- Published on
1957’s Curse Of The Demon is a Horror/Fantasy that’s honestly come up an awful lot in my genre reading over the years. I’ve read accounts from critics who’ve dubbed this curious little oddity one of the better outings of the 1950’s; and – while I’d stop short of giving it that high praise – I do think it’s a film worth seeing, even if only taking in its brief magic and mystery on only a single occasion. In some ways, the script feels like a 50’s era episode of Fox TV’s incredible The X-Files, though it certainly lacks the dynamic duo polish shepherded by FBI Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.
What does it have in their place?
Well, how about one of the more popular photogenic leading men of his era, Dana Andrews? In the role of Dr. John Holden, Andrews is on his way to a paranormal psychology convention in England where he’ll serve as the chief debunker to phenomenon that may or may not be going bump in the night. (These things always have a conventional explanation, don’t you know?) In his quest to uncover just what dark fate may’ve befallen a fellow researcher, Holden teams up with the man’s niece, Joanna Harrington (played by a comely Peggy Cummins). After she convinces him that something sinister may be afoot, the two will race against the clock to unravel the mystery as it would appear that Holden’s immortal soul might very well depend on it.
(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:
“American professor John Holden arrives in London for a parapsychology conference, only to find himself investigating the mysterious actions of Devil-worshiper Julian Karswell.”
Having thought about, talked about, and written about films since the 1980’s, I really have butted heads with an incredible number of folks over the years. I’ve always found it fabulous to share my love of the cinema with so many, many people. While I may not always have the same opinion of a project that they do, I hope that they’ve appreciated that I take my love of film very seriously … but I rarely, if ever, take my particular assessment of any picture as being definitive. We’re all allowed to like what we like; that’s just the way I’m wired.
What does it have in their place?
Well, how about one of the more popular photogenic leading men of his era, Dana Andrews? In the role of Dr. John Holden, Andrews is on his way to a paranormal psychology convention in England where he’ll serve as the chief debunker to phenomenon that may or may not be going bump in the night. (These things always have a conventional explanation, don’t you know?) In his quest to uncover just what dark fate may’ve befallen a fellow researcher, Holden teams up with the man’s niece, Joanna Harrington (played by a comely Peggy Cummins). After she convinces him that something sinister may be afoot, the two will race against the clock to unravel the mystery as it would appear that Holden’s immortal soul might very well depend on it.
(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:
“American professor John Holden arrives in London for a parapsychology conference, only to find himself investigating the mysterious actions of Devil-worshiper Julian Karswell.”
Having thought about, talked about, and written about films since the 1980’s, I really have butted heads with an incredible number of folks over the years. I’ve always found it fabulous to share my love of the cinema with so many, many people. While I may not always have the same opinion of a project that they do, I hope that they’ve appreciated that I take my love of film very seriously … but I rarely, if ever, take my particular assessment of any picture as being definitive. We’re all allowed to like what we like; that’s just the way I’m wired.
Still, I’ve found it challenging to come across fans who appreciate older flicks as much as I do. Certainly categories – like Science Fiction and Horror, for example – haven’t quite aged well; and the general consensus of today’s audience is that scary projects of the 1940’s and 1950’s just aren’t all that … well … frightening. These storytellers in many cases were constrained to the limitations of the special effects craftsmen and women of those eras, so I can appreciate that maybe these pictures just don’t age well. Balancing one’s likes and dislikes against the reality that many behind-the-scenes technicians truly had to invent their special effects helps me appreciate what the storytellers were trying to accomplish, and I suspect that’s largely why I have a bit more patience and fondness for the work than others.
As I mentioned above, Curse Of The Demon is a film that comes up quite often in my research. Having now sat and watched the entire affair on my DVR I think I can fully understand why.
The shooting script – as crafted by Charles Bennett and Hal E. Chester – is actually an adaptation of “Casting The Runes,” a tale by M.R. James (aka Montague R. James). From what I’ve discovered on Wikipedia.org, “Casting” was a short story published in a collection of them all the way back in 1911. Without dissecting the particulars, it does appear as if the screenplay truly sticks to the premise of that original tale and goes in slightly different direction as to how the associated ‘curse’ plays out between its characters. Wiki also reports that the short story has been adapted a few times for British television as well as undergoing a few different radio dramatizations as well.
But evolving from literature might be Curse’s greatest strength: it gives its various characters vastly more depth than other filmed haunts of the day, and the script takes the audience logically through its creepy vibe of with natural and nuanced progression.
Furthermore, director Jacques Tourneur is no intellectual lightweight here. As a storytelling steward, his career to this point had already garnered him two Hugo Award nominations: he enjoyed a nomination in 1943 in the category of ‘Best Dramatic Presentation – Short Form’ for bringing Cat People (1942) to the silver screen, and he backed that effort up only one year later with a 1944 nomination (in the same category) for his work on I Walked With A Zombie (1943). IMDB.com reports that Curse Of The Demon would eventually go on to garner him a bit of praise from a screening at the Faro Island Film Festival, but I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself in that respect. I’m also aware of Tourneur as the director of the film noir Out Of The Past (1947) with Robert Mitchum, Jane Greer, and Kirk Douglas. (While that one clearly isn’t of the SciFi and Fantasy variety, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that it’s one of my all-time film favorites as well.)
From what I’ve read elsewhere, I recall that Tourneur was opposed to showing Curse’s central monster on the silver screen. I believe his position on this (going from memory) is that he didn’t believe that such a creature was necessary and might even be a distraction from the story’s central questioning of whether or not the alleged curse was real or merely a creation of circumstances. The director has even been quoted on record (per Wikipedia.org) as insisting that the scenes created with the lumbering gruesome giant were done without his participation; though there’s ample evidence to suggest that may not have been the case, I can still understand how anyone in his position may’ve assumed that more suggestion and less spectacle makes for a superb thriller.
As I mentioned above, Curse Of The Demon is a film that comes up quite often in my research. Having now sat and watched the entire affair on my DVR I think I can fully understand why.
The shooting script – as crafted by Charles Bennett and Hal E. Chester – is actually an adaptation of “Casting The Runes,” a tale by M.R. James (aka Montague R. James). From what I’ve discovered on Wikipedia.org, “Casting” was a short story published in a collection of them all the way back in 1911. Without dissecting the particulars, it does appear as if the screenplay truly sticks to the premise of that original tale and goes in slightly different direction as to how the associated ‘curse’ plays out between its characters. Wiki also reports that the short story has been adapted a few times for British television as well as undergoing a few different radio dramatizations as well.
But evolving from literature might be Curse’s greatest strength: it gives its various characters vastly more depth than other filmed haunts of the day, and the script takes the audience logically through its creepy vibe of with natural and nuanced progression.
Furthermore, director Jacques Tourneur is no intellectual lightweight here. As a storytelling steward, his career to this point had already garnered him two Hugo Award nominations: he enjoyed a nomination in 1943 in the category of ‘Best Dramatic Presentation – Short Form’ for bringing Cat People (1942) to the silver screen, and he backed that effort up only one year later with a 1944 nomination (in the same category) for his work on I Walked With A Zombie (1943). IMDB.com reports that Curse Of The Demon would eventually go on to garner him a bit of praise from a screening at the Faro Island Film Festival, but I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself in that respect. I’m also aware of Tourneur as the director of the film noir Out Of The Past (1947) with Robert Mitchum, Jane Greer, and Kirk Douglas. (While that one clearly isn’t of the SciFi and Fantasy variety, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that it’s one of my all-time film favorites as well.)
From what I’ve read elsewhere, I recall that Tourneur was opposed to showing Curse’s central monster on the silver screen. I believe his position on this (going from memory) is that he didn’t believe that such a creature was necessary and might even be a distraction from the story’s central questioning of whether or not the alleged curse was real or merely a creation of circumstances. The director has even been quoted on record (per Wikipedia.org) as insisting that the scenes created with the lumbering gruesome giant were done without his participation; though there’s ample evidence to suggest that may not have been the case, I can still understand how anyone in his position may’ve assumed that more suggestion and less spectacle makes for a superb thriller.
Essentially, the monster’s arrival properly bookends this tale – it’s present in the opening, and it shows up in even greater glory in the last reel. Any speculation that Tourneur may’ve wanted left up to the audience’s imagination is completely gone, though the finale is staged in such a manner as to leave it open to interpretation by the characters. As constructed, the people in the film don’t see it – only the viewers do – so the characters are left in such a way as to get to choose how the lead villain Niall MacGinnis inevitably ‘met his maker.’ You and I? Well, we aren’t afforded such luxury.
I’ve often written that one of the reasons I do prefer older films is that the characters are actually given some very good dialogue with which to move a story forward. Players actually talk about what happens, and we – as voyeurs – get to glean from it an awful lot of substance, motivations, foreshadowing, etc. In that respect, the script quite masterfully gives Dr. Holden and young Joanna some fabulous exchanges. While some might find them a bit too short and maybe even a bit light on subtext, I think they worked perfectly; in no small way, their occasionally witty exchanges do mirror some of the effectiveness to those debates Mulder and Scully had on the aforementioned The X-Files. Holden’s clearly a skeptic, and Joanna fully accepts that there’s dark magic at work here. This spine – and their growing friendship and acceptance of each other’s perspective – elevates this Curse to the level of respectability its earned over the years.
What matters to many in an authentic Horror is the scares, and here this would involve those sequences wherein the Demon enters our world through the veil of darkness. Yes, yes, and yes: the effects are understandably primitive when compared with anything from, say, the 1970’s onward, but that doesn’t diminish the theatrical effectiveness. The actors in those scenes conveyed their own respective astonishment – chiefly Maurice Denham (as Henry Harrington) and MacGinnis (in the finale); and they sell the sizzle as perfectly as roasted mutton when the time comes.
Curse Of the Demon (aka Night Of The Demon) (1957) was produced by Sabre Film Productions. For those who like to know this kind of minutiae, I watched the film via standard cable from an airing on Turner Classic Network. As for the technical specifications? This black-and-white chiller actually looks very, very good: there are a few sequences wherein the special effects of the day might make for a bit of – erm – obviousness that images have been altered to achieve the proper scare, but it’s all handled surprisingly solid.
Highly Recommended.
-- EZ
I’ve often written that one of the reasons I do prefer older films is that the characters are actually given some very good dialogue with which to move a story forward. Players actually talk about what happens, and we – as voyeurs – get to glean from it an awful lot of substance, motivations, foreshadowing, etc. In that respect, the script quite masterfully gives Dr. Holden and young Joanna some fabulous exchanges. While some might find them a bit too short and maybe even a bit light on subtext, I think they worked perfectly; in no small way, their occasionally witty exchanges do mirror some of the effectiveness to those debates Mulder and Scully had on the aforementioned The X-Files. Holden’s clearly a skeptic, and Joanna fully accepts that there’s dark magic at work here. This spine – and their growing friendship and acceptance of each other’s perspective – elevates this Curse to the level of respectability its earned over the years.
What matters to many in an authentic Horror is the scares, and here this would involve those sequences wherein the Demon enters our world through the veil of darkness. Yes, yes, and yes: the effects are understandably primitive when compared with anything from, say, the 1970’s onward, but that doesn’t diminish the theatrical effectiveness. The actors in those scenes conveyed their own respective astonishment – chiefly Maurice Denham (as Henry Harrington) and MacGinnis (in the finale); and they sell the sizzle as perfectly as roasted mutton when the time comes.
Curse Of the Demon (aka Night Of The Demon) (1957) was produced by Sabre Film Productions. For those who like to know this kind of minutiae, I watched the film via standard cable from an airing on Turner Classic Network. As for the technical specifications? This black-and-white chiller actually looks very, very good: there are a few sequences wherein the special effects of the day might make for a bit of – erm – obviousness that images have been altered to achieve the proper scare, but it’s all handled surprisingly solid.
Highly Recommended.
-- EZ
- Published on
Today’s audiences have shown a growing yet (hopefully) benign fascination with films involving torture.
Online critics are quick to associate much of this modern trend back to the Saw franchise of flicks – bloody puzzle pictures all centered around a mysterious puppetmaster who puts his players through increasingly gruesome physical ordeals – but methinks it’s probably gone on since legitimate splatter films built an audience throughout the 1970’s and early 80’s. One thing’s for certain: if you’re not cringing or looking away, then you’re possibly drawn into the relentless twists that produce harm, fractures, and bloodflow. We’re not judging you here at SciFiHistory.Net but just stating the obvious.
And, if that’s your thing, you’d do well to pick up a copy of Would You Rather (2012). Directed by David Guy Levy from a script from Steffen Schlachtenhaufen, it may not end up being more than a passing fancy, but you could do far worse with 93 minutes, that’s for sure.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Iris (played with curious detachment by Brittany Snow) finds herself desperate to make ends meet when she gives up her college career in order to care back home for her terminally ill brother. Distraught further to learn that she’s no match to his needed blood marrow transplant, she responds to a telephone call from his doctor with a great surprise: a millionaire philanthropist named Shepard Lambrick (Jeffrey Combs) believes he may be able to offer the young woman an opportunity to see all of her prayers answered. Lambrick asks Iris to join her at his estate for dinner, where she and others will be appealing to the Lambrick Foundation for assistance.
The catch: only one of those in dire need can and will be helped.
Would You Rather begins much like it sounds, presenting the ultimate ‘what if’ scenario to dinner guests all hoping for a hand-out. They’ve all been told previously that, after their meal, they’ll be taking part in a game to determine which of them will be the lucky winner, and, on that level, the film tries hard to appeal to even the audience’s benevolence: clearly, this “game” can’t be all that it’s been made out to be, and these guests find themselves essentially in a sadist’s version of ‘truth or dare’ that more likely resembles ‘dare or dare’ if not ‘dare to die.’ One by one, they’re offered two choices – harm yourself or harm the person on your left (or right) – and, as much as screenwriter Schlachtenhaufen and director Levy would have you believe they’ve crafted a game of wills, it’s hardly that.
Simply argued, it can’t be a true game of wills when a player is forced to choose between two truly bad choices.
Online critics are quick to associate much of this modern trend back to the Saw franchise of flicks – bloody puzzle pictures all centered around a mysterious puppetmaster who puts his players through increasingly gruesome physical ordeals – but methinks it’s probably gone on since legitimate splatter films built an audience throughout the 1970’s and early 80’s. One thing’s for certain: if you’re not cringing or looking away, then you’re possibly drawn into the relentless twists that produce harm, fractures, and bloodflow. We’re not judging you here at SciFiHistory.Net but just stating the obvious.
And, if that’s your thing, you’d do well to pick up a copy of Would You Rather (2012). Directed by David Guy Levy from a script from Steffen Schlachtenhaufen, it may not end up being more than a passing fancy, but you could do far worse with 93 minutes, that’s for sure.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Iris (played with curious detachment by Brittany Snow) finds herself desperate to make ends meet when she gives up her college career in order to care back home for her terminally ill brother. Distraught further to learn that she’s no match to his needed blood marrow transplant, she responds to a telephone call from his doctor with a great surprise: a millionaire philanthropist named Shepard Lambrick (Jeffrey Combs) believes he may be able to offer the young woman an opportunity to see all of her prayers answered. Lambrick asks Iris to join her at his estate for dinner, where she and others will be appealing to the Lambrick Foundation for assistance.
The catch: only one of those in dire need can and will be helped.
Would You Rather begins much like it sounds, presenting the ultimate ‘what if’ scenario to dinner guests all hoping for a hand-out. They’ve all been told previously that, after their meal, they’ll be taking part in a game to determine which of them will be the lucky winner, and, on that level, the film tries hard to appeal to even the audience’s benevolence: clearly, this “game” can’t be all that it’s been made out to be, and these guests find themselves essentially in a sadist’s version of ‘truth or dare’ that more likely resembles ‘dare or dare’ if not ‘dare to die.’ One by one, they’re offered two choices – harm yourself or harm the person on your left (or right) – and, as much as screenwriter Schlachtenhaufen and director Levy would have you believe they’ve crafted a game of wills, it’s hardly that.
Simply argued, it can’t be a true game of wills when a player is forced to choose between two truly bad choices.
The story tries to work toward some depth of individual convictions. Where it fails is that we’re only truly given Iris’s background – in fact, we’re shown what her life looks like with flashbacks featuring her and her brother – so the other guests at the table never become more than just … well … other guests at the table. They’re little more than faces in a crowd. Sure, there are a few hints to some of the obstacles they’re possibly facing, but, as the narrative device gives viewers little chance to understand or identify with them, they end up being nothing more than hapless victims slowly draining the life from one another. There may be some nice ensemble chemistry at times, but, without any emotional attachment to these others, it ends up feeling a bit flat.
What does work is Combs’ palpable menace.
A screen veteran of some regard – especially in wares like this and beyond – he commands the screen whenever he’s offered. Having followed his career since the 80’s, I’ve always had great respect for his obvious theatricality in nearly every role. It’s nice to see him getting some material that, despite its weaknesses, truly gives him something to do. As a character, one could argue he’s far more interesting than even Ms. Snow (the obvious lead), but, again, a somewhat hackneyed script never produces much hint of substance as to what’s made the nefarious Mr. Lambrick into the nefarious Mr. Lambrick. Villains without motivation work only in thrillers, but they’re soon lost to memory once it all fades to black and the credits roll.
Lastly, there’s a clever little twist brought up in the film’s closing sequences. From what little I’ve read (in other critiques), it appears to have generated a modest amount of controversy, some claiming it kinda/sorta negates the whole message inherent in what came before it (the twist). I’d argue that that’s far from the case; rather, I see it at instilling yet another lesson to those who “play” with life in the way that these fortunate and unfortunate dinner guests did. It’s far too precious to be reduced to a ‘what if.’ Too bad that’s something the screenwriter missed when he conceived of all this.
Would You Rather (2012) is produced by Periscope Entertainment and Social Construct. DVD distribution is being handled through MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications, it all looks and sounds very solid throughout. As for the special features, there’s an audio commentary track featuring the director and writer along with a poster gallery (???) and the theatrical trailer: it’s a small collection, but it’s there for those inclined to explore the subject matter further.
Recommended.
If I can give you no better reason to see this indie killer/thriller, then it would be to watch the incomparable Jeffrey Combs as the undeniably demented Shepard Lambrick. Would you rather go back and watch him in Re-Animator (1985)? Or what of his spectacularly nuanced work as ‘Weyoun the Vorta’ on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1994-1999)? Or how about his wonderful turn on USA Network’s The 4400 (2005-2007)? He’s a master of his craft, and, if anything, Would You Rather gives him some appropriate scenery to chew as a sadist with a mission: to play a game with the lives of the players truly in the balance. He’s the ultimate ‘dungeon master’ in this contemporary spin on The Most Dangerous Game (1932) – the ringleader in the most bizarre circus you’ll see today.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group and IFC Films provided me with a DVD copy of Would You Rather (2012) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape or form influenced my opinion of it.
What does work is Combs’ palpable menace.
A screen veteran of some regard – especially in wares like this and beyond – he commands the screen whenever he’s offered. Having followed his career since the 80’s, I’ve always had great respect for his obvious theatricality in nearly every role. It’s nice to see him getting some material that, despite its weaknesses, truly gives him something to do. As a character, one could argue he’s far more interesting than even Ms. Snow (the obvious lead), but, again, a somewhat hackneyed script never produces much hint of substance as to what’s made the nefarious Mr. Lambrick into the nefarious Mr. Lambrick. Villains without motivation work only in thrillers, but they’re soon lost to memory once it all fades to black and the credits roll.
Lastly, there’s a clever little twist brought up in the film’s closing sequences. From what little I’ve read (in other critiques), it appears to have generated a modest amount of controversy, some claiming it kinda/sorta negates the whole message inherent in what came before it (the twist). I’d argue that that’s far from the case; rather, I see it at instilling yet another lesson to those who “play” with life in the way that these fortunate and unfortunate dinner guests did. It’s far too precious to be reduced to a ‘what if.’ Too bad that’s something the screenwriter missed when he conceived of all this.
Would You Rather (2012) is produced by Periscope Entertainment and Social Construct. DVD distribution is being handled through MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications, it all looks and sounds very solid throughout. As for the special features, there’s an audio commentary track featuring the director and writer along with a poster gallery (???) and the theatrical trailer: it’s a small collection, but it’s there for those inclined to explore the subject matter further.
Recommended.
If I can give you no better reason to see this indie killer/thriller, then it would be to watch the incomparable Jeffrey Combs as the undeniably demented Shepard Lambrick. Would you rather go back and watch him in Re-Animator (1985)? Or what of his spectacularly nuanced work as ‘Weyoun the Vorta’ on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1994-1999)? Or how about his wonderful turn on USA Network’s The 4400 (2005-2007)? He’s a master of his craft, and, if anything, Would You Rather gives him some appropriate scenery to chew as a sadist with a mission: to play a game with the lives of the players truly in the balance. He’s the ultimate ‘dungeon master’ in this contemporary spin on The Most Dangerous Game (1932) – the ringleader in the most bizarre circus you’ll see today.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group and IFC Films provided me with a DVD copy of Would You Rather (2012) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
The whole idea behind Grindhouse films was that these motion pictures – made on the cheap – could be slickly packaged and basically thrown into theatres (preferably drive-ins, where they could be attached as a B-picture to some larger draw) to make a quick buck. While they never truly had the star power to maximize the return on the investment, many were still made by writers, producers, and directors who still had a vision that could translate into a finished product. Through the years, many of them get dismissed into the trash heap of cinema history, but, every now and then, one comes along that gets rediscovered, is awarded another lease on life, and maybe – just maybe – cries out for re-booting, re-invention, or remake.
I could make a hundred arguments for why the time is ripe for a casual flick like Wonder Women (1973) to get modernized by some innovative filmmakers. Until that happens, why not sit back and enjoy a film that knew a thing or two about being truly original?
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Curiously, the world’s best athletes have started disappearing. When mankind’s most favored Jai alai competitor vanishes after a tournament in the Philippines, Lloyds of London is about to lose their investment: good for them that crack private investigator Mike Harber (played with brilliant 70’s appeal by Ross Hagen) happens to be in Manila! And he’ll stop at nothing – not rain, sleet, hail, nor beautiful gun-toting bikini-clad karate-chopping henchwomen – to uncover the conspiracy that threatens to bring mankind to its knees!
Sure, I exaggerate a little, but that’s the brilliance behind enjoying such camp / cult escapism as Wonder Women. Based on a story by Lou Whitehill and adapted/directed by Robert V. O’Neil, Women feels like a really bad hard-boiled novel brought to silly life. It was the 1970’s, after all, so pointed collars, bell-bottoms, and leisure suits had to be part & parcel of the film’s charm, but whoever had the idea to throw in a bevy of bosomy beauties deserved a Nobel Peace Prize!
Indeed, a man with as much machismo and chest hair as Harber almost cried out for an arch-nemesis, and the evil Dr. Tsu (the lovely Nancy Kwan) is a dream come true. Her diabolical plan has no equal: she’s re-cycling the bodies of these abducted athletes on behalf of elderly millionaires who purchase life eternal for the highest price possible! Throw in her own personal police force – the ‘wonder women’ of the film’s title – and the memorable Sid Haig in a lesser role as her villainous accomplice (named only ‘Gregorious’) in a fluffy pirate shirt and VOILA! Camp movies, here we come!
I could make a hundred arguments for why the time is ripe for a casual flick like Wonder Women (1973) to get modernized by some innovative filmmakers. Until that happens, why not sit back and enjoy a film that knew a thing or two about being truly original?
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and 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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Curiously, the world’s best athletes have started disappearing. When mankind’s most favored Jai alai competitor vanishes after a tournament in the Philippines, Lloyds of London is about to lose their investment: good for them that crack private investigator Mike Harber (played with brilliant 70’s appeal by Ross Hagen) happens to be in Manila! And he’ll stop at nothing – not rain, sleet, hail, nor beautiful gun-toting bikini-clad karate-chopping henchwomen – to uncover the conspiracy that threatens to bring mankind to its knees!
Sure, I exaggerate a little, but that’s the brilliance behind enjoying such camp / cult escapism as Wonder Women. Based on a story by Lou Whitehill and adapted/directed by Robert V. O’Neil, Women feels like a really bad hard-boiled novel brought to silly life. It was the 1970’s, after all, so pointed collars, bell-bottoms, and leisure suits had to be part & parcel of the film’s charm, but whoever had the idea to throw in a bevy of bosomy beauties deserved a Nobel Peace Prize!
Indeed, a man with as much machismo and chest hair as Harber almost cried out for an arch-nemesis, and the evil Dr. Tsu (the lovely Nancy Kwan) is a dream come true. Her diabolical plan has no equal: she’s re-cycling the bodies of these abducted athletes on behalf of elderly millionaires who purchase life eternal for the highest price possible! Throw in her own personal police force – the ‘wonder women’ of the film’s title – and the memorable Sid Haig in a lesser role as her villainous accomplice (named only ‘Gregorious’) in a fluffy pirate shirt and VOILA! Camp movies, here we come!
It all ends up feeling more than a few parts of The Island Of Dr. Moreau for the groovy, jet-set crowd. The science of the picture never amounted to much more than a bunch of blinking lights and chrome (think Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek without all of the cerebral influences, and you get the idea), which is perfectly fine in keeping with the light-hearted undercurrent of the story, but there’s an adequate amount of skin (compliments of some very lovely ladies in minor roles) and scares (an industrial fridge full of human body parts) to keep the confident heterosexual males in the audience more than casually interested. It ends with the promise of a sequel as well as the most erotic game of chess ever committed to celluloid!
Wonder Women (1973) is produced by American National Enterprises and General Film Corporation. DVD distribution is being handled through Bayview Entertainment. As for the technical specifications, well keep in mind this is an older Grindhouse-style flick shot on film, so it’s best that you’re not expecting much; still, I’ve seen far worse copies and heard far worse sound – if you get through the tin-sounds of the dialogue, you’ll do just fine. Also, Bayview has offered up a solid release with a wealth of extra features: there’s a director’s commentary, some on-set home movies, radio & TV spots, a nice gallery of stills, some missing (but not really all that revelatory) European clipped scenes, an interview with stuntman Erik Cord, and some exclusive scenes from the Warrior Women sequel. Seriously, films in production today don’t get as many bells ‘n whistles, so cult movie fans really have something to rejoice here! (Arguably, the quality of some of the supplementals isn’t all that great, but it’s nice to have, nonetheless.)
Mildly recommended, but …
… if and only if cult-style classics and/or 70’s Grindhouse flicks are seriously your thing; otherwise, the excitement, fun, and unintentional frivolity that is all 81 minutes of Wonder Women will be completely lost on you. In fact, I have to wonder if Mike Myers didn’t have quite a bit of Women stuck in his fertile imagination when he conceived the whole ‘Austin Powers’ thing. The two films have some basic similarities that go beyond the hot ladies, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out if Myers had seen the thing and used it as an inspiration.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Bayview Entertainment provided me with a DVD screener copy of Wonder Women (1973) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Wonder Women (1973) is produced by American National Enterprises and General Film Corporation. DVD distribution is being handled through Bayview Entertainment. As for the technical specifications, well keep in mind this is an older Grindhouse-style flick shot on film, so it’s best that you’re not expecting much; still, I’ve seen far worse copies and heard far worse sound – if you get through the tin-sounds of the dialogue, you’ll do just fine. Also, Bayview has offered up a solid release with a wealth of extra features: there’s a director’s commentary, some on-set home movies, radio & TV spots, a nice gallery of stills, some missing (but not really all that revelatory) European clipped scenes, an interview with stuntman Erik Cord, and some exclusive scenes from the Warrior Women sequel. Seriously, films in production today don’t get as many bells ‘n whistles, so cult movie fans really have something to rejoice here! (Arguably, the quality of some of the supplementals isn’t all that great, but it’s nice to have, nonetheless.)
Mildly recommended, but …
… if and only if cult-style classics and/or 70’s Grindhouse flicks are seriously your thing; otherwise, the excitement, fun, and unintentional frivolity that is all 81 minutes of Wonder Women will be completely lost on you. In fact, I have to wonder if Mike Myers didn’t have quite a bit of Women stuck in his fertile imagination when he conceived the whole ‘Austin Powers’ thing. The two films have some basic similarities that go beyond the hot ladies, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out if Myers had seen the thing and used it as an inspiration.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Bayview Entertainment provided me with a DVD screener copy of Wonder Women (1973) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year-old Ally Andrews, who lost her hearing at age 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven.”
Have you ever stumbled across the random Horror film, watched it from start-to-finish, and only then realized the only reason this thing likely got made was because it somehow attached itself to legitimately talented actors and actresses?
That’s my impression upon viewing The Silence, a bit of a monster movie mash-up that looks to have ended up being swept up by the streaming giant Netflix (of all places). It stars the venerable Stanley Tucci, the critically-praised Miranda Otto, and strongly-emerging Kiernan Shipka. Now, if you had told me those names were signed to headline a motion picture and nothing else, then I would’ve assumed that the project was likely going to be some mainstream entry about a wise yet fussy middle-aged couple trying to get their incessantly wry yet precocious daughter into law school or some such premise. But … a Horror movie? Really?
Now, I don’t say any of that to be mean, because – as a viewer – I recognize talent when I see it, and Tucci, Otto, and Shipka score some reasonable high marks in what modest highwater marks get achieved aboard The Silence. It’s just that I never would’ve picked that ensemble to launch a frightfest much less a frightfest as underwhelming as this one.
Directed by John R. Leonetti – a minor master of let’s call it low-brow Horror – the script by Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke. (For the record, theirs is an adaptation of a 2015-published novel of the same name by Tim Lebbon.) The Van Dykes – and, again, I mean no disrespect – certainly don’t have the street cred associated with some of Hollywood’s bigger efforts. In fact, I know them best from their association with The Asylum, a production outlet best known for producing second- and third-tier B-Movie often ‘knocking off’ the latest and greatest box office sensation. Having watched some of these films, I haven’t found any of them to be … erm … material I’d normally ascribe to a talent like Stanley Tucci, but … hey. Art is art. Am I right? I will add – politely – that it helps going into the film with lower expectations, and maybe you’ll have more fun with it.
Setting aside those issues, the other significant item of note is that The Silence bears more than a passing resemblance to another creature feature: from what I’ve read, A Quiet Place (2018) was in production nearly at the same time as this one, and I’m a bit gobsmacked that Mr. Lebbon maybe didn’t try to sue the pants off writer/director John Krazinski as the similarities are exceedingly significant. Young family? Check! Trying to escape the city in favor of a rural setting? Check! Deaf family member? Check. Well-known and bankable Hollywood talent in key roles? Like I said, anyone could watch these two back-to-back and wonder how a lawsuit never emerged, especially when A Quiet Place Part 2 (2020) goes even a bit deeper into the same end of the pool.
But I digress …
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year-old Ally Andrews, who lost her hearing at age 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven.”
Have you ever stumbled across the random Horror film, watched it from start-to-finish, and only then realized the only reason this thing likely got made was because it somehow attached itself to legitimately talented actors and actresses?
That’s my impression upon viewing The Silence, a bit of a monster movie mash-up that looks to have ended up being swept up by the streaming giant Netflix (of all places). It stars the venerable Stanley Tucci, the critically-praised Miranda Otto, and strongly-emerging Kiernan Shipka. Now, if you had told me those names were signed to headline a motion picture and nothing else, then I would’ve assumed that the project was likely going to be some mainstream entry about a wise yet fussy middle-aged couple trying to get their incessantly wry yet precocious daughter into law school or some such premise. But … a Horror movie? Really?
Now, I don’t say any of that to be mean, because – as a viewer – I recognize talent when I see it, and Tucci, Otto, and Shipka score some reasonable high marks in what modest highwater marks get achieved aboard The Silence. It’s just that I never would’ve picked that ensemble to launch a frightfest much less a frightfest as underwhelming as this one.
Directed by John R. Leonetti – a minor master of let’s call it low-brow Horror – the script by Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke. (For the record, theirs is an adaptation of a 2015-published novel of the same name by Tim Lebbon.) The Van Dykes – and, again, I mean no disrespect – certainly don’t have the street cred associated with some of Hollywood’s bigger efforts. In fact, I know them best from their association with The Asylum, a production outlet best known for producing second- and third-tier B-Movie often ‘knocking off’ the latest and greatest box office sensation. Having watched some of these films, I haven’t found any of them to be … erm … material I’d normally ascribe to a talent like Stanley Tucci, but … hey. Art is art. Am I right? I will add – politely – that it helps going into the film with lower expectations, and maybe you’ll have more fun with it.
Setting aside those issues, the other significant item of note is that The Silence bears more than a passing resemblance to another creature feature: from what I’ve read, A Quiet Place (2018) was in production nearly at the same time as this one, and I’m a bit gobsmacked that Mr. Lebbon maybe didn’t try to sue the pants off writer/director John Krazinski as the similarities are exceedingly significant. Young family? Check! Trying to escape the city in favor of a rural setting? Check! Deaf family member? Check. Well-known and bankable Hollywood talent in key roles? Like I said, anyone could watch these two back-to-back and wonder how a lawsuit never emerged, especially when A Quiet Place Part 2 (2020) goes even a bit deeper into the same end of the pool.
But I digress …
Of the players suffering through The Silence, Tucci certainly elevates the work to the point of watchability. He’s one of those established industry professionals who gives each project his undivided attention, rather easily making ‘Hugh Andrews’ a bit of an everyman the audience is willing to root for especially in the gravest of circumstances. He sells the premise, and the audience is all-too-happy to take this dark journey on his behalf. Otto does good work as his wife and the mother of his children, but she’s hamstrung through a significant portion of the plot that requires her to be bedridden from bat attack. While Shipka does admirable work here, she never quite conveyed the level of fear and desperation I think a younger woman would under these circumstances. A good deal of the tension is hardwired to her deafness, a malady easily forgotten about as she seems to live an otherwise normal existence with family and friends. The only downside for her? Well, she gets picked on at school … but didn’t we all?
Sadly, The Silence also suffers from the appearance of an all-new villain in the third act: it would appear a cult-like group has comfortably taken up existence in this quiet place, and their new membership drive is Hell bent on seizing Shipka’s ‘Ally Andrews’ because – you guessed it – she’s fertile. (???) Apparently these parochial finger waggers have no idea how much racket babies make, otherwise they’d come up with some other means to repopulate the planet in their severed-tongues image. (Noises bad! Noises very bad!) Hollywood loves to cast regular churchgoers in villainous cloth, and perhaps I won’t condemn such lazy thinking, writing, and discrimination on the Van Dykes as I have read this was a significant component of Lebbon’s book.
Alas, it’s a muddled development that stinks loudly in the last reel, diverting the film away from its middling grasp as horror in favor of slinging cheap shots at fellow Americans. After that, the picture gives way to a fabricated happy ending along with anything remotely resembling closure. We’re left with Ally’s narration about who’ll survive quicker: man or beast. I’m hoping it’s the audience.
The Silence (2019) was produced by Constantin Films and EMJAG Productions. It is currently available for streaming on Netflix. As for the technical specifications? This thriller/chiller has many sequences that rather expertly make use of some reasonably budgeted special effects, so kudos to all the craftsmen and women who made this one work as well as it did in those sequences.
(Mildly) Recommended.
At its core, The Silence (2019) isn’t so much an authentic Horror film as much as it is a traditional monster movie. Though this monster is (seemingly) everywhere (as opposed to, say, Frankenstein, who can only be at one place at one time), these bats-on-steroids fulfill many of the same requirements of the popular sub-genre. Yet, they don’t play on our sympathies the way the Wolfman or a familiar neighbor being bitten by a zombie might. Here, you’re supposed to only feel for the victims, so it helps that the movie is populated by a trove of familiar faces. (You know … the bald guy from that one flick? He’s too big name a star is die in this. And he doesn’t. Neither does she. Or the kid. Everybody else? They’re goners, for sure.)
-- EZ
Sadly, The Silence also suffers from the appearance of an all-new villain in the third act: it would appear a cult-like group has comfortably taken up existence in this quiet place, and their new membership drive is Hell bent on seizing Shipka’s ‘Ally Andrews’ because – you guessed it – she’s fertile. (???) Apparently these parochial finger waggers have no idea how much racket babies make, otherwise they’d come up with some other means to repopulate the planet in their severed-tongues image. (Noises bad! Noises very bad!) Hollywood loves to cast regular churchgoers in villainous cloth, and perhaps I won’t condemn such lazy thinking, writing, and discrimination on the Van Dykes as I have read this was a significant component of Lebbon’s book.
Alas, it’s a muddled development that stinks loudly in the last reel, diverting the film away from its middling grasp as horror in favor of slinging cheap shots at fellow Americans. After that, the picture gives way to a fabricated happy ending along with anything remotely resembling closure. We’re left with Ally’s narration about who’ll survive quicker: man or beast. I’m hoping it’s the audience.
The Silence (2019) was produced by Constantin Films and EMJAG Productions. It is currently available for streaming on Netflix. As for the technical specifications? This thriller/chiller has many sequences that rather expertly make use of some reasonably budgeted special effects, so kudos to all the craftsmen and women who made this one work as well as it did in those sequences.
(Mildly) Recommended.
At its core, The Silence (2019) isn’t so much an authentic Horror film as much as it is a traditional monster movie. Though this monster is (seemingly) everywhere (as opposed to, say, Frankenstein, who can only be at one place at one time), these bats-on-steroids fulfill many of the same requirements of the popular sub-genre. Yet, they don’t play on our sympathies the way the Wolfman or a familiar neighbor being bitten by a zombie might. Here, you’re supposed to only feel for the victims, so it helps that the movie is populated by a trove of familiar faces. (You know … the bald guy from that one flick? He’s too big name a star is die in this. And he doesn’t. Neither does she. Or the kid. Everybody else? They’re goners, for sure.)
-- EZ
- Published on
Under SciFiHistory.Net’s ‘Monsters Of A Sort’ category, I take a look at features that kinda/sorta dabble in sensibilities very close to (if not downright demonstrative of) film noir and/or the unconventional screen mystery. Despite maintaining a heavy (and near constant) diet of genre projects, I’m not always satiated by just SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror; so I do like – from time-to-time – to add a little substance from these other realms. It helps widen my perspective. It helps cleanse my palate. It keeps me fresh … and a ‘fresh me’ is good for all of you, my faithful readers.
Today’s distraction is titled AmnesiA. This 2001-produced Dutch language picture has been advertised as a Drama/Mystery that incorporates both a noirish slant along with some dark humor. Written and directed by Martin Koolhoven, it starred Fedja van Huet, Carice van Houten, Theo Maassen, and Sacha Bulthuis in the most prominent roles. At the 2001 Nederlands Film Festival, actor van Huet took home top honors in the category of ‘Best Actor’ while Bulthuis had to settle for the honor of a nomination alone in the category of ‘Best Actress.’
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its construction follows.
(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 photographer returns to his paternal home because his mother is seriously ill. The confrontation with his past leads to panic in a surreal, stylized psychological drama.”
Having seen a respectable share of foreign releases, I wasn’t all that much surprised by AmnesiA. Suffice it to say – without going into a great discussion – family secrets tend to figure into their dramas a great deal of the time; and the typical feature rather effectively pulls back layer after layer before leaving its central characters bare in the closing images.
Essentially, AmnesiA is the story of two twin brothers – Alex and Aram – and the curious and tragic circumstances that led to both who they are and what they cannot escape. One has stayed home, inheriting the business from their late father, and gotten involved in a life of crime in their tiny village. The other went off to the city in pursuit of a career in photography, but he’s curiously found himself unable to deal with people, preferring instead to deal in pictures of – say – still life. Van Huet plays both roles – and he does so with an almost chilling attention to detail that one might wonder how he kept it all straight in his own head. Neither are all that particularly relatable – certainly not the way most audiences appreciate – but, come the ending, Koolhoven’s script reveals the dark secret they shared that ultimately turned them into these disconnected and somewhat fragmented siblings.
Today’s distraction is titled AmnesiA. This 2001-produced Dutch language picture has been advertised as a Drama/Mystery that incorporates both a noirish slant along with some dark humor. Written and directed by Martin Koolhoven, it starred Fedja van Huet, Carice van Houten, Theo Maassen, and Sacha Bulthuis in the most prominent roles. At the 2001 Nederlands Film Festival, actor van Huet took home top honors in the category of ‘Best Actor’ while Bulthuis had to settle for the honor of a nomination alone in the category of ‘Best Actress.’
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below. My two cents on its construction follows.
(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 photographer returns to his paternal home because his mother is seriously ill. The confrontation with his past leads to panic in a surreal, stylized psychological drama.”
Having seen a respectable share of foreign releases, I wasn’t all that much surprised by AmnesiA. Suffice it to say – without going into a great discussion – family secrets tend to figure into their dramas a great deal of the time; and the typical feature rather effectively pulls back layer after layer before leaving its central characters bare in the closing images.
Essentially, AmnesiA is the story of two twin brothers – Alex and Aram – and the curious and tragic circumstances that led to both who they are and what they cannot escape. One has stayed home, inheriting the business from their late father, and gotten involved in a life of crime in their tiny village. The other went off to the city in pursuit of a career in photography, but he’s curiously found himself unable to deal with people, preferring instead to deal in pictures of – say – still life. Van Huet plays both roles – and he does so with an almost chilling attention to detail that one might wonder how he kept it all straight in his own head. Neither are all that particularly relatable – certainly not the way most audiences appreciate – but, come the ending, Koolhoven’s script reveals the dark secret they shared that ultimately turned them into these disconnected and somewhat fragmented siblings.
However, I’d caution audiences who go into this character study of a relationship involving identical twins expecting all of it to make perfect sense, or they’re likely to be disappointed. Koolhoven has crafted this tale with some absurdist moments – like an all-new character showing up in the backseat of a car or the occasional acts of arson by the film’s resident pyromaniac or why no one insists on having a shooting victim get medical assistance immediately – and methinks his intention was for viewers to make of it what they will. Life has – as a consequence of merely living it – a corrosive and destructive potential – especially with those working hard to repress past memories; amnesia can be suffered by choice is the operative point here, and who knows what symptoms it’ll create if left unexposed for too long?
In one of her earlier roles, Van Houten is particularly impressive as the kinda/sorta female catalyst ‘Sandra’ that both sets these brothers at odds as well as invites them behind her own curtain of contemplative insanity. Though she spends a good number of moments saying very little, her eyes convey a struggle going on within – a constant reminder for anyone smitten by her charms. In the role of the mother of her two conflicted boys, Bulthuis rather effortlessly conveys the obliviousness that quite probably put her children (and her late husband) on the path to self-destruction. Developments late in the picture suggest she might be suffering from some early stages of dementia but given Koolhoven’s unwillingness to commit to certain narrative elements that may’ve just been intended for laughs, though it’s still quite dark.
Still, there’s an awful lot of good and bad that collide in welcome measure in AmnesiA. The players make for a solid ensemble, but I can’t help but wonder what some of the lesser scenes were truly meant to mean. Does pissing on a grave have deeper context, or was that only meant for a cheap laugh? What was it that the thieves stole – resulting in one man getting shot – and why were we never told? What were all of the fires supposed to suggest about Sandra, or were they just demonstrating how quickly everything can go up in flames? And do the Dutch really just bury their dead in the side yard or out front by the steps when they pass?
I might never know.
But was I supposed to care?
AmnesiA (2001) was produced by Motel Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Cult Epics. As for the technical specifications? This film looks very good from start-to-finish with some high-quality sights and sounds. As for the special features? This two-disc collection will likely keep fans busy for some time. Disc 1 includes an all-new 4K HD Transfer (from the original camera negative); an introduction from Koolhoven; an audio commentary by Koolhoven and actor Fedja van Huet; a conversation with Koolhoven and star van Houten; a making-of short; some behind-the-scenes materials; and the theatrical trailer. Disc 2 includes two other films from Koolhoven – Suzy Q (1999) and Dark Light (1997) and their associated trailers.
Recommended, but …
I suspect some audiences will experience a bit of frustration – as I did – in calculating just what to make of Amnesia. At times, it feels very much like a David Lynch film, though the humor doesn’t always work because character motivations remain mostly out of reach. Some scenes are, simply, too long for the minimal weight they carry; and I believe Koolhoven may’ve been reaching toward a bit of absurdity here and there that didn’t quite ring true. Given this was one of the auteurs earlier features, I’m wondering if his still-growing command of structure and image may’ve occasionally obscured what a tighter edit could’ve achieved. Good, often funny, and still makes you think.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cult Epics provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of AmnesiA (2001) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
In one of her earlier roles, Van Houten is particularly impressive as the kinda/sorta female catalyst ‘Sandra’ that both sets these brothers at odds as well as invites them behind her own curtain of contemplative insanity. Though she spends a good number of moments saying very little, her eyes convey a struggle going on within – a constant reminder for anyone smitten by her charms. In the role of the mother of her two conflicted boys, Bulthuis rather effortlessly conveys the obliviousness that quite probably put her children (and her late husband) on the path to self-destruction. Developments late in the picture suggest she might be suffering from some early stages of dementia but given Koolhoven’s unwillingness to commit to certain narrative elements that may’ve just been intended for laughs, though it’s still quite dark.
Still, there’s an awful lot of good and bad that collide in welcome measure in AmnesiA. The players make for a solid ensemble, but I can’t help but wonder what some of the lesser scenes were truly meant to mean. Does pissing on a grave have deeper context, or was that only meant for a cheap laugh? What was it that the thieves stole – resulting in one man getting shot – and why were we never told? What were all of the fires supposed to suggest about Sandra, or were they just demonstrating how quickly everything can go up in flames? And do the Dutch really just bury their dead in the side yard or out front by the steps when they pass?
I might never know.
But was I supposed to care?
AmnesiA (2001) was produced by Motel Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Cult Epics. As for the technical specifications? This film looks very good from start-to-finish with some high-quality sights and sounds. As for the special features? This two-disc collection will likely keep fans busy for some time. Disc 1 includes an all-new 4K HD Transfer (from the original camera negative); an introduction from Koolhoven; an audio commentary by Koolhoven and actor Fedja van Huet; a conversation with Koolhoven and star van Houten; a making-of short; some behind-the-scenes materials; and the theatrical trailer. Disc 2 includes two other films from Koolhoven – Suzy Q (1999) and Dark Light (1997) and their associated trailers.
Recommended, but …
I suspect some audiences will experience a bit of frustration – as I did – in calculating just what to make of Amnesia. At times, it feels very much like a David Lynch film, though the humor doesn’t always work because character motivations remain mostly out of reach. Some scenes are, simply, too long for the minimal weight they carry; and I believe Koolhoven may’ve been reaching toward a bit of absurdity here and there that didn’t quite ring true. Given this was one of the auteurs earlier features, I’m wondering if his still-growing command of structure and image may’ve occasionally obscured what a tighter edit could’ve achieved. Good, often funny, and still makes you think.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cult Epics provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of AmnesiA (2001) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Now, kids: yours truly has taken an awful lot of flack over the years for my love of certain genre films, but one of the biggest I gave up trying to defend a decade or two ago was 1982's Swamp Thing.
Written for the screen and directed by the late Wes Craven, I saw the film multiple times in theaters, and I did so not because I thought it was the best thing to hit the silver screen ever. I did so because it kinda/sorta came along at a point in my life when my love of genre entertainment had been firmly cemented, and I damn near fell in love with anything that looked like what I thought a comic book movie should look like. No, it was never perfect. No, it was never something that should be necessarily emulated. But it was good. It was wholesome. It represented to me the possibilities of bringing a comic book to life in a way that might please fans and those just discovering comic book films, and -- even though it's filled with imperfections -- it deserves to be celebrated.
Well, wow ... what better way to celebrate it than giving this 1980's gem some new life with an incredible collection of special features on home video?
MVD is spearheading those efforts, and I just received the press release regarding their upcoming July re-issue of this nifty little flick. It's being -- literally -- packed to the green gills with an assortment of extras new and old; and I couldn't be happier to share the news with you about it today. I'll be doing the obligatory cut-and-paste below, and I challenge you to show me a genre classic getting this measure of love out there in cyberspace today. It's jaw-droppingly awesome ... and well overdue.
Just take a look ...
Written for the screen and directed by the late Wes Craven, I saw the film multiple times in theaters, and I did so not because I thought it was the best thing to hit the silver screen ever. I did so because it kinda/sorta came along at a point in my life when my love of genre entertainment had been firmly cemented, and I damn near fell in love with anything that looked like what I thought a comic book movie should look like. No, it was never perfect. No, it was never something that should be necessarily emulated. But it was good. It was wholesome. It represented to me the possibilities of bringing a comic book to life in a way that might please fans and those just discovering comic book films, and -- even though it's filled with imperfections -- it deserves to be celebrated.
Well, wow ... what better way to celebrate it than giving this 1980's gem some new life with an incredible collection of special features on home video?
MVD is spearheading those efforts, and I just received the press release regarding their upcoming July re-issue of this nifty little flick. It's being -- literally -- packed to the green gills with an assortment of extras new and old; and I couldn't be happier to share the news with you about it today. I'll be doing the obligatory cut-and-paste below, and I challenge you to show me a genre classic getting this measure of love out there in cyberspace today. It's jaw-droppingly awesome ... and well overdue.
Just take a look ...
MVD ENTERTAINMENT GROUP IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE SWAMP THING, LICENSED FROM MGM, FOR RE-RELEASE IN NORTH AMERICA ON BOTH 4K ULTRA HD AND BLU-RAY FORMATS
ON JULY 25, 2023
THE RELEASE INCLUDES BOTH THE ORIGINAL PG RATED THEATRICAL CUT, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NORTH AMERICA, THE UNRATED INTERNATIONAL CUT
Swamp Thing is a 1982 American superhero horror film written and directed by Wes Craven (A Nightmare On Elm Street, Scream), based on the DC Comics character of the same name created by Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson. It tells the story of a brilliant scientist, Dr. Alec Holland (Ray Wise, Robocop) and a government agent, Alice Cable (Adrienne Barbeau, John Carpenter’s The Fog) who have developed a secret formula that could end world hunger and change civilization forever. Little do they know, however, that their arch nemesis, Arcane (Louis Jourdan, Octopussy) is plotting to steal the serum for his own selfish schemes. Looting the lab and kidnapping Cable, Arcane douses Holland with the chemicals and leaves him for dead in the swamp. Mutated by his own formula, Holland becomes “Swamp Thing” - a half human/half plant superhero who will stop at nothing to rescue the beautiful Cable and defeat the evil Arcane ... even if it costs him his life.
Released theatrically in 1982 and featuring a supporting cast that includes David Hess (The Last House on the Left), Nicholas Worth (Barb Wire) and Dick Durock as “Swamp Thing” (who reprised the role in the 1989 sequel The Return of Swamp Thing and the 1990 – 1993 “Swamp Thing: The Series”), SWAMP THING became a cult hit upon its release on home video back in the 1980’s and its countless airings on cable television in the 80’s and 90’s. Critic Roger Ebert loved the film, giving it three out of four stars saying, “Swamp Thing had already won my heart before its moment of greatness, but when that moment came, I knew I'd discovered another one of those movies that fall somewhere between buried treasures and guilty pleasures.”
With classics such as The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes under his belt, following Swamp Thing, screenwriter and director Wes Craven’s career skyrocketed as he became a master of the horror genre with both the smash hit A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream franchises, along with cult classics such as Deadly Friend, The People Under The Stairs, Shocker and more. According to John Wooley’s 2011 book “Wes Craven: A Man and His Nightmares,” regarding his experience on Swamp Thing, the late director was quoted as saying, “Swamp Thing was an extraordinary experience because it was the first time I was given a budget that was decent. It was the first time I had a really good cast, and it was the first time I was shooting on location in a really beautiful area. So, it was very pleasurable in that sense. The downside was that it was an extremely difficult shoot because we were in a swamp, and it was hot, and there were mosquitoes and snakes and alligators. It was just an extremely difficult environment to work in, but we had a lot of fun.”
Overseeing Swamp Thing for the MVD Rewind Collection was MVD’s Director of Acquisitions Eric D. Wilkinson, who says, “As the producer of all things 'Rewind,' I couldn’t be more proud of this release. We licensed the title from MGM more than a year ago and my first order of business was to clear the rights of the 'unrated international cut' so we could release it here in North America. Adrienne Barbeau was lovely and gracious and her management team was a pleasure to work with. MGM gave us access to the film materials and we worked closely with Duplitech overseeing the 4K high definition 16-Bit scan of the original camera negative along with the remastering and restoration of both versions of the film. I then proceeded to license the rights to all of the great archival supplemental material which includes a commentary from director Wes Craven, a second commentary from makeup effects artist William Munns, interviews with actors Adrienne Barbeau and Reggie Batts, along with comic book writer / editor Len Wein (who created Swamp Thing for DC Comics), archival making of featurettes, documentaries and more. Of course we have our 'Retro-VHS' themed packaging for Blu-ray, and because this is our first 4K Ultra HD format release,
we’ve created a sister brand I’m calling MVD Rewind’s 4K LaserVision Collection with a new line-look that pays homage to RCA’s long retired SelectaVision VideoDisc format from the early 1980’s. With a new Swamp Thing movie on the horizon from DC Studios from Executive Producer James Gunn and writer James Mangold, our timing couldn’t be better to reintroduce fans to this classic film with a definitive version on both Blu-ray and Ultra HD formats.”
Released theatrically in 1982 and featuring a supporting cast that includes David Hess (The Last House on the Left), Nicholas Worth (Barb Wire) and Dick Durock as “Swamp Thing” (who reprised the role in the 1989 sequel The Return of Swamp Thing and the 1990 – 1993 “Swamp Thing: The Series”), SWAMP THING became a cult hit upon its release on home video back in the 1980’s and its countless airings on cable television in the 80’s and 90’s. Critic Roger Ebert loved the film, giving it three out of four stars saying, “Swamp Thing had already won my heart before its moment of greatness, but when that moment came, I knew I'd discovered another one of those movies that fall somewhere between buried treasures and guilty pleasures.”
With classics such as The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes under his belt, following Swamp Thing, screenwriter and director Wes Craven’s career skyrocketed as he became a master of the horror genre with both the smash hit A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream franchises, along with cult classics such as Deadly Friend, The People Under The Stairs, Shocker and more. According to John Wooley’s 2011 book “Wes Craven: A Man and His Nightmares,” regarding his experience on Swamp Thing, the late director was quoted as saying, “Swamp Thing was an extraordinary experience because it was the first time I was given a budget that was decent. It was the first time I had a really good cast, and it was the first time I was shooting on location in a really beautiful area. So, it was very pleasurable in that sense. The downside was that it was an extremely difficult shoot because we were in a swamp, and it was hot, and there were mosquitoes and snakes and alligators. It was just an extremely difficult environment to work in, but we had a lot of fun.”
Overseeing Swamp Thing for the MVD Rewind Collection was MVD’s Director of Acquisitions Eric D. Wilkinson, who says, “As the producer of all things 'Rewind,' I couldn’t be more proud of this release. We licensed the title from MGM more than a year ago and my first order of business was to clear the rights of the 'unrated international cut' so we could release it here in North America. Adrienne Barbeau was lovely and gracious and her management team was a pleasure to work with. MGM gave us access to the film materials and we worked closely with Duplitech overseeing the 4K high definition 16-Bit scan of the original camera negative along with the remastering and restoration of both versions of the film. I then proceeded to license the rights to all of the great archival supplemental material which includes a commentary from director Wes Craven, a second commentary from makeup effects artist William Munns, interviews with actors Adrienne Barbeau and Reggie Batts, along with comic book writer / editor Len Wein (who created Swamp Thing for DC Comics), archival making of featurettes, documentaries and more. Of course we have our 'Retro-VHS' themed packaging for Blu-ray, and because this is our first 4K Ultra HD format release,
we’ve created a sister brand I’m calling MVD Rewind’s 4K LaserVision Collection with a new line-look that pays homage to RCA’s long retired SelectaVision VideoDisc format from the early 1980’s. With a new Swamp Thing movie on the horizon from DC Studios from Executive Producer James Gunn and writer James Mangold, our timing couldn’t be better to reintroduce fans to this classic film with a definitive version on both Blu-ray and Ultra HD formats.”
RELEASE DETAILS:
MVD LaserVision Collection #1
TITLE: Swamp Thing (2-Disc Collector’s Edition) [4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray]
SKU: MVD12567UHD
UPC / Barcode: 760137125679
MSRP: 49.95
STREET DATE: 7/25/2023
DISC 1: SWAMP THING 4K LASERVISION COLLECTION – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 4K Restoration (16-Bit Scan of the Original Camera Negative) of both the US Theatrical PG Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio in Dolby Vision / HDR
• Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 Mono, Spanish Mono
• Optional English Subtitles
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Collectible “4K LaserVision” Mini-Poster of cover art
• Limited Edition “4K Laservision” Slipcover (First Pressing Only)
DISC 2: SWAMP THING REWIND COLLECTION BLU-RAY – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 HD Restoration of both the US Theatrical PG
Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• DTS-HD Audio 2.0 Mono, Spanish Mono Audio
• Optional English Subtitles
• "Tales From the Swamp" (Remastered) with Actress Adrienne Barbeau (HD, 16:56)
• "Hey Jude" with Actor Reggie Batts (HD, 14:30)
• "That Swamp Thing" with Len Wein, Creator of Swamp Thing (HD, 13:19)
• "Swamp Screen: Designing DC's Main Monster" featurette (HD, 20:32)
• "From Krug to Comics: How the Mainstream Shaped a Radical Genre Voice" featurette (HD, 17:34)
• Posters & Lobby Cards - Photo Gallery
• Photos from the Film - Photo Gallery
• William Munns’ Behind the Scenes Pictures - Photo Gallery
• Behind the Scenes Photos by Geoffrey Rayle – Photo Gallery
• Theatrical Trailer (HD, 1:31)
• "REGION A" LOCKED
MVD Rewind Collection #51
TITLE: Swamp Thing (Collector’s Edition) [Blu-ray]
SKU: MVD8554BR
UPC / Barcode: 760137855484
MSRP: $39.95
STREET DATE: 7/25/2023
SWAMP THING MVD REWIND COLLECTION BLU-RAY – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 HD Restoration of both the US Theatrical PG Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• DTS-HD 2.0 Mono Audio, Spanish Mono
• Optional English Subtitles
• "Tales From the Swamp" (Remastered) with Actress Adrienne Barbeau (HD, 16:56)
• "Hey Jude" with Actor Reggie Batts (HD,14:30)
• "That Swamp Thing" with Len Wein, Creator of Swamp Thing (HD, 13:19)
• "Swamp Screen: Designing DC's Main Monster" featurette (HD, 20:32)
• "From Krug to Comics: How the Mainstream Shaped a Radical Genre Voice" featurette (HD, 17:34)
• Posters & Lobby Cards - Photo Gallery
• Photos from the Film - Photo Gallery
• William Munns’ Behind the Scenes Pictures - Photo Gallery
• Behind the Scenes Photos by Geoffrey Rayle – Photo Gallery
• Theatrical Trailer (HD, 1:31)
• Two-Sided Artwork
• Collectible MVD Rewind Collection Mini-Poster
• Limited Edition Slipcover (First Pressing Only)
• "REGION A" LOCKED
About MVD Rewind Collection
MVD Rewind Collection is MVD’s exclusive collector’s brand and boutique label of classic movie and retro physical media releases best described as “cult classics and more from the video store” in special edition Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD collector’s sets in collectible packaging loaded with special features.
About MVD Entertainment Group
MVD Entertainment Group is an independent studio and full service entertainment distribution company, exclusively representing an extensive catalog with thousands of audio and visual products and content for digital, VOD and packaged media worldwide.
MVD LaserVision Collection #1
TITLE: Swamp Thing (2-Disc Collector’s Edition) [4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray]
SKU: MVD12567UHD
UPC / Barcode: 760137125679
MSRP: 49.95
STREET DATE: 7/25/2023
DISC 1: SWAMP THING 4K LASERVISION COLLECTION – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 4K Restoration (16-Bit Scan of the Original Camera Negative) of both the US Theatrical PG Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio in Dolby Vision / HDR
• Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 Mono, Spanish Mono
• Optional English Subtitles
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Collectible “4K LaserVision” Mini-Poster of cover art
• Limited Edition “4K Laservision” Slipcover (First Pressing Only)
DISC 2: SWAMP THING REWIND COLLECTION BLU-RAY – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 HD Restoration of both the US Theatrical PG
Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• DTS-HD Audio 2.0 Mono, Spanish Mono Audio
• Optional English Subtitles
• "Tales From the Swamp" (Remastered) with Actress Adrienne Barbeau (HD, 16:56)
• "Hey Jude" with Actor Reggie Batts (HD, 14:30)
• "That Swamp Thing" with Len Wein, Creator of Swamp Thing (HD, 13:19)
• "Swamp Screen: Designing DC's Main Monster" featurette (HD, 20:32)
• "From Krug to Comics: How the Mainstream Shaped a Radical Genre Voice" featurette (HD, 17:34)
• Posters & Lobby Cards - Photo Gallery
• Photos from the Film - Photo Gallery
• William Munns’ Behind the Scenes Pictures - Photo Gallery
• Behind the Scenes Photos by Geoffrey Rayle – Photo Gallery
• Theatrical Trailer (HD, 1:31)
• "REGION A" LOCKED
MVD Rewind Collection #51
TITLE: Swamp Thing (Collector’s Edition) [Blu-ray]
SKU: MVD8554BR
UPC / Barcode: 760137855484
MSRP: $39.95
STREET DATE: 7/25/2023
SWAMP THING MVD REWIND COLLECTION BLU-RAY – SPECIAL FEATURES:
• 2023 HD Restoration of both the US Theatrical PG Version and Unrated International Version of the film presented in its original 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio
• Audio Commentary with Writer/Director Wes Craven moderated by Sean Clark (Theatrical / PG Version)
• Audio Commentary with Makeup Effects Artist William Munns moderated by Michael Felsher (Theatrical / PG Version)
• DTS-HD 2.0 Mono Audio, Spanish Mono
• Optional English Subtitles
• "Tales From the Swamp" (Remastered) with Actress Adrienne Barbeau (HD, 16:56)
• "Hey Jude" with Actor Reggie Batts (HD,14:30)
• "That Swamp Thing" with Len Wein, Creator of Swamp Thing (HD, 13:19)
• "Swamp Screen: Designing DC's Main Monster" featurette (HD, 20:32)
• "From Krug to Comics: How the Mainstream Shaped a Radical Genre Voice" featurette (HD, 17:34)
• Posters & Lobby Cards - Photo Gallery
• Photos from the Film - Photo Gallery
• William Munns’ Behind the Scenes Pictures - Photo Gallery
• Behind the Scenes Photos by Geoffrey Rayle – Photo Gallery
• Theatrical Trailer (HD, 1:31)
• Two-Sided Artwork
• Collectible MVD Rewind Collection Mini-Poster
• Limited Edition Slipcover (First Pressing Only)
• "REGION A" LOCKED
About MVD Rewind Collection
MVD Rewind Collection is MVD’s exclusive collector’s brand and boutique label of classic movie and retro physical media releases best described as “cult classics and more from the video store” in special edition Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD collector’s sets in collectible packaging loaded with special features.
About MVD Entertainment Group
MVD Entertainment Group is an independent studio and full service entertainment distribution company, exclusively representing an extensive catalog with thousands of audio and visual products and content for digital, VOD and packaged media worldwide.
- Published on
If I’m being perfectly honest, then I’ll admit that I’d never even heard of the series Slasher before yesterday.
From what I’ve come to understand, Slasher – now in its fifth highly-rated season – is a Fantasy program not unlike FX’s American Horror Story. Each season, its creative cast and crew come together to craft a single narrative that’ll stretch through all of those episodes, allowing a bit of longer form storytelling to shine a bit of light on one particular story. Though I’m uncertain on this point, I suspect this also means that it gives the showrunner Aaron Martin the opportunity to essentially work with a revolving door of talented actors and actresses, all of them bringing their gifts to this shared universe of wider haunts. Indeed, IMDB.com reports that the show has garnered a bit of positive praise in awards circles, and that always speaks volumes, especially to a humble scribbler such as me just getting into its various wares.
This fifth season is apparently subtitled “Ripper,” and it seeks to fathom the depths of Canada’s own experiences with a ‘Jack The Ripper’ style lunatic. Again, don’t hate me if I’m incorrect on this point, but I believe all of this might very well be based on an authentic true crime experience, though I suspect some names, places, and events might be altered for artistic license. Such is the case when storytellers weave yarns, and this new season got off to a fairly successful launch with its first episode (on Shudder) titled “The Slaughterhouse.”
(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 program’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Toronto’s elite are thrown into panic when a member of the upper crust is badly murdered; a killer dubbed the Widow is on the loose; Detective Kenneth Rijkers is assigned to the assignment to help the victim’s wife Regina Simcoe find closure.”
Ouch! Though that synopsis is a bit poorly worded, it still encapsulates the bare bones structure of this first episode of Slasher’s fifth season. A bloody murder is committed – Alistair Simcoe (played by Shaun Benson) – is gutted violently in the streets. Despite the fact that his past is troubled with some rather nefarious shenanigans, he’s still been part and parcel of Toronto’s high society; and they’re all understandably alarmed when it appears – at the onset – that this cold-blooded murderer might very well be targeting the upper crust.
Now, just how everyone suddenly jumps to that conclusion isn’t very clearly spelled out. Ian Carpenter and showrunner Martin’s script veers in that direction quickly, so quickly in fact that I backed up the feed twice to see if I had missed it but didn’t find it. (I occasionally struggle with some accents, so maybe it’s in there somewhere.) So, perhaps it’s more accurate to say that this conclusion is hinted at by the cultural betters of the show (which I did catch) – there are suspicions voiced fairly early on that a very specific group might be the intended victims – but I didn’t see the linkage spelled out as did the cast. (Maybe you had to be there?)
From what I’ve come to understand, Slasher – now in its fifth highly-rated season – is a Fantasy program not unlike FX’s American Horror Story. Each season, its creative cast and crew come together to craft a single narrative that’ll stretch through all of those episodes, allowing a bit of longer form storytelling to shine a bit of light on one particular story. Though I’m uncertain on this point, I suspect this also means that it gives the showrunner Aaron Martin the opportunity to essentially work with a revolving door of talented actors and actresses, all of them bringing their gifts to this shared universe of wider haunts. Indeed, IMDB.com reports that the show has garnered a bit of positive praise in awards circles, and that always speaks volumes, especially to a humble scribbler such as me just getting into its various wares.
This fifth season is apparently subtitled “Ripper,” and it seeks to fathom the depths of Canada’s own experiences with a ‘Jack The Ripper’ style lunatic. Again, don’t hate me if I’m incorrect on this point, but I believe all of this might very well be based on an authentic true crime experience, though I suspect some names, places, and events might be altered for artistic license. Such is the case when storytellers weave yarns, and this new season got off to a fairly successful launch with its first episode (on Shudder) titled “The Slaughterhouse.”
(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 program’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Toronto’s elite are thrown into panic when a member of the upper crust is badly murdered; a killer dubbed the Widow is on the loose; Detective Kenneth Rijkers is assigned to the assignment to help the victim’s wife Regina Simcoe find closure.”
Ouch! Though that synopsis is a bit poorly worded, it still encapsulates the bare bones structure of this first episode of Slasher’s fifth season. A bloody murder is committed – Alistair Simcoe (played by Shaun Benson) – is gutted violently in the streets. Despite the fact that his past is troubled with some rather nefarious shenanigans, he’s still been part and parcel of Toronto’s high society; and they’re all understandably alarmed when it appears – at the onset – that this cold-blooded murderer might very well be targeting the upper crust.
Now, just how everyone suddenly jumps to that conclusion isn’t very clearly spelled out. Ian Carpenter and showrunner Martin’s script veers in that direction quickly, so quickly in fact that I backed up the feed twice to see if I had missed it but didn’t find it. (I occasionally struggle with some accents, so maybe it’s in there somewhere.) So, perhaps it’s more accurate to say that this conclusion is hinted at by the cultural betters of the show (which I did catch) – there are suspicions voiced fairly early on that a very specific group might be the intended victims – but I didn’t see the linkage spelled out as did the cast. (Maybe you had to be there?)
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net are well aware that I’m willing to wander into the occasional controversy here and there, and – in that respect – Ripper seems to be operating on that current socio-cultural trend of the entertainment industry to – ahem – right the wrongs of the past and cast persons of a particular race in one particular set of roles while leaving the rest to – ahem – folks from another spot on the color spectrum. While I’ve no problem with that whatsoever, I’d honestly have to mention that I’ve not seen it so blatantly obvious elsewhere: Ripper seems committed to cast only a particular subset of mankind as the intellectually measured, internationally well-read, artistically-inclined, and culturally-sophisticated while leaving – ahem – let’s just say putting ‘the white folks’ in roles relating to everything that’s wrong with civilization.
Other programs – HBO Max’s stellar Warrior comes to mind – have handled such efforts to explore race relations with greater balance, nuance, and delicacy, perhaps showing the rights and wrongs of all who lived in these bygone days of social inequity. I’ve no problem with the underlying history lesson; all I ever ask of storytellers is to (first) get history accurate and (second) be respectful of everyone. (Yes, I do realize that may be too much to ask these days.) Unlike other critics, I don’t watch television for its propaganda, though I’m willing to endure anything so long as it’s still entertaining. But Martin and his creative crew seem to be pounding on the drum with a sledgehammer in Ripper (at least, that’s my impression from this first episode), and – alas – none of it feels authentic as a result. (Nor will that drum survive long!) Hopefully, this aesthetic will evolve as the show goes on, so I’ll keep an eye on it in the subsequent episodes.
Still, first episodes are – in my opinion – the toughest to ‘get right,’ but I think there’s a lot to enjoy in “The Slaughterhouse.” There’s a solid central mystery all swirling around this character of The Widow, and it has buckets of blood and even a pound of flesh here and there to a Horror fan’s delight. The production details are quite good, though I’d suggest that many of the street scenes could use a bit more dressing as they appear all-too-obvious like studio backlots being lightly decorated to represent the Victoria Era. I’m not quite buying Gabriel Darku in the role of the lead detective: his performance is far too nonchalant for my tastes, but I’ll give him time to grow into it. Also, Clare McConnell as the murdered victim’s wife ‘Regina Simcoe’ seems far too unmoved by her husband’s recent death … might I suggest early on that it’s appearing as if she might’ve had something to do with it?
Slasher: Ripper is produced by Chiller Films, Shaftesbury Films, and Super Channel. From what I’ve read online, it appears that the program airs on Canada’s Super Channel, Netflix, Shudder, and Chiller, though which seasons actually air where remains a bit of a mystery (like the show itself!). As for the technical specifications? This is an exceedingly well-produced anthology-style program with some very good sights and sounds for those who tune in for the excitement.
Recommended.
Though I generally prefer my anthologies to the short-form ‘Twilight Zone’ variety, Slasher: Ripper has a good vibe. It’s a talented cast – though the early moments are all a bit too melodramatic for my tastes – and a nifty mystery surrounding the upper class. “The Slaughterhouse” mixed blood with bluster, and I’m hoping subsequent episodes develop these thinly drawn characters with a bit more clarity.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Slasher: Ripper by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Other programs – HBO Max’s stellar Warrior comes to mind – have handled such efforts to explore race relations with greater balance, nuance, and delicacy, perhaps showing the rights and wrongs of all who lived in these bygone days of social inequity. I’ve no problem with the underlying history lesson; all I ever ask of storytellers is to (first) get history accurate and (second) be respectful of everyone. (Yes, I do realize that may be too much to ask these days.) Unlike other critics, I don’t watch television for its propaganda, though I’m willing to endure anything so long as it’s still entertaining. But Martin and his creative crew seem to be pounding on the drum with a sledgehammer in Ripper (at least, that’s my impression from this first episode), and – alas – none of it feels authentic as a result. (Nor will that drum survive long!) Hopefully, this aesthetic will evolve as the show goes on, so I’ll keep an eye on it in the subsequent episodes.
Still, first episodes are – in my opinion – the toughest to ‘get right,’ but I think there’s a lot to enjoy in “The Slaughterhouse.” There’s a solid central mystery all swirling around this character of The Widow, and it has buckets of blood and even a pound of flesh here and there to a Horror fan’s delight. The production details are quite good, though I’d suggest that many of the street scenes could use a bit more dressing as they appear all-too-obvious like studio backlots being lightly decorated to represent the Victoria Era. I’m not quite buying Gabriel Darku in the role of the lead detective: his performance is far too nonchalant for my tastes, but I’ll give him time to grow into it. Also, Clare McConnell as the murdered victim’s wife ‘Regina Simcoe’ seems far too unmoved by her husband’s recent death … might I suggest early on that it’s appearing as if she might’ve had something to do with it?
Slasher: Ripper is produced by Chiller Films, Shaftesbury Films, and Super Channel. From what I’ve read online, it appears that the program airs on Canada’s Super Channel, Netflix, Shudder, and Chiller, though which seasons actually air where remains a bit of a mystery (like the show itself!). As for the technical specifications? This is an exceedingly well-produced anthology-style program with some very good sights and sounds for those who tune in for the excitement.
Recommended.
Though I generally prefer my anthologies to the short-form ‘Twilight Zone’ variety, Slasher: Ripper has a good vibe. It’s a talented cast – though the early moments are all a bit too melodramatic for my tastes – and a nifty mystery surrounding the upper class. “The Slaughterhouse” mixed blood with bluster, and I’m hoping subsequent episodes develop these thinly drawn characters with a bit more clarity.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Slasher: Ripper by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Friends, there are those among us who will tell you that the decade of the – ahem – glorious 1980’s delivered some of the best kid-centric entries into the realm of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
In these bygone classics, the youngsters weren’t only seated in the audience. For so very much of the action, they occupied the front and the center of the silver screen! Features like Steven Spielberg’s E.T. – The Extraterrestrial certainly set the bar high; its tale of a young boy befriending a galactically displaced alien botanist warmed hearts around the world, so – as can happen in Hollywood – studios and storytellers were quick in their attempts to recreate box office magic. Nick Castle’s The Last Starfighter (1984) saw a trailer park teen being chosen for his video game playing skills to save the universe from an interstellar evil. Wolfgang Petersen’s The Neverending Story (1984) explored one young man’s trip into high Fantasy when he’s transported elsewhere by the magic of a good book. Richard Donner’s The Goonies (1985) employed a group of young adventurers for a cinematic quest of their own fortune and glory. Robert Zemeckis’ Back To The Future (1985) saw Marty McFly accidentally taking a spin back in time – in a souped-up DeLorean – to save both himself and his family from … well … small town boredom, mostly.
There are more titles, but I’ll leave it at that as I think you catch my drift. No longer were children sidelined as secondary characters playing back-up to adults in the pursuit of making dreams come true. They were the heroes, suiting up and swashbuckling their way into every imaginable corner; and, yes, I’d agree that it made for some wondrously wholesome escapism for kids and their parents alike. Many of these films survive even to this day, and they continue to earn new fans through classic theatrical screenings, anniversary airings in cinemas and television, and the ongoing fan conventions taking place around the world. Some have had sequels. Some have not. But they’re still part of an enduring phenomenon that’s worth your time.
For what it’s worth, the short review of Kids Vs. Aliens – a 2022 entry written (in part) and directed by Jason Eisener – feels like it’s trying to be part of that limited universe. Like so many of those earlier pictures, it focuses almost exclusively on its squad of young heroes – a group of budding filmmakers (and wrestlers) whose very existence gets threatened when aliens show their presence and power in their tiny oceanside village. However, it’s vastly darker and more subversive than anything Spielberg, Castle, Petersen, Donner, and Zemeckis ever would’ve allowed in their flicks.
And each and every one of the young actors swears like a veteran sailor. Incessantly.
In these bygone classics, the youngsters weren’t only seated in the audience. For so very much of the action, they occupied the front and the center of the silver screen! Features like Steven Spielberg’s E.T. – The Extraterrestrial certainly set the bar high; its tale of a young boy befriending a galactically displaced alien botanist warmed hearts around the world, so – as can happen in Hollywood – studios and storytellers were quick in their attempts to recreate box office magic. Nick Castle’s The Last Starfighter (1984) saw a trailer park teen being chosen for his video game playing skills to save the universe from an interstellar evil. Wolfgang Petersen’s The Neverending Story (1984) explored one young man’s trip into high Fantasy when he’s transported elsewhere by the magic of a good book. Richard Donner’s The Goonies (1985) employed a group of young adventurers for a cinematic quest of their own fortune and glory. Robert Zemeckis’ Back To The Future (1985) saw Marty McFly accidentally taking a spin back in time – in a souped-up DeLorean – to save both himself and his family from … well … small town boredom, mostly.
There are more titles, but I’ll leave it at that as I think you catch my drift. No longer were children sidelined as secondary characters playing back-up to adults in the pursuit of making dreams come true. They were the heroes, suiting up and swashbuckling their way into every imaginable corner; and, yes, I’d agree that it made for some wondrously wholesome escapism for kids and their parents alike. Many of these films survive even to this day, and they continue to earn new fans through classic theatrical screenings, anniversary airings in cinemas and television, and the ongoing fan conventions taking place around the world. Some have had sequels. Some have not. But they’re still part of an enduring phenomenon that’s worth your time.
For what it’s worth, the short review of Kids Vs. Aliens – a 2022 entry written (in part) and directed by Jason Eisener – feels like it’s trying to be part of that limited universe. Like so many of those earlier pictures, it focuses almost exclusively on its squad of young heroes – a group of budding filmmakers (and wrestlers) whose very existence gets threatened when aliens show their presence and power in their tiny oceanside village. However, it’s vastly darker and more subversive than anything Spielberg, Castle, Petersen, Donner, and Zemeckis ever would’ve allowed in their flicks.
And each and every one of the young actors swears like a veteran sailor. Incessantly.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An all-time rager of a teen house party turns to terror when aliens attack, forcing two warring siblings to band together to survive the night.”
I’d be remiss in my duties as a film reviewer, budding screen historian, and social media influencer if I failed to mention that staging a genre film during a teenage rage isn’t all that original. In fact, 2013’s +1 (from IFC Midnight) covers some of the same premise, and it did so with much less swearing, violence, and general debauchery. From what I can recall, all of its principal players were of high school and/or college aged, and Kids Vs. Aliens does benefit from employing some foul-mouthed yet still plucky youngsters battling both their teenage adversaries and some invading aliens in its mostly carnival ride of thrills once the party’s started (pun intended).
Where I’ll likely diverge from the popular sentiment here is that – for my tastes – these kids were just too cynical.
Eisener and John Davies’ script elects to make them almost wry observers of the world: they’re only young on the outside, and – on the inside – they’re your average sardonic adult who’s already figured out the wide, wide world out there ain’t pretty. Living with mostly absent parents, they’ve grown up much too quickly and made pandemonium the norm. Gone was the wide-eyed optimism that helped lift so many features from the 1980’s; even when those children were confronted by obvious adversity, they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and soldiered on because – well – what other choice did they really have? But these kids? Well, these foul-mouthed urchins really spend a bit too much of their screen time on the run, never quite rising up against the narrative status quo and almost universally needing to be rescued repeatedly by Samantha (played by Phoebe Rex), the film’s true bright spot here.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“An all-time rager of a teen house party turns to terror when aliens attack, forcing two warring siblings to band together to survive the night.”
I’d be remiss in my duties as a film reviewer, budding screen historian, and social media influencer if I failed to mention that staging a genre film during a teenage rage isn’t all that original. In fact, 2013’s +1 (from IFC Midnight) covers some of the same premise, and it did so with much less swearing, violence, and general debauchery. From what I can recall, all of its principal players were of high school and/or college aged, and Kids Vs. Aliens does benefit from employing some foul-mouthed yet still plucky youngsters battling both their teenage adversaries and some invading aliens in its mostly carnival ride of thrills once the party’s started (pun intended).
Where I’ll likely diverge from the popular sentiment here is that – for my tastes – these kids were just too cynical.
Eisener and John Davies’ script elects to make them almost wry observers of the world: they’re only young on the outside, and – on the inside – they’re your average sardonic adult who’s already figured out the wide, wide world out there ain’t pretty. Living with mostly absent parents, they’ve grown up much too quickly and made pandemonium the norm. Gone was the wide-eyed optimism that helped lift so many features from the 1980’s; even when those children were confronted by obvious adversity, they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and soldiered on because – well – what other choice did they really have? But these kids? Well, these foul-mouthed urchins really spend a bit too much of their screen time on the run, never quite rising up against the narrative status quo and almost universally needing to be rescued repeatedly by Samantha (played by Phoebe Rex), the film’s true bright spot here.
It also doesn’t help matters that the film’s central alien force kinda/sorta arrives without warning, pretty much exists as a stereotypical Horror force for evil, and lacks no defining agenda. Why are they here? What brought them to Earth, specifically? They show up and – naturally – wreak havoc (that’s what villains do), but it isn’t even suggested until late in the picture (in an aside that truly comes out of nowhere) that their craft is powered by human skin. Erm … couldn’t we have known this earlier? Di they crash here and just learn that human skin was an essential fuel? Or did they arrive here knowing it was in amply supply? Wasn’t there some means with which to justify their arrival on our world (of all places), and – if human skin was all they needed – why couldn’t they just quietly and surreptitiously abduct Earthlings the way other invaders have done? Why all of the carnage-fueled pomp and circumstance when there was clearly an easier way to accomplish such a goal?
In fact, I might argue that the lion’s share of the picture’s dialogue feels like it was made up on-the-fly. There’s absolutely no nuance to any of it. Lines come and go, sometimes sloppily delivered if not hard to hear. There’s the occasional youth-flavored quip here and there, but it’s all laced with so much colorful profanity and general looseness I wondered if something said was actually written down on the page or were the actors and actresses merely given some circumstances, a bit of light context, and told to ‘go with it.’ Still, Samantha does develop a repartee that might make Arnold Schwarzenegger blush (in the second half), so I suppose I should be thankful for small favors.
Setting aside some narrative shortcomings and the general lack of characterization, I’ll admit to still having some fun with Kids Vs. Aliens.
In one respect, it’s hard not to. Watching this level of gleeful adolescence onscreen can certainly foster up a sense of nostalgia, but that’s only going to happen if the audience is understandably old enough to have already established that fondness for the days gone by. Playfulness has that affect on those of us with some mileage under our belts. Younger viewers? Well, they might revel in the demonstrated shenanigans; I’ve no way to judge the film on those merits, however. I’d like to think that they’d know when they were in “over their heads” and understood when it was time to seek some parental guidance and/or authorities. Their world spirals out of control once the alien invasion – incursion? – is under way, and I know that I and my friends wouldn’t have just rolled with the punches. I’ll insist that once the first of my friends had been turned to a pile of fleshy goo compliments of the alien acid, me and my mates would’ve been heading for the hills, as we used to say.
In fact, I might argue that the lion’s share of the picture’s dialogue feels like it was made up on-the-fly. There’s absolutely no nuance to any of it. Lines come and go, sometimes sloppily delivered if not hard to hear. There’s the occasional youth-flavored quip here and there, but it’s all laced with so much colorful profanity and general looseness I wondered if something said was actually written down on the page or were the actors and actresses merely given some circumstances, a bit of light context, and told to ‘go with it.’ Still, Samantha does develop a repartee that might make Arnold Schwarzenegger blush (in the second half), so I suppose I should be thankful for small favors.
Setting aside some narrative shortcomings and the general lack of characterization, I’ll admit to still having some fun with Kids Vs. Aliens.
In one respect, it’s hard not to. Watching this level of gleeful adolescence onscreen can certainly foster up a sense of nostalgia, but that’s only going to happen if the audience is understandably old enough to have already established that fondness for the days gone by. Playfulness has that affect on those of us with some mileage under our belts. Younger viewers? Well, they might revel in the demonstrated shenanigans; I’ve no way to judge the film on those merits, however. I’d like to think that they’d know when they were in “over their heads” and understood when it was time to seek some parental guidance and/or authorities. Their world spirals out of control once the alien invasion – incursion? – is under way, and I know that I and my friends wouldn’t have just rolled with the punches. I’ll insist that once the first of my friends had been turned to a pile of fleshy goo compliments of the alien acid, me and my mates would’ve been heading for the hills, as we used to say.
Kids Vs. Aliens (2022) was produced by Yer Dead, Shut Up & Colour Pictures, Bloody Disgusting, Cinepocalypse Productions, and Studio71. From what I’ve come to understand, the film is presently available for streaming purchase on such platforms as iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, and Vudu. (Although there may be other outlets available, these are the only ones I’m seeing at this time.) As for the technical specifications? Well … there’s a fair amount of herky-jerkiness to the flick’s opening segment and a few others (the narrative perspective is that it’s being filmed by the children), but overall the quality and sound ranges from good to very good. As I viewed this via streaming, there were no special features to comment on.
Recommended, but …
Mostly – and I do mean mostly – Kids Vs. Aliens is the kind of thing that an adult might enjoy as it kinda/sorta harkens back to cinema’s golden days of E.T. – The Extraterrestrial (1982), The Last Starfighter (1984), The Goonies (1985), and The Monster Squad (1987) … though with vastly – and I do mean vastly – greater profanity. And I suppose in small ways that’s reasonably true. I just thought it was much darker and not nearly as well made as its predecessors. Also – and this might just be a minor gripe – I’ve grown really tired of films that are produced and left so wide open to call for an obvious sequel: what happened to the days when – like those listed above – films were completed with just a single, entertaining story? Sigh. You kids get off my lawn.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Entertainment and Shudder Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Kids Vs. Aliens (2022) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
Recommended, but …
Mostly – and I do mean mostly – Kids Vs. Aliens is the kind of thing that an adult might enjoy as it kinda/sorta harkens back to cinema’s golden days of E.T. – The Extraterrestrial (1982), The Last Starfighter (1984), The Goonies (1985), and The Monster Squad (1987) … though with vastly – and I do mean vastly – greater profanity. And I suppose in small ways that’s reasonably true. I just thought it was much darker and not nearly as well made as its predecessors. Also – and this might just be a minor gripe – I’ve grown really tired of films that are produced and left so wide open to call for an obvious sequel: what happened to the days when – like those listed above – films were completed with just a single, entertaining story? Sigh. You kids get off my lawn.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Entertainment and Shudder Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Kids Vs. Aliens (2022) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
I realize that there is a solid contingent of SciFiHistory.Net readers who practically worship at the trough of all things Luc Besson.
Now, don't hate me: I've always found his stuff a bunch of hit-and-miss.
Again, let me clarify: this isn't to suggest in any way that I don't like his work. But as a discrminating viewer I do find problems with an awful lot of what he produces. Sometimes the stories don't work for me that well. Other times, I struggle with the characters he tries bringing to celluloid life. Rarely have I found what I believe to be the right balance between these elements, and the end result for me is a lot of impressive-looking gibberish that moves at the speed of light. Well done? Of course. Compelling? Meh. Not so much.
Still, there are some early efforts of his that have always drawn my attention when I stumble across them in my reading for SciFiHistory.Net. The best examples are 1983's The Last Battle (which he wrote and directed, and I believe it might be one of his very first films) and 1986's Kamikaze (a SciFi/Comedy that definitely sounds of merit). Though I've kinda/sorta been warned off of The Last Battle, I've opted to keep it on my proverbial Bucket List, meaning I need to come up with the funds to secure myself a watchable copy; and that's not likely going to happen any time soon. But I just received word (via email) this afternoon that Kamikaze is coming to home video this May compliments of the good people at Kino Lorber.
Here's the flick's plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A crazy old and bored scientist invents a system which allows him to reach through the airwaves and transform live TV cameras into weapons to kill whoever is being filmed."
Presently, all I can say regarding Kamikaze is that I've seen a few snippets of sequences from it online, and it has the potential to be clever. Humor doesn't always translate that well from culture to culture -- especially when the only means to truly 'get the joke' is by reading the sub-titles -- but it's always been the kind of thing that has piqued my curiosity. Who knows? Maybe I can secure a copy in the days ahead, and I'd be thrilled to pen a solid review.
In any event ...
I'm posting the materials below on behalf of the distributor. Interested parties can follow the links to pre-order a copy today ... if you're so inclined.
Now, don't hate me: I've always found his stuff a bunch of hit-and-miss.
Again, let me clarify: this isn't to suggest in any way that I don't like his work. But as a discrminating viewer I do find problems with an awful lot of what he produces. Sometimes the stories don't work for me that well. Other times, I struggle with the characters he tries bringing to celluloid life. Rarely have I found what I believe to be the right balance between these elements, and the end result for me is a lot of impressive-looking gibberish that moves at the speed of light. Well done? Of course. Compelling? Meh. Not so much.
Still, there are some early efforts of his that have always drawn my attention when I stumble across them in my reading for SciFiHistory.Net. The best examples are 1983's The Last Battle (which he wrote and directed, and I believe it might be one of his very first films) and 1986's Kamikaze (a SciFi/Comedy that definitely sounds of merit). Though I've kinda/sorta been warned off of The Last Battle, I've opted to keep it on my proverbial Bucket List, meaning I need to come up with the funds to secure myself a watchable copy; and that's not likely going to happen any time soon. But I just received word (via email) this afternoon that Kamikaze is coming to home video this May compliments of the good people at Kino Lorber.
Here's the flick's plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A crazy old and bored scientist invents a system which allows him to reach through the airwaves and transform live TV cameras into weapons to kill whoever is being filmed."
Presently, all I can say regarding Kamikaze is that I've seen a few snippets of sequences from it online, and it has the potential to be clever. Humor doesn't always translate that well from culture to culture -- especially when the only means to truly 'get the joke' is by reading the sub-titles -- but it's always been the kind of thing that has piqued my curiosity. Who knows? Maybe I can secure a copy in the days ahead, and I'd be thrilled to pen a solid review.
In any event ...
I'm posting the materials below on behalf of the distributor. Interested parties can follow the links to pre-order a copy today ... if you're so inclined.
Prebook Date: 4/11/2023
Street Date: 5/9/2023
Label: KL Studio Classics
Format: BLU-RAY
BD SRP: $29.95
BD Item #: K26269
BD UPC: 738329262693
Genre: Sci-Fi, Crime, Thriller
Year: 1986
Rating: NR
Runtime: 90
Language: French
Director: Didier Grousset, Luc Besson
Cast: Richard Bohringer, Michel Galabru, Dominique Lavanant, Romane Bohringer, Etienne Chicot, Kim Massee
From co-writer/producer Luc Besson (La Femme Nikita, Léon: The Professional, The Fifth Element) comes the sharp and sumptuous sci-fi/comedy/thriller Kamikaze. Michel Galabru (Subway) is Albert. He’s old, bored, batty and unemployed…but brilliant with computers. Albert embarks on a mission to get rid of the people he hates most—the televised kind—and invents a way to kill TV announcers, on air, from the comfort of his own home. Police are baffled, but Richard Bohringer (The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover) as Inspector Romain Pascot dedicates himself to the chase. Also starring Dominique Lavanant (Roberto Benigni’s The Monster), the cult ’80s classic Kamikaze bursts with slick widescreen visuals by cinematographer Jean-François Robin (L’Amour Braque) and pulsing musical soundscapes by composer Éric Serra (GoldenEye), complementing the explosive satire on couch-potato culture.
Bonus Features:
NEW Audio Commentary by Film Historian Eddy Von Mueller | Au coeur du cinéma: Interview with Director Didier Grousset (25:37) | Objectif Kamikaze: Documentary (34:04) | Theatrical Trailer | In French with Optional English Subtitles
Kino Lorber website (link)
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
Folks, it's only natural -- it's only human -- to want to talk about that which interests us.
Part of being a fan has been, still is, and always will be getting together with like-minded folks and chatting up our various inspirations. We like to talk about that which tickles our fancy -- the good, the bad, and the ugly of it -- and such collective celebrations have been taking place for decades. While Star Trek is given a lot of the credit for encouraging fandom to come together via conventions, I can assure you that people have been seeking out groups for much longer; Hollywood (and beyond) merely saw a means to capitalize on these gatherings, and that's why they've become a part and parcel of the modern fan experience.
As a consequence of my website being shared near and far, I've noticed a growing number of new readers this year. It's always grand to have more readers gather in this space; however, the downside to it is that I may -- from time-to-time -- have to repeat myself. Those who've been here since it began back in 2014 (or so) know that SciFiHistory.Net isn't quite like the other blogs and vlogs out there, not like the ones who maintain spies embedded deep within the movie business. Mine is a simple affair -- it's largely the aggregation of my opinion on films, TV, and related media -- and I rarely stray outside of those lines. Yes, I've done the occasionally interview with a creator here and there and written it up for posterity, but I honestly don't do very much of that, and that's because my goals are different from most outlets. I try to celebrate all of genre entertainment; I just don't have the energy to commit to 'breaking news' the way other sites do. SciFiHistory.Net is just me, and I have a life to live beyond this space.
Of course, I do follow a lot of news organizations, and I do watch the occasional vlog. While I can assure you that I have nothing but an incredible amount of respect for folks who've turned their passion into a daily pursuit (and I wish each and every one of them nothing but success in their respective fields), I still maintain that what they do is far more 'commentary' than it is news. Having an opinion is one thing, and utilizing your opinion to build a business is another thing in and of itself. To have grown a huge audience on the back of your opinion only? Wow. That's some incredible work, and hats off to any who can do it. I tend to like collaborating more than I do slinging my own words out into the void (except when it comes to movie reviews), and I'm all too happy to work alongside anyone who wants to share in the effort and the rewards.
But ...
Because I don't have the same Hollywood spies as they do, I'm really not equipped to offer readers my opinions on those kind of breaking news, and here's why: I'm never convinced that what they prognosticate will come to pass. I don't fault their efforts; it's just that I've always been more of a "show me the finished product and I'll tell you what I think" kind of guy. I just don't get all that much jazzed or interested in breaking news, and that's because -- over the years -- I've seen so, so, so many announced projects fizzle and die before they see the light of day. I've seen so many highly and favorably touted products turn out to be little more than a glorious pile of crap once it hits theaters. Like so many of you, I've been disappointed ... and that's why I put so very little emphasis on breaking news.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm willing to sound off on anything that's hot and/or breaking. The only difference is that I'll always couch it with language that underscores "this is only my uninformed opinion" and maybe even a bit of "take this with a grain of salt." I'm not an expert. I don't pretend to be. I just know what I know -- and I know what I like -- and I do prefer staying in that end of the pool.
So ... I'm getting asked what I thought about the 'breaking news' at Star Wars Celebration 2023, and my response is ... "Well, what did you hear that was actually new?"
The Daisy Ridley stuff has been out there for a short while, so that didn't come across as anything fresh and exciting. In fact, if one simply takes a look at the financial performance of the Sequel Trilogy, one might question, "Who in the name of Sam Hill has been clamoring for another Star Wars adventure headlined by Rey Palpatine / Skywalker?" I'm not saying that there's been zero interest; I'm only saying that I've not seen nor read many in fan circles who've been regularly crying for Ridley's return. This is not a reflection on her skills as an actress, nor is it intended as a slight/sleight to her potential draw at the box office; it's just an honest question. Who -- besides Kathleen Kennedy and her woke warrior brigade -- has been championing another film for that crew?
That premise aside, I've always maintained that I do not get excited so much about characters these days as I do good stories. A bad character can still be a part of a good story, but it's exceedingly rare for a bad story to be made better by good characters. Rey -- think what you will -- was performed probably just right by the actress; my conflicts with the youngling was the way she was conceived on the written page. That isn't Ridley's fault, as any talent can only work with what they've been given. I thought she did a fine job; I just didn't care for the writing. Give Rey a good story, and then I'm willing to get excited about the project. Until that happens? Well, I'm happy watching other stuff.
And ... about that other stuff?
I'm sorry to have to say that nothing that came out of this celebration really sounded all that new, much less exciting. I know others are trying to find 'a new hope' something in the idea of a Dave Filoni movie and that 'Dawn Of The Jedi' possibility ... but have you seen what Lucasfilm has been producing as of late? As I've said, The Mandalorian seems to have truly lost its way -- I've no idea what Season 3 is supposed to authentically be about as it's been kinda/sorta pulling on a lot of threads I can only hope comes together in the remaining two episodes -- and I wasn't impressed with The Book Of Boba Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi. (I think it's best said that each of those had things I liked in them, but they were nestled deep inside a bunch of crud that I didn't.)
That's why I don't get excited about these kind of announcements any longer.
Lucasfilm has a terrible track record at announcing projects that don't even get off the drawing boards. I'm not gonna do like other sites and give you a list -- if that heavy lifting interests you, then there are plenty of articles in cyberspace to peruse -- but let's just agree that there has been at least a half dozen that have gone through either leadership changes, story alterations, or have been dumped entirely. Hell, even Kathleen Kennedy said in an interview at this celebration that the Dave Filoni movie is, at least, six years away at this point ... so what's the use in getting exciting over something that's nearly a decade off? Who knows? With her track record, the Filoni movie might not ever materialize or it might be refashioned into a streaming series in the interim.
I realize -- to a degree -- that this might not be what you showed up wanting to hear this morning. I understand that other outlets either have been promising that Kennedy is "on her way out" and the like; but -- as I tried to underscore above -- I'll cover that when and if it happens. The news that emerged from the celebration felt like more of the same ... and if this is the best they've got then it would seem like Kennedy is going to be as loud and proud as she's been since being given the job. The fact that she promised more of the same? Well, that makes me believe she's not going anywhere. Either that or she really isn't interested in doing anything different.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Part of being a fan has been, still is, and always will be getting together with like-minded folks and chatting up our various inspirations. We like to talk about that which tickles our fancy -- the good, the bad, and the ugly of it -- and such collective celebrations have been taking place for decades. While Star Trek is given a lot of the credit for encouraging fandom to come together via conventions, I can assure you that people have been seeking out groups for much longer; Hollywood (and beyond) merely saw a means to capitalize on these gatherings, and that's why they've become a part and parcel of the modern fan experience.
As a consequence of my website being shared near and far, I've noticed a growing number of new readers this year. It's always grand to have more readers gather in this space; however, the downside to it is that I may -- from time-to-time -- have to repeat myself. Those who've been here since it began back in 2014 (or so) know that SciFiHistory.Net isn't quite like the other blogs and vlogs out there, not like the ones who maintain spies embedded deep within the movie business. Mine is a simple affair -- it's largely the aggregation of my opinion on films, TV, and related media -- and I rarely stray outside of those lines. Yes, I've done the occasionally interview with a creator here and there and written it up for posterity, but I honestly don't do very much of that, and that's because my goals are different from most outlets. I try to celebrate all of genre entertainment; I just don't have the energy to commit to 'breaking news' the way other sites do. SciFiHistory.Net is just me, and I have a life to live beyond this space.
Of course, I do follow a lot of news organizations, and I do watch the occasional vlog. While I can assure you that I have nothing but an incredible amount of respect for folks who've turned their passion into a daily pursuit (and I wish each and every one of them nothing but success in their respective fields), I still maintain that what they do is far more 'commentary' than it is news. Having an opinion is one thing, and utilizing your opinion to build a business is another thing in and of itself. To have grown a huge audience on the back of your opinion only? Wow. That's some incredible work, and hats off to any who can do it. I tend to like collaborating more than I do slinging my own words out into the void (except when it comes to movie reviews), and I'm all too happy to work alongside anyone who wants to share in the effort and the rewards.
But ...
Because I don't have the same Hollywood spies as they do, I'm really not equipped to offer readers my opinions on those kind of breaking news, and here's why: I'm never convinced that what they prognosticate will come to pass. I don't fault their efforts; it's just that I've always been more of a "show me the finished product and I'll tell you what I think" kind of guy. I just don't get all that much jazzed or interested in breaking news, and that's because -- over the years -- I've seen so, so, so many announced projects fizzle and die before they see the light of day. I've seen so many highly and favorably touted products turn out to be little more than a glorious pile of crap once it hits theaters. Like so many of you, I've been disappointed ... and that's why I put so very little emphasis on breaking news.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm willing to sound off on anything that's hot and/or breaking. The only difference is that I'll always couch it with language that underscores "this is only my uninformed opinion" and maybe even a bit of "take this with a grain of salt." I'm not an expert. I don't pretend to be. I just know what I know -- and I know what I like -- and I do prefer staying in that end of the pool.
So ... I'm getting asked what I thought about the 'breaking news' at Star Wars Celebration 2023, and my response is ... "Well, what did you hear that was actually new?"
The Daisy Ridley stuff has been out there for a short while, so that didn't come across as anything fresh and exciting. In fact, if one simply takes a look at the financial performance of the Sequel Trilogy, one might question, "Who in the name of Sam Hill has been clamoring for another Star Wars adventure headlined by Rey Palpatine / Skywalker?" I'm not saying that there's been zero interest; I'm only saying that I've not seen nor read many in fan circles who've been regularly crying for Ridley's return. This is not a reflection on her skills as an actress, nor is it intended as a slight/sleight to her potential draw at the box office; it's just an honest question. Who -- besides Kathleen Kennedy and her woke warrior brigade -- has been championing another film for that crew?
That premise aside, I've always maintained that I do not get excited so much about characters these days as I do good stories. A bad character can still be a part of a good story, but it's exceedingly rare for a bad story to be made better by good characters. Rey -- think what you will -- was performed probably just right by the actress; my conflicts with the youngling was the way she was conceived on the written page. That isn't Ridley's fault, as any talent can only work with what they've been given. I thought she did a fine job; I just didn't care for the writing. Give Rey a good story, and then I'm willing to get excited about the project. Until that happens? Well, I'm happy watching other stuff.
And ... about that other stuff?
I'm sorry to have to say that nothing that came out of this celebration really sounded all that new, much less exciting. I know others are trying to find 'a new hope' something in the idea of a Dave Filoni movie and that 'Dawn Of The Jedi' possibility ... but have you seen what Lucasfilm has been producing as of late? As I've said, The Mandalorian seems to have truly lost its way -- I've no idea what Season 3 is supposed to authentically be about as it's been kinda/sorta pulling on a lot of threads I can only hope comes together in the remaining two episodes -- and I wasn't impressed with The Book Of Boba Fett and Obi-Wan Kenobi. (I think it's best said that each of those had things I liked in them, but they were nestled deep inside a bunch of crud that I didn't.)
That's why I don't get excited about these kind of announcements any longer.
Lucasfilm has a terrible track record at announcing projects that don't even get off the drawing boards. I'm not gonna do like other sites and give you a list -- if that heavy lifting interests you, then there are plenty of articles in cyberspace to peruse -- but let's just agree that there has been at least a half dozen that have gone through either leadership changes, story alterations, or have been dumped entirely. Hell, even Kathleen Kennedy said in an interview at this celebration that the Dave Filoni movie is, at least, six years away at this point ... so what's the use in getting exciting over something that's nearly a decade off? Who knows? With her track record, the Filoni movie might not ever materialize or it might be refashioned into a streaming series in the interim.
I realize -- to a degree -- that this might not be what you showed up wanting to hear this morning. I understand that other outlets either have been promising that Kennedy is "on her way out" and the like; but -- as I tried to underscore above -- I'll cover that when and if it happens. The news that emerged from the celebration felt like more of the same ... and if this is the best they've got then it would seem like Kennedy is going to be as loud and proud as she's been since being given the job. The fact that she promised more of the same? Well, that makes me believe she's not going anywhere. Either that or she really isn't interested in doing anything different.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ