfection is a hard act to follow."
In some respects, I think Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines was destined to fail. Coming on the heels of that one-two punch, how could anything truly reach for the bar that was set so damn high? I don't say this in any way to fault the efforts put forth by director Jonathan Mostow, any of the attached screenwriters, or even the cast and crew. At some point, an entry was bound to miss the mark; and seeing that creator James Cameron had left to pursue other projects then maybe -- just maybe -- Rise had an uphill battle that not even a T-800 could climb.
Also, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention that -- unlike so many fans of the franchise -- I'm actually quite fond of Rise. Hate me if you must, but I thought the film -- in its conclusion -- delivered a kinda/sorta perfect coda to the property, showing its characters that despite how hard you might work to change the fate of the planet you very well might be doomed anyway. Wasn't it Jeff Goldblum's line that warned each and every one of us (in Jurassic Park) that life (or nature) finds a way? Well, in the case of Rise, I'd like to think that the universe found a way to reach out and strike back against the Terminator, the Connor family, and anyone else who dared to take a chance.
And, of course, I'm well aware of the backlash I may suffer for saying such a thing. When you do offer a position that the majority of fans disagree with, they tend to rise up, call you names, and look at you like you shot their dog. Mind you: I never said -- nor would I ever imply -- that Rise is the best in all of the Terminator series. I simply am saying that where it all went -- the finality of the flick's message -- resonated with me. Perhaps it's that I'm a bit older than most. Perhaps it's that I do tend to gravitate toward darker material. Whatever the case, I liked it, and I thought it set up the property for a great new direction ... but we've never seen a legitimate follow-up in that respect. I will give you that.
To the film's credit, its production details were largely very well regarded within the industry, and anyone interested can take a gander over at Rise's awards page to see that -- and its stunt work -- did create a bit noise during the wider professional community. That is no small feat, indeed.
As for what really matters to genre fans?
Well, the film earned an incredible four nominations (but no wins) at the 2004 Saturn Awards (which all of you ought to know by now is sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films. It's almost a given that the Terminator films draw nods in such categories as 'Best Make-Up' and 'Best Special Effects,' but Rise also earned relative newcomer Kristanna Loken a nomination in the category of 'Best Supporting Actress.' Lastly, the film -- as a whole -- earned a shot at 'Best Science Fiction Film,' but that title went out to -- cough cough -- X2: X-Men United.
As for what really matters to genre fans?
Well, the film earned an incredible four nominations (but no wins) at the 2004 Saturn Awards (which all of you ought to know by now is sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films. It's almost a given that the Terminator films draw nods in such categories as 'Best Make-Up' and 'Best Special Effects,' but Rise also earned relative newcomer Kristanna Loken a nomination in the category of 'Best Supporting Actress.' Lastly, the film -- as a whole -- earned a shot at 'Best Science Fiction Film,' but that title went out to -- cough cough -- X2: X-Men United.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
If I'm being perfectly honest with the readership, then I'd have to admit to never having all that much faith that 1995's screen incarnation was going to be that big of a hit for anyone involved.
I had read the comic book here and there, and I just didn't get into it all that much. I guess it was a character that showed promise -- so far as I cared -- but I didn't quite see Dredd with the face and/or the voice of Sly Stallone in my head when I read it. That little variable can produce an effect on moviegoers -- even fans of a particular property -- and I probably ended up seeing this one theatrically against my better judgment. Stallone had done well in Science Fiction before -- 1993's Demolition Man is a great popcorn flick -- so I went in anyway. Plus ... Diane Lane? Have I ever mentioned how lovely she is? Again: I didn't see her as being a great choice for one of the judges, but Diane Lane is still Diane Lane, and that likely brought me in as well.
Though I've never been much of a Rob Schneider fan, I thought he ended up being one of the bright spots in an otherwise dreary and formulaic affair. He brought some laughs and filled out the part of an affable enough screen sidekick, clearly playing against Stallone's straight-faced visage, and I guess it's best to be thankful for that small favor. Armand Assante is always worth viewing, and the delicious Joan Chen -- who won over fandom in no small fashion with her turn aboard TV's Twin Peaks -- rounded out the principles nicely enough.
Though I haven't seen this one in years, it's the kind of project that I kinda/sorta wonder if it had been both greenlit and fast-tracked because the Batman films had reinvigorated interest in comic book properties. With Stallone being a box office draw more often than not, perhaps it was some studio's desire to get him into that world as quickly and as painlessly as possible, with a search of intellectual properties coming up a bit slim with the exception of Dredd. Whatever the case may be, it just didn't quite work for me, and I'm not sure that the film has gained any fans in the passage of time.
I had read the comic book here and there, and I just didn't get into it all that much. I guess it was a character that showed promise -- so far as I cared -- but I didn't quite see Dredd with the face and/or the voice of Sly Stallone in my head when I read it. That little variable can produce an effect on moviegoers -- even fans of a particular property -- and I probably ended up seeing this one theatrically against my better judgment. Stallone had done well in Science Fiction before -- 1993's Demolition Man is a great popcorn flick -- so I went in anyway. Plus ... Diane Lane? Have I ever mentioned how lovely she is? Again: I didn't see her as being a great choice for one of the judges, but Diane Lane is still Diane Lane, and that likely brought me in as well.
Though I've never been much of a Rob Schneider fan, I thought he ended up being one of the bright spots in an otherwise dreary and formulaic affair. He brought some laughs and filled out the part of an affable enough screen sidekick, clearly playing against Stallone's straight-faced visage, and I guess it's best to be thankful for that small favor. Armand Assante is always worth viewing, and the delicious Joan Chen -- who won over fandom in no small fashion with her turn aboard TV's Twin Peaks -- rounded out the principles nicely enough.
Though I haven't seen this one in years, it's the kind of project that I kinda/sorta wonder if it had been both greenlit and fast-tracked because the Batman films had reinvigorated interest in comic book properties. With Stallone being a box office draw more often than not, perhaps it was some studio's desire to get him into that world as quickly and as painlessly as possible, with a search of intellectual properties coming up a bit slim with the exception of Dredd. Whatever the case may be, it just didn't quite work for me, and I'm not sure that the film has gained any fans in the passage of time.
In taking the good with the bad, Stallone has been involved in a handful of stinkers over the years, but Dredd didn't quite rise to that level. Still, those lovable knuckleheads at the Razzie Awards nominated him for their 1996 'Worst Actor,' but the Italian Stallion didn't go home with that trophy.
At the 1996 Saturn Awards (sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films), Judge Dredd enjoyed a solid four nominations -- 'Best Special Effects,' 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Costumes,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film' -- but all went home alone that evening ... well, so far as any of us know they went home alone, meaning no statues.
At the 1996 Saturn Awards (sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films), Judge Dredd enjoyed a solid four nominations -- 'Best Special Effects,' 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Costumes,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film' -- but all went home alone that evening ... well, so far as any of us know they went home alone, meaning no statues.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Ach. Some days, folks, it hurts to get outta bed and read the news.
Like a bunch of folks online this morning, I saw news of Alan Arkin's passing. Then -- after doing a bit of searching -- it honestly started to look like it might've been one of those nefarious Information Superhighway hoaxes that go 'round the world these days. But as of a few moments ago it does appear as if major news organizations have done the confirmation process, assuring those of us who read their space that the incredibly talented actor has shaken off his mortal coil.
My God, what an incredibly gifted actor this guy was. Just a quick glance at IMDB.com right now shows that -- throughout a storied career -- he'd built a resume of nearly 30 award wins (from a variety of organizations). With over one hundred screen appearances to his name, I think his genre credentials are a bit slim for you young Turks, but us old dogs have nothing but respect for this guy. We've truly lost a giant.
His first big immersion into Science Fiction was 1980's SciFi/Comedy Simon. Marshall Brickman wrote and directed Arkin in this story of a man who is brainwashed to believe he's in reality a being from another planet. While The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards nominated it in their category of 'Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy,' the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Awards still gave Arkin a nod in the category of 'Best Actor' for their 1981 Saturn Awards.
1983 saw the actor return to the SciFi/Comedy fold -- this time with a Musical -- when he joined co-star Christopher Lee in The Return Of Captain Invincible. Poking fun at aging superheroes, Arkin played for former Nazi hunter who comes out of retirement when Mr. Midnight (played by Lee) proves he isn't finished trying to destroy mankind just yet. While this one is largely a forgotten flick (so far as I can tell), it did garner a bit of praise while screening on the film festival circuit.
And speaking of superheroes? In 1991, Arkin appeared as part of a terrific ensemble aboard Walt Disney's adaptation of The Rocketeer. Though I found the film a bit half-baked, I did like the cast, and its effects work was definitely some of the best of their day. Every now and then, this is a property that gets floated around for either reboots or continuation, and I think that could be grand.
Perhaps the actor's biggest dip into something resembling pure Science Fiction was his turn as Detective Hugo aboard Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997). The film was a critical favorite, garnering an incredible amount of praise; and it did perform reasonably well at the box office. I'm not sure how well it has stood the test of time; come to think of it, even SciFi fans I'm friendly with never went ga-ga over it but found it worth the price of admission.
As I mentioned above, there's a solid library of work out there for folks to consider this weekend, maybe in some free time or the like. His was an almost effortless skill, and I think it deserves a bit of further recognition considering today's sad circumstances.
Our deepest thoughts and prayers are extended to the friends, family, and fans of Mr. Arkin. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
Like a bunch of folks online this morning, I saw news of Alan Arkin's passing. Then -- after doing a bit of searching -- it honestly started to look like it might've been one of those nefarious Information Superhighway hoaxes that go 'round the world these days. But as of a few moments ago it does appear as if major news organizations have done the confirmation process, assuring those of us who read their space that the incredibly talented actor has shaken off his mortal coil.
My God, what an incredibly gifted actor this guy was. Just a quick glance at IMDB.com right now shows that -- throughout a storied career -- he'd built a resume of nearly 30 award wins (from a variety of organizations). With over one hundred screen appearances to his name, I think his genre credentials are a bit slim for you young Turks, but us old dogs have nothing but respect for this guy. We've truly lost a giant.
His first big immersion into Science Fiction was 1980's SciFi/Comedy Simon. Marshall Brickman wrote and directed Arkin in this story of a man who is brainwashed to believe he's in reality a being from another planet. While The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards nominated it in their category of 'Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy,' the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Awards still gave Arkin a nod in the category of 'Best Actor' for their 1981 Saturn Awards.
1983 saw the actor return to the SciFi/Comedy fold -- this time with a Musical -- when he joined co-star Christopher Lee in The Return Of Captain Invincible. Poking fun at aging superheroes, Arkin played for former Nazi hunter who comes out of retirement when Mr. Midnight (played by Lee) proves he isn't finished trying to destroy mankind just yet. While this one is largely a forgotten flick (so far as I can tell), it did garner a bit of praise while screening on the film festival circuit.
And speaking of superheroes? In 1991, Arkin appeared as part of a terrific ensemble aboard Walt Disney's adaptation of The Rocketeer. Though I found the film a bit half-baked, I did like the cast, and its effects work was definitely some of the best of their day. Every now and then, this is a property that gets floated around for either reboots or continuation, and I think that could be grand.
Perhaps the actor's biggest dip into something resembling pure Science Fiction was his turn as Detective Hugo aboard Andrew Niccol's Gattaca (1997). The film was a critical favorite, garnering an incredible amount of praise; and it did perform reasonably well at the box office. I'm not sure how well it has stood the test of time; come to think of it, even SciFi fans I'm friendly with never went ga-ga over it but found it worth the price of admission.
As I mentioned above, there's a solid library of work out there for folks to consider this weekend, maybe in some free time or the like. His was an almost effortless skill, and I think it deserves a bit of further recognition considering today's sad circumstances.
Our deepest thoughts and prayers are extended to the friends, family, and fans of Mr. Arkin. May he forever rest in peace.
-- 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 kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A young boy learns that space aliens are taking over the minds of earthlings.”
But … does he though?
The answer is that this synopsis depends entirely on one’s perspective, and that, too, is based on which version of Invaders From Mars. Sorry, folks, but I’m not afraid to spoil the fact that Invaders – in the U.S. domestic release – is little more than a dream – the figment of a boy’s nighttime imagination – while the European cut adds scenes that tweak the ending to show that what takes place between the credits (as they say) was real and anything but a dream. While I have read some commentary (on the web) suggesting that the U.S. story may or may not have been a dream (the ending does try to have it both ways, depending upon one’s interpretation), I suspect anyone who really mulls over the flick reaches the conclusion that, yes, it was nothing more than the product of a slumbering mind.
Now, calm down, haters.
I’m in no way, shape, or form trying to diminish the impact that Invaders has had on filmdom or some of its most learned practitioners. I’ve nothing but respect for those who’ve both been influenced by it and then gone out and tried to do the same with their respective projects; what I’m trying to say above simply characterizes that the story as presented is open to interpretation. Though I’m admittedly not much a fan of tales that pull such last reel trickery, I can still see the scenes of greatness and obvious inspiration that director William Cameron Menzies squeezed into this slim epic. I just don’t see it as being the ‘slim epic’ others do, and I can tell you why.
Chiefly, Invaders is about as uneven a theatrical yarn as one can be. At an incredibly lean 73 minutes, it still contains a wealth of bloat – stock footage inserted by producers who needed it to justifiably be longer in order to be a legitimate theatrical feature – that vastly gets in the way of Menzies’ superior efforts. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that, ultimately, there’s a perfect 30-minute episode of The Twilight Zone snuggled in there; but I still can’t dismiss the never-ending and unnecessary procession of trucks and tanks and soldiers that kills the story’s central momentum every single time its used … and it’s used plenty.
Yes, yes, and yes: it’s easy to see why so many accomplished filmmakers were drawn to the work. Even a casual viewer watching with only one eye would have to be a complete dunderhead to miss the stylistic framing employed through several sequences. The alterations between warmth and cool between certain locations might send an obvious message to those who like those kinds of elements. Like a great painter, Menzies clearly went to great lengths to plan out each shot: though the man hasn’t been credited with inventing film storyboarding, it isn’t hard to see – even in this production – that he damn near perfected it. None of that excuses what inevitably happened to Invaders in post-production, however, and the story suffers as a consequence.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A young boy learns that space aliens are taking over the minds of earthlings.”
But … does he though?
The answer is that this synopsis depends entirely on one’s perspective, and that, too, is based on which version of Invaders From Mars. Sorry, folks, but I’m not afraid to spoil the fact that Invaders – in the U.S. domestic release – is little more than a dream – the figment of a boy’s nighttime imagination – while the European cut adds scenes that tweak the ending to show that what takes place between the credits (as they say) was real and anything but a dream. While I have read some commentary (on the web) suggesting that the U.S. story may or may not have been a dream (the ending does try to have it both ways, depending upon one’s interpretation), I suspect anyone who really mulls over the flick reaches the conclusion that, yes, it was nothing more than the product of a slumbering mind.
Now, calm down, haters.
I’m in no way, shape, or form trying to diminish the impact that Invaders has had on filmdom or some of its most learned practitioners. I’ve nothing but respect for those who’ve both been influenced by it and then gone out and tried to do the same with their respective projects; what I’m trying to say above simply characterizes that the story as presented is open to interpretation. Though I’m admittedly not much a fan of tales that pull such last reel trickery, I can still see the scenes of greatness and obvious inspiration that director William Cameron Menzies squeezed into this slim epic. I just don’t see it as being the ‘slim epic’ others do, and I can tell you why.
Chiefly, Invaders is about as uneven a theatrical yarn as one can be. At an incredibly lean 73 minutes, it still contains a wealth of bloat – stock footage inserted by producers who needed it to justifiably be longer in order to be a legitimate theatrical feature – that vastly gets in the way of Menzies’ superior efforts. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that, ultimately, there’s a perfect 30-minute episode of The Twilight Zone snuggled in there; but I still can’t dismiss the never-ending and unnecessary procession of trucks and tanks and soldiers that kills the story’s central momentum every single time its used … and it’s used plenty.
Yes, yes, and yes: it’s easy to see why so many accomplished filmmakers were drawn to the work. Even a casual viewer watching with only one eye would have to be a complete dunderhead to miss the stylistic framing employed through several sequences. The alterations between warmth and cool between certain locations might send an obvious message to those who like those kinds of elements. Like a great painter, Menzies clearly went to great lengths to plan out each shot: though the man hasn’t been credited with inventing film storyboarding, it isn’t hard to see – even in this production – that he damn near perfected it. None of that excuses what inevitably happened to Invaders in post-production, however, and the story suffers as a consequence.
So it’s grand that the feature can instead be remembered for kinda/sorta saying something about where we were as a people in the early 1950’s. The proliferation and expanse of the atomic age gave folks something to be truly frightened of – given that our species could’ve (and can still) faced an extinction level event in a matter of minutes – and it clearly fed into a great deal of film and television outings. While Invaders’ script – as crafted by Richard Blake and John Tucker Battle – never quite comes out and declares that voices of authority shouldn’t be trusted, it’s still crystal clear that they should minimally be questioned when pushing all of collectively toward doom. Not everyone is bad in here – the military does get some very positive treatment, a bit of a surprise since they were so closely tied in with the development of the bomb – and young David McLean (as played by Jimmy Hunt) perseveres to find someone who will ultimately listen to his cries for help.
The picture is one of the first that used what many dismiss nowadays as a Science Fiction trope: instead of doing the dirty work of destroying our world themselves, these Martians will takeover the brains of ordinary men and women, putting them to good, destructive use. Naturally, what young child wouldn’t be alarmed when all of a sudden his mother and father weren’t behaving like themselves, and the resulting paranoia fuels so very much of what David endures. It’s only after he’s fully incarcerated (yes, sitting in real jail cell) that he finds Dr. Pat Blake (Helena Carter) and Dr. Stuart Kelston (Arthur Franz) will not only hear him out but also verify what he’s saying might be true. Hopefully – with their help, too – young David can also have his juvenile record expunged.
From there, the U.S. military is called in, all rather easily if you ask me. Once Col. Fielding (Morris Ankrum) witnesses firsthand how victims are being pulled under the ground by the aliens, an electronic stem is implanted at the base of their brains, and they’re let loose to do the bidding of the curious overlord (she appears only as a head kept in a crystal glass globe), all bets are off. He marshals the full might of U.S. ground forces (let the aforementioned processions begin!) and orders his own invasion to counter the invasion originally begun by those dastardly Martians. Those of you who’ve rarely seen so much stock footage are in for a real treat.
Lastly, I’d be remiss if my duties if I failed to mention that Invaders scored a 1954 Hugo Awards nomination in the category of ‘Best Dramatic Presentation.’ Interestingly enough, the trophy actually went home with a similarly-themed but obviously bigger budget affair – George Pal’s seminal The War Of The Worlds. Lo and behold, Invaders was also up against Jack Arnold’s It Came From Outer Space in the competition. Think what you will, but I think that these three flicks showed mankind that somethin’ was most definitely headed toward Earth in our future, and like-minded fare still plays to pretty respectable box office returns decades later.
Invaders From Mars (1953) was produced by Edward L. Alperson Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Ignite Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. This brand new 4K restoration – restored from the original camera negative and master positives – looks and sounds incredible. Yes, there’s a fair amount of grain here and there, but I suspect this is owed chiefly to flaws in the source material. As for the special features? The 4K release boasts several interviews with some notable participants reflecting upon the film’s enduring legacy along with a brief short examining the restoration process. Furthermore, there’s a gallery, theatrical trailers, and product packaging that includes a 20-page collector’s booklet with pictures and an essay on the restoration.
Recommended.
No, I’m not as enamored with Invaders From Mars (1953) as are so many. The feature suffers from far too much extraneous material for my tastes, and I’d even argue with those who insist some of it needed to be there. (Frankly, it didn’t.) The performances are interesting, at best, and the effects work – what little there is – is only passable compared to some of what was taking place in other pictures of the day. I do respect how the film both introduced and handled so many of Science Fiction’s cinematic tropes – many of which are likely the source of laughter these days – but I can appreciate how being the first to try some of this might not mean you were the best at it.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Ignite Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Invaders From Mars (1953) for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
The picture is one of the first that used what many dismiss nowadays as a Science Fiction trope: instead of doing the dirty work of destroying our world themselves, these Martians will takeover the brains of ordinary men and women, putting them to good, destructive use. Naturally, what young child wouldn’t be alarmed when all of a sudden his mother and father weren’t behaving like themselves, and the resulting paranoia fuels so very much of what David endures. It’s only after he’s fully incarcerated (yes, sitting in real jail cell) that he finds Dr. Pat Blake (Helena Carter) and Dr. Stuart Kelston (Arthur Franz) will not only hear him out but also verify what he’s saying might be true. Hopefully – with their help, too – young David can also have his juvenile record expunged.
From there, the U.S. military is called in, all rather easily if you ask me. Once Col. Fielding (Morris Ankrum) witnesses firsthand how victims are being pulled under the ground by the aliens, an electronic stem is implanted at the base of their brains, and they’re let loose to do the bidding of the curious overlord (she appears only as a head kept in a crystal glass globe), all bets are off. He marshals the full might of U.S. ground forces (let the aforementioned processions begin!) and orders his own invasion to counter the invasion originally begun by those dastardly Martians. Those of you who’ve rarely seen so much stock footage are in for a real treat.
Lastly, I’d be remiss if my duties if I failed to mention that Invaders scored a 1954 Hugo Awards nomination in the category of ‘Best Dramatic Presentation.’ Interestingly enough, the trophy actually went home with a similarly-themed but obviously bigger budget affair – George Pal’s seminal The War Of The Worlds. Lo and behold, Invaders was also up against Jack Arnold’s It Came From Outer Space in the competition. Think what you will, but I think that these three flicks showed mankind that somethin’ was most definitely headed toward Earth in our future, and like-minded fare still plays to pretty respectable box office returns decades later.
Invaders From Mars (1953) was produced by Edward L. Alperson Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Ignite Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. This brand new 4K restoration – restored from the original camera negative and master positives – looks and sounds incredible. Yes, there’s a fair amount of grain here and there, but I suspect this is owed chiefly to flaws in the source material. As for the special features? The 4K release boasts several interviews with some notable participants reflecting upon the film’s enduring legacy along with a brief short examining the restoration process. Furthermore, there’s a gallery, theatrical trailers, and product packaging that includes a 20-page collector’s booklet with pictures and an essay on the restoration.
Recommended.
No, I’m not as enamored with Invaders From Mars (1953) as are so many. The feature suffers from far too much extraneous material for my tastes, and I’d even argue with those who insist some of it needed to be there. (Frankly, it didn’t.) The performances are interesting, at best, and the effects work – what little there is – is only passable compared to some of what was taking place in other pictures of the day. I do respect how the film both introduced and handled so many of Science Fiction’s cinematic tropes – many of which are likely the source of laughter these days – but I can appreciate how being the first to try some of this might not mean you were the best at it.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Ignite Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Invaders From Mars (1953) 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
Ah, the quintessential crime drama!
While there might be hundreds if not thousands of really great crime dramas out there, I suspect that the truly best examinations of the shenanigans of the guilty are slim in number. Audiences and critics have long ago proclaimed Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather saga to among the top contenders, but I’ve no problem admitting that it just didn’t endear me the way other projects have. And then, of course, you have practically anything that emerged from the efforts of Martin Scorsese; as much as I appreciate a few of his big pictures, I do so love his American Prohibition series Boardwalk Empire and consider it among the crème de la crème. Naturally, there are more – productions from the great Michael Mann, David Fincher, and even Alfred Hitchcock – but as always I do tend to leave the ultimate choice up to you, the reader: I’m not here to tell you what to like, and I prefer just pointing you in the direction of something worthwhile.
In fairness, I haven’t seen all that many foreign crime flicks. I have seen a good number – the stuff from John Woo is particularly interesting, yet I do prefer Johnnie To’s library over many American storytellers – but I’m always on the lookout for something to reinvigorate the desire. Having only recently been treated to the greatness that was Hideo Gosha’s samurai films, I was pleased to also receive an all-new restoration of the writer/director’s Violent Streets. As I’d never heard of it (again, no surprise), I did a bit of research before sitting down with it, and I’m glad I did: my extended reading really served as a solid primer on things to look for in the picture, enhancing my enjoyment of this one greatly. Come the end of it – along with a second screening for clarity’s sake – it’s easily risen to the crop of being one of my favorite discoveries this year.
Let me tell you why after the break.
(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 retired yakuza is caught in the middle of a growing conflict between two rival clans.”
While there might be hundreds if not thousands of really great crime dramas out there, I suspect that the truly best examinations of the shenanigans of the guilty are slim in number. Audiences and critics have long ago proclaimed Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather saga to among the top contenders, but I’ve no problem admitting that it just didn’t endear me the way other projects have. And then, of course, you have practically anything that emerged from the efforts of Martin Scorsese; as much as I appreciate a few of his big pictures, I do so love his American Prohibition series Boardwalk Empire and consider it among the crème de la crème. Naturally, there are more – productions from the great Michael Mann, David Fincher, and even Alfred Hitchcock – but as always I do tend to leave the ultimate choice up to you, the reader: I’m not here to tell you what to like, and I prefer just pointing you in the direction of something worthwhile.
In fairness, I haven’t seen all that many foreign crime flicks. I have seen a good number – the stuff from John Woo is particularly interesting, yet I do prefer Johnnie To’s library over many American storytellers – but I’m always on the lookout for something to reinvigorate the desire. Having only recently been treated to the greatness that was Hideo Gosha’s samurai films, I was pleased to also receive an all-new restoration of the writer/director’s Violent Streets. As I’d never heard of it (again, no surprise), I did a bit of research before sitting down with it, and I’m glad I did: my extended reading really served as a solid primer on things to look for in the picture, enhancing my enjoyment of this one greatly. Come the end of it – along with a second screening for clarity’s sake – it’s easily risen to the crop of being one of my favorite discoveries this year.
Let me tell you why after the break.
(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 retired yakuza is caught in the middle of a growing conflict between two rival clans.”
There are a few things one can expect going into any crime story if it involves older gangsters.
First, you can bet most of these old timers will be played to simmering greatness. At their age, they’re used to getting far more done with a steely-eyed glare than anything else. That might be a bit more hard-boiled than most folks like, but – as many will say – it is what it is.
Second, you can be sure that these old dogs won’t be all that enamored with the way crime and its young purveyors have evolved. Older men and women always have an expressed fondness for the way things used to be, and this fuels a good deal of their observed angst.
Finally, you can – without a doubt – expect that the main plot and possibly a good deal of the subplots will revolve around the concept of r-e-s-p-e-c-t. It’ll be in short supply – especially in a tale that traffics in ‘final respects’ that way crime dramas do – and that, too, will make for some great reflection.
Some in the viewing audience will find these universal themes to be little more than storytelling cliches, but – despite such reservations – they’re merely part of what makes a life of bad deeds into the experience that it is. Yes, I suppose the way some of these elements get so intricately woven into the plot and dialogue that they do run the risk of being lesser tropes at times; and yet it wouldn’t be even a serviceable crime drama if it ignored these staples. This is why audiences come to such tales in the first place – a meager but acceptable list of expectations, if you ask me – so buckle up, batten down, and be quiet … as the film’s about to begin.
Gosha’s Violent Streets is no different in that regard. It’s a sometimes bloody, sometimes vicious, and sometimes reflective yarn about the old meeting the new and the inevitable collision of worlds in conflict. It has tough men, bitter women, plenty of gunplay, and a wealth of nuanced deception on the part of its expansive cast. And – like any crime drama – audiences pretty much recognize the narrative structure for what it is – a necessary evil – and they might even know (or be able to predict) just how it’s all going to unfurl, mostly because every bad guy worth his weight in salt only goes down fighting in a hail of bullets. That doesn’t spoil the ending, per se, because there’s plenty more to think about before the credits roll.
First, you can bet most of these old timers will be played to simmering greatness. At their age, they’re used to getting far more done with a steely-eyed glare than anything else. That might be a bit more hard-boiled than most folks like, but – as many will say – it is what it is.
Second, you can be sure that these old dogs won’t be all that enamored with the way crime and its young purveyors have evolved. Older men and women always have an expressed fondness for the way things used to be, and this fuels a good deal of their observed angst.
Finally, you can – without a doubt – expect that the main plot and possibly a good deal of the subplots will revolve around the concept of r-e-s-p-e-c-t. It’ll be in short supply – especially in a tale that traffics in ‘final respects’ that way crime dramas do – and that, too, will make for some great reflection.
Some in the viewing audience will find these universal themes to be little more than storytelling cliches, but – despite such reservations – they’re merely part of what makes a life of bad deeds into the experience that it is. Yes, I suppose the way some of these elements get so intricately woven into the plot and dialogue that they do run the risk of being lesser tropes at times; and yet it wouldn’t be even a serviceable crime drama if it ignored these staples. This is why audiences come to such tales in the first place – a meager but acceptable list of expectations, if you ask me – so buckle up, batten down, and be quiet … as the film’s about to begin.
Gosha’s Violent Streets is no different in that regard. It’s a sometimes bloody, sometimes vicious, and sometimes reflective yarn about the old meeting the new and the inevitable collision of worlds in conflict. It has tough men, bitter women, plenty of gunplay, and a wealth of nuanced deception on the part of its expansive cast. And – like any crime drama – audiences pretty much recognize the narrative structure for what it is – a necessary evil – and they might even know (or be able to predict) just how it’s all going to unfurl, mostly because every bad guy worth his weight in salt only goes down fighting in a hail of bullets. That doesn’t spoil the ending, per se, because there’s plenty more to think about before the credits roll.
Honestly, there’s far more to this crime saga than the stewards at IMDB.com would have you believe, and – quite frankly – I found it the kind of thing that I could write about over and over. Symbolism and other storytelling trickery were part of Gosha’s techniques, and what you and I think that barking dogs, clucking chickens, or an army of lifeless mannequins might mean will likely differ. (Trust me: you’ll understand when you watch it.) Yes, the backbone of it is that Violent Streets is an obvious rumination on gang violence of its day, but there’s much more to this than just what meets the eye. Ultimately, what matters to me is the film’s central message, that being change begats violence begats change, and it rolls forever onward in a never-ending close of the new displaces the old up until we all take the inevitable dirt nap.
That may sound a bit dour to some, but it’s pretty much a staple for any film involving aged or aging gangsters, of which Violent Streets most definitely applies. Egawa (played wonderfully by gangster-turned-actor Noboru Andô) finds himself once more on the outs with Togiku Group, a band of yakuza he served alongside in the past. Sometime back then, he did the honorably thing of ‘taking the fall’ to preserve the criminal organization. Upon his prison release, his chosen retirement from a life of crime was nonetheless rewarded with the gift of a nightclub from the group, and he’s spent much of his golden years turning ‘The Madrid’ into a local sensation. But when mob boss Gohara (Shigeji Takada) decides the club could today be better used as a bargaining chip with his encroaching rivals, Egawa ultimately realizes his only way out might very well be a return to violence.
So, indeed, Violent Streets is not without ample violence, and – much like in reality – it takes many shapes and sizes. There’s bloodshed, murders, fistfights, rape, double crosses, and a little bit more sprinkled wonderfully across its 96-minute run time, giving connoisseurs of crime dramas plenty of action to mull over. But perhaps a bit more than that, Streets works as a message film about how change inevitably leads to violence. It always leads to human consequences. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But as constant as change is in this game of life, so will the bloody responses of those who resist it taking a foothold. Of that, there can be no mistake.
Egawa left behind a life of crime, having grown weary of the toll it took on him and those around him. Doing so meant that his girlfriend (Miyoko Akazi) would have little choice but to move on, eventually marrying Gohara in the process. The resulting change – managing a night club in the heart of contested territory – has not only meant he’d have to return to a life of bloodshed (we see him throwing out some gangsters in the film’s opening) but also taking up relations with an alcoholic club waitress Akiko (Maki Kawamura). Their romance results in bouts of Egawa slapping her around (in private) and forcing himself upon her, though we’re led to believe this is their normal coupling technique. So it’s very clear that change has truly only brought the man more violence.
But this is a thread – change causing violence – that dangles at each and every opportunity throughout the film.
Some in Egawa’s employ are working secretly to force all-out gang war between the Togiku Group and their enemy, the Western Japan Alliance. Attempting to force such a conflict, however, begins exacting a heavy price on each of them as both sides begin to suspect something a bit more nefarious might be afoot. (Change leads to violence.) In the process, one of Egawa’s men accidentally strangles to death a TV starlet they’ve kidnapped in a ploy to indict their gang rivals. (Again, change leads to violence.) A two-man hit squad – one gangster and his cross-dressing, blade-wielding counterpart – begin offing them in a search to recover the ransom money in a scam gone bad. (Even more change leads to even more violence.) The inclusion of a transvestite stage performer leading a secret life of crime as an assassin – a faux woman in a world formerly occupied almost solely by men – underscored just how deeply change was running in Japan of the early 1970’s, and the violence followed suit accordingly.
That may sound a bit dour to some, but it’s pretty much a staple for any film involving aged or aging gangsters, of which Violent Streets most definitely applies. Egawa (played wonderfully by gangster-turned-actor Noboru Andô) finds himself once more on the outs with Togiku Group, a band of yakuza he served alongside in the past. Sometime back then, he did the honorably thing of ‘taking the fall’ to preserve the criminal organization. Upon his prison release, his chosen retirement from a life of crime was nonetheless rewarded with the gift of a nightclub from the group, and he’s spent much of his golden years turning ‘The Madrid’ into a local sensation. But when mob boss Gohara (Shigeji Takada) decides the club could today be better used as a bargaining chip with his encroaching rivals, Egawa ultimately realizes his only way out might very well be a return to violence.
So, indeed, Violent Streets is not without ample violence, and – much like in reality – it takes many shapes and sizes. There’s bloodshed, murders, fistfights, rape, double crosses, and a little bit more sprinkled wonderfully across its 96-minute run time, giving connoisseurs of crime dramas plenty of action to mull over. But perhaps a bit more than that, Streets works as a message film about how change inevitably leads to violence. It always leads to human consequences. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But as constant as change is in this game of life, so will the bloody responses of those who resist it taking a foothold. Of that, there can be no mistake.
Egawa left behind a life of crime, having grown weary of the toll it took on him and those around him. Doing so meant that his girlfriend (Miyoko Akazi) would have little choice but to move on, eventually marrying Gohara in the process. The resulting change – managing a night club in the heart of contested territory – has not only meant he’d have to return to a life of bloodshed (we see him throwing out some gangsters in the film’s opening) but also taking up relations with an alcoholic club waitress Akiko (Maki Kawamura). Their romance results in bouts of Egawa slapping her around (in private) and forcing himself upon her, though we’re led to believe this is their normal coupling technique. So it’s very clear that change has truly only brought the man more violence.
But this is a thread – change causing violence – that dangles at each and every opportunity throughout the film.
Some in Egawa’s employ are working secretly to force all-out gang war between the Togiku Group and their enemy, the Western Japan Alliance. Attempting to force such a conflict, however, begins exacting a heavy price on each of them as both sides begin to suspect something a bit more nefarious might be afoot. (Change leads to violence.) In the process, one of Egawa’s men accidentally strangles to death a TV starlet they’ve kidnapped in a ploy to indict their gang rivals. (Again, change leads to violence.) A two-man hit squad – one gangster and his cross-dressing, blade-wielding counterpart – begin offing them in a search to recover the ransom money in a scam gone bad. (Even more change leads to even more violence.) The inclusion of a transvestite stage performer leading a secret life of crime as an assassin – a faux woman in a world formerly occupied almost solely by men – underscored just how deeply change was running in Japan of the early 1970’s, and the violence followed suit accordingly.
Writer/director Hideo Gosha concocts a legendary meditation on the cycle of cause-and-effect, crafting it much like a tree grows roots that might stretch in any conceivable direction. No matter what one does, there’s just no escaping this certainty of change leading to violence on these Violent Streets. In Gosha’s world, there’s very little difference between allies and enemies because progress can – in a moment’s notice – turn friend against friend, foe against foe, and brother against brother. In even the flick’s closing confrontation, we’re reminded of that simple truth: Egawa and his one-time confidante Yazaki (Akira Kobayashi) are swept up in the frenzy of trying to kill one another when a battalion of gunmen from their rivals storm the showdown. In the big finish, change steals even the duo’s thunder as both are brought down with a hail of bullets.
Violent Streets (1974) was produced by Toei Tokyo. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good folks at Film Movement. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds within were very, very good: some of the early scenes appeared to be a bit washed over, so the highs and lows don’t quite pop as well as they could perhaps with a better remastering in the future? Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a twenty-minute short with Tomoe Gosha (the director’s daughter) along with a video essay by film fanatic Patrick Macias. Lastly, the product packaging includes a 16-page booklet with an essay from Japanese film expert Mark Schilling. It’s a good collection, but honestly I would’ve loved a commentary track as there’s just so much in the film worth talking about.
Highly recommended.
Simply put, Violent Streets is a winner. I’ve read that Hideo Gosha’s crime thriller wasn’t theatrically popular in its day, but it’s gone on to craft an impressive cult following over the years. There’s a lot of style and polish wrapped up in here – along with some incredible performances that deserve more print than I could ever commit to them – and I strongly encourage those of you who have access to watching this one give it a go. Dismiss the usual blemishes that kinda/sorta go with the times, and you’ll likely find it one of the finer bad guys vs bad guys features you’ve come across in ages.
Old gangsters never die. They just reload.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Film Movement provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Violent Streets (1974) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. This contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Violent Streets (1974) was produced by Toei Tokyo. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good folks at Film Movement. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds within were very, very good: some of the early scenes appeared to be a bit washed over, so the highs and lows don’t quite pop as well as they could perhaps with a better remastering in the future? Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a twenty-minute short with Tomoe Gosha (the director’s daughter) along with a video essay by film fanatic Patrick Macias. Lastly, the product packaging includes a 16-page booklet with an essay from Japanese film expert Mark Schilling. It’s a good collection, but honestly I would’ve loved a commentary track as there’s just so much in the film worth talking about.
Highly recommended.
Simply put, Violent Streets is a winner. I’ve read that Hideo Gosha’s crime thriller wasn’t theatrically popular in its day, but it’s gone on to craft an impressive cult following over the years. There’s a lot of style and polish wrapped up in here – along with some incredible performances that deserve more print than I could ever commit to them – and I strongly encourage those of you who have access to watching this one give it a go. Dismiss the usual blemishes that kinda/sorta go with the times, and you’ll likely find it one of the finer bad guys vs bad guys features you’ve come across in ages.
Old gangsters never die. They just reload.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Film Movement provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Violent Streets (1974) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. This contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Ach. Sometimes, it just doesn't pay to be an entertainment reporter.
When news broke back in and around January, 2023 about how actor Julian Sands had disappeared while hiking, I think it's safe to say that many of us feared the worst. Time went by -- as it inevitably does -- and there was no update on the man, so I think those dark thoughts only got a bit more prominent, though unspoken. Alas, word reached us yesterday that his remains were ultimately found -- thank goodness -- but it was as we had feared, and the talented soul had left our world for whatever awaits beyond.
A tall and lean fellow, Sands was particularly effective -- according to his bio on IMDB.com -- in thrillers and Horror, a realm many of us appreciate. A rundown of his professional citations shows that to be true, but he could also do great things in contemporary dramas as well as achieve some wonderful results in voice acting, making his potential boundless.
As for his genre credentials?
While he slipped in a few smaller roles before Warlock (1989), I think most fans recognize the foray into the fantastic from New World Pictures as being his true introduction to Horror. It's a role he returned to in 1993 -- with Warlock: The Armageddon -- where the stakes were raised to include, apparently, all of mankind in the process.
In 1996, he played Ken, a man who came from the future to save the past aboard the SciFi telefilm The Tomorrow Man, sharing the small screen with Giancarlo Esposito, Craig Wasson, and Sydney Walsh. I thought I'd once read that the telefilm was actually the pilot for a television series, but I'm not seeing any indications of that on IMDB.com today, so I could be mistaken.
In 1998, genre legend Dario Argento cast sands to play the seminal 'Phantom' aboard a somewhat bloodier incarnation of The Phantom Of The Opera than its author Gaston Leroux likely ever intended. While a bit luscious visually, the film -- so far as I'm concerned -- is little more than a Horror-flavored period piece, but Sands still turns in a good performance.
In 2005, he joined the TV juggernaut that was the wide, wide world of Stargate for a single episode. However, it was a role he reprised in 2008's Stargate: The Ark Of Truth, one of two telefilms that were produced to round out the popular show's run on television.
And -- dare I miss this one? -- he even joined TV's Smallville for a few episodes, bringing audiences another winning version of Jor-El, Superman's Kryptonian father.
There are more -- many more, in fact -- and I encourage folks to surf on over to the man's IMDB.com page (link) for the full rundown of the man's incredible 156 different screen credits, including some voicework in the world of animation and gaming. He leaves behind an impressive body of work, and maybe there's a little 'something something' from his background that'll tickle your fancy with a good memory today. Wherever he's at, maybe that'll even bring a smile to his wise face.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the friends, family, and fans of Julian Sands. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
When news broke back in and around January, 2023 about how actor Julian Sands had disappeared while hiking, I think it's safe to say that many of us feared the worst. Time went by -- as it inevitably does -- and there was no update on the man, so I think those dark thoughts only got a bit more prominent, though unspoken. Alas, word reached us yesterday that his remains were ultimately found -- thank goodness -- but it was as we had feared, and the talented soul had left our world for whatever awaits beyond.
A tall and lean fellow, Sands was particularly effective -- according to his bio on IMDB.com -- in thrillers and Horror, a realm many of us appreciate. A rundown of his professional citations shows that to be true, but he could also do great things in contemporary dramas as well as achieve some wonderful results in voice acting, making his potential boundless.
As for his genre credentials?
While he slipped in a few smaller roles before Warlock (1989), I think most fans recognize the foray into the fantastic from New World Pictures as being his true introduction to Horror. It's a role he returned to in 1993 -- with Warlock: The Armageddon -- where the stakes were raised to include, apparently, all of mankind in the process.
In 1996, he played Ken, a man who came from the future to save the past aboard the SciFi telefilm The Tomorrow Man, sharing the small screen with Giancarlo Esposito, Craig Wasson, and Sydney Walsh. I thought I'd once read that the telefilm was actually the pilot for a television series, but I'm not seeing any indications of that on IMDB.com today, so I could be mistaken.
In 1998, genre legend Dario Argento cast sands to play the seminal 'Phantom' aboard a somewhat bloodier incarnation of The Phantom Of The Opera than its author Gaston Leroux likely ever intended. While a bit luscious visually, the film -- so far as I'm concerned -- is little more than a Horror-flavored period piece, but Sands still turns in a good performance.
In 2005, he joined the TV juggernaut that was the wide, wide world of Stargate for a single episode. However, it was a role he reprised in 2008's Stargate: The Ark Of Truth, one of two telefilms that were produced to round out the popular show's run on television.
And -- dare I miss this one? -- he even joined TV's Smallville for a few episodes, bringing audiences another winning version of Jor-El, Superman's Kryptonian father.
There are more -- many more, in fact -- and I encourage folks to surf on over to the man's IMDB.com page (link) for the full rundown of the man's incredible 156 different screen credits, including some voicework in the world of animation and gaming. He leaves behind an impressive body of work, and maybe there's a little 'something something' from his background that'll tickle your fancy with a good memory today. Wherever he's at, maybe that'll even bring a smile to his wise face.
Thoughts and prayers are extended to the friends, family, and fans of Julian Sands. May he forever rest in peace.
-- EZ