- Published on
"I wouldn't buy that for a dollar."
-- Rick Mattox (as played by Jackie Earle Haley)
-- Rick Mattox (as played by Jackie Earle Haley)
I don't often toot my own horn, folks, but -- when it comes to remakes and/or retreads -- I am not like most who write about film.
Generally speaking, I welcome them, and I think it's entirely natural for storytellers to want to build on an established legacy in a way that enhances the original while perhaps taking the property in new directions. Add some flavor to the universe. Give audiences a little something extra to both look at and think about. My central requirements for a reboot is that -- minimally -- you have to have something compelling to enrich this cinematized reality: otherwise, it's going to ultimately feel like a cheap imitation.
Alas, that's exactly what RoboCop (2014 version) felt like: a cheap imitation.
Director Jose Padilha's incarnation of the crime-fighting cyborg really only enhanced the effects, maybe even streamlined the action with some newfangled camera trickery, and those two elements alone proved that the filmmakers and his creative crew failed to understand the charm of the original. Yes, yes, yes: I get that they kept the kinda/sorta sardonic wit -- those moments of cultural parody that propelled so much of this world's humor -- but to do so they brought in Hollywood's biggest foul-mouth with Samuel L. Jackson (no offense, Sam), and again it just felt like it all was produced with the attitude of "we saw what you did, director Paul Verhoeven, and we can do it better."
Well? You didn't, Jose.
And I say all of this with the full confession that I so very much love the work of Joel Kinnaman. He's a fabulous talent -- genre projects included -- and I've no problem accepting him in the role of the central figure here. I don't have any issues with his work in bringing Alex Murphy back to the screen. I do think it's sad that he was pretty much saddled with an inferior script -- one that essentially tried to rehash far too many elements of the original to give him anything fresh, new, and different to do with the character -- but at the end of the day (or the end of the shoot) it is what it is.
So ... once more ... just to clarify ... I didn't hate the film ... I generally speaking don't hate reboots ... I just saw this one as entirely unnecessary because it failed to try something authentically its own ... and flicks like that are always destined to wind up inferior. Great effects and great post-production are all well and good ... but if you're not bringing a new idea? Then I'm perfectly content to stick with the first and best incarnation of the cop from Old Detroit.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy, a loving husband, father and good cop, is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer."
Generally speaking, I welcome them, and I think it's entirely natural for storytellers to want to build on an established legacy in a way that enhances the original while perhaps taking the property in new directions. Add some flavor to the universe. Give audiences a little something extra to both look at and think about. My central requirements for a reboot is that -- minimally -- you have to have something compelling to enrich this cinematized reality: otherwise, it's going to ultimately feel like a cheap imitation.
Alas, that's exactly what RoboCop (2014 version) felt like: a cheap imitation.
Director Jose Padilha's incarnation of the crime-fighting cyborg really only enhanced the effects, maybe even streamlined the action with some newfangled camera trickery, and those two elements alone proved that the filmmakers and his creative crew failed to understand the charm of the original. Yes, yes, yes: I get that they kept the kinda/sorta sardonic wit -- those moments of cultural parody that propelled so much of this world's humor -- but to do so they brought in Hollywood's biggest foul-mouth with Samuel L. Jackson (no offense, Sam), and again it just felt like it all was produced with the attitude of "we saw what you did, director Paul Verhoeven, and we can do it better."
Well? You didn't, Jose.
And I say all of this with the full confession that I so very much love the work of Joel Kinnaman. He's a fabulous talent -- genre projects included -- and I've no problem accepting him in the role of the central figure here. I don't have any issues with his work in bringing Alex Murphy back to the screen. I do think it's sad that he was pretty much saddled with an inferior script -- one that essentially tried to rehash far too many elements of the original to give him anything fresh, new, and different to do with the character -- but at the end of the day (or the end of the shoot) it is what it is.
So ... once more ... just to clarify ... I didn't hate the film ... I generally speaking don't hate reboots ... I just saw this one as entirely unnecessary because it failed to try something authentically its own ... and flicks like that are always destined to wind up inferior. Great effects and great post-production are all well and good ... but if you're not bringing a new idea? Then I'm perfectly content to stick with the first and best incarnation of the cop from Old Detroit.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy, a loving husband, father and good cop, is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer."
At the 2015 ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards, composer Pedro Bromfman was given their ASCAP Award for top honors in the scoring of the film, and -- from what I've read -- the film's trailer did garner a bit of recognition for its advertising, the studio's big attempt to draw folks to the theater. I guess those things do count for a bit of recognition, and here's hoping that the next time some bigwig decides to deliver an incarnation of the cybernetic crimefighter to audiences that it has a bit more under-the-hood than this one did.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
"It's as if there's intelligence behind it."
-- Joy Andrews (as played by Lucy Griffiths)
-- Joy Andrews (as played by Lucy Griffiths)
For the record, Uncanny is one of those smaller, indie-style features that -- in case you missed it -- you shouldn't be all that surprised. Sadly, features like this come-and-go across the industry, seeping in and out of DVD release schedules and/or streaming calendars so quickly that it ought to make our collective heads spin. But unlike so many other pictures, this one deserves a bit of attention if not a smidgeon more reflection. I've seen it -- I received a complimentary DVD release of it back in the day -- and I'll update my files on SciFiHistory.Net later today -- and I thought it was very interesting, though perhaps a bit predictable in a few spots.
What I can say about the Shahin Chandrasoma script (without spoiling too much of its -- ahem -- twist ending) is that it probably would've been better served to have had a larger cast, one fleshed out with just a few more characters. (Yes, yes, yes: I understand all too well that it was kinda/sorta designed to be this intimate three-way relationship between an A.I., its creator, and a lovely reporter.) The downside to its twist is that -- because the cast is small -- it isn't hard to see certain elements of it coming, so when the reveal takes place it may not have had quite as much dramatic impact as it could have were the characters able to hide it amongst a crowd of players.
Still, there's an efficiency to the picture -- it works 'well enough' to carry the premise and potential from start-to-finish -- and I will say that it's a shame that there hasn't been some follow-up. It ends with a definite opening to go back into the universe as created (again, trying hard to not spoil it for you, folks), one that suggests there was definitely a bit more to this story. Who knows? Maybe all involved are taking a good amount of time to venture back into these waters ... or maybe this is all she wrote, as they say. I'd be sad, were that the case, as it's ripe for another chapter the way this one winded down.
In any event, here's the film's plot summary as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"The world's first 'perfect' Artificial Intelligence begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior when a reporter begins a relationship with the scientist who created it."
What I can say about the Shahin Chandrasoma script (without spoiling too much of its -- ahem -- twist ending) is that it probably would've been better served to have had a larger cast, one fleshed out with just a few more characters. (Yes, yes, yes: I understand all too well that it was kinda/sorta designed to be this intimate three-way relationship between an A.I., its creator, and a lovely reporter.) The downside to its twist is that -- because the cast is small -- it isn't hard to see certain elements of it coming, so when the reveal takes place it may not have had quite as much dramatic impact as it could have were the characters able to hide it amongst a crowd of players.
Still, there's an efficiency to the picture -- it works 'well enough' to carry the premise and potential from start-to-finish -- and I will say that it's a shame that there hasn't been some follow-up. It ends with a definite opening to go back into the universe as created (again, trying hard to not spoil it for you, folks), one that suggests there was definitely a bit more to this story. Who knows? Maybe all involved are taking a good amount of time to venture back into these waters ... or maybe this is all she wrote, as they say. I'd be sad, were that the case, as it's ripe for another chapter the way this one winded down.
In any event, here's the film's plot summary as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"The world's first 'perfect' Artificial Intelligence begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior when a reporter begins a relationship with the scientist who created it."
I'd be remiss in my duties as a Genre Historian if I failed to mention that Uncanny did garner a good amount of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit. In fact, the big one -- the kind definitely worth mentioning in this space -- is the fact that it captured the 'Best Indie Film' trophy from the 2015 Boston Science Fiction Film Festival, and that definitely might be the number one credential encouraging my readers that it's a product worth your investment, if only for a single viewing. Having seen it, I can add that it certainly helps if you're a fan of these human-looking-android style stories; it may not have all of the visual bells and whistles you get with big budget productions, but on ideas alone? This one definitely had its cybernetic heart in the right place ...
... or did it?
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
... or did it?
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Truth be told: I fell in love with Lucy Griffiths many moons ago.
Back in the day, she put in some solid period and genre work as 'Maid Marian' aboard the BBC’s occasionally campy Robin Hood (2006-2009). A few years later, she turned up aboard HBO’s True Blood, though her character – Nora Gainsborough – was sadly relegated to second-tier status, essentially a supporting player to Alexander Skarsgård’s Eric Northman. So I was delighted to discover her as one of the leads aboard 2015’s Uncanny, a clever and thought-provoking SciFi potboiler that deserves to find an audience as big as its ideas.
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“For ten years, inventor David Kressen has lived in seclusion with his inventions, including Adam, a robot with incredible lifelike human qualities. When reporter Joy Andrews is given access to their unconventional facility, she is alternately repelled and attracted to the scientist and his creation. But as Adam exhibits emergent behavior of anger and jealousy towards her, she finds herself increasingly entangled in a web of deception where no one’s motives are easily decipherable.”
Readers are quick to lambast me for taking more than a few words to tell you what I thought of a new release, so I’ll try to keep all of this as simple and sweet as possible, tying that in with my affection for the simple and sweet Lucy Griffiths. She’s at times subtle, at times luminescent in this star-crossed triangle where woman meets man and machine. In ways, it’s a mildly predictable tale – anytime testosterone edges out the estrogen there’s bound to be a conflict – but it’s still nonetheless ably delivered and smartly performed by Griffiths and her co-stars, Mark Webber and David Clayton Rogers.
Andrews (Griffiths) meets this cybernetically-inclined Odd Couple, and sparks don’t exactly fly. Because she’s established her credentials in the publishing industry as the ‘go-to’ gal for most things robotics, she’s naturally intrigued by what she learns Dr. Kressen (Webber) has achieved in the comfort and privacy of his own home/lab/condo: the all-too-obviously-named Adam (Rogers) might just be the real deal – the first walking, talking, fully humanoid Artificial Intelligence … suddenly starts to veer into creepy territory when Adam begins exhibiting some inclinations both ‘hot’ and ‘bothered’ for our lady Andrews.
(Wink/wink: can’t say that I blame ‘im!)
Back in the day, she put in some solid period and genre work as 'Maid Marian' aboard the BBC’s occasionally campy Robin Hood (2006-2009). A few years later, she turned up aboard HBO’s True Blood, though her character – Nora Gainsborough – was sadly relegated to second-tier status, essentially a supporting player to Alexander Skarsgård’s Eric Northman. So I was delighted to discover her as one of the leads aboard 2015’s Uncanny, a clever and thought-provoking SciFi potboiler that deserves to find an audience as big as its ideas.
(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 three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“For ten years, inventor David Kressen has lived in seclusion with his inventions, including Adam, a robot with incredible lifelike human qualities. When reporter Joy Andrews is given access to their unconventional facility, she is alternately repelled and attracted to the scientist and his creation. But as Adam exhibits emergent behavior of anger and jealousy towards her, she finds herself increasingly entangled in a web of deception where no one’s motives are easily decipherable.”
Readers are quick to lambast me for taking more than a few words to tell you what I thought of a new release, so I’ll try to keep all of this as simple and sweet as possible, tying that in with my affection for the simple and sweet Lucy Griffiths. She’s at times subtle, at times luminescent in this star-crossed triangle where woman meets man and machine. In ways, it’s a mildly predictable tale – anytime testosterone edges out the estrogen there’s bound to be a conflict – but it’s still nonetheless ably delivered and smartly performed by Griffiths and her co-stars, Mark Webber and David Clayton Rogers.
Andrews (Griffiths) meets this cybernetically-inclined Odd Couple, and sparks don’t exactly fly. Because she’s established her credentials in the publishing industry as the ‘go-to’ gal for most things robotics, she’s naturally intrigued by what she learns Dr. Kressen (Webber) has achieved in the comfort and privacy of his own home/lab/condo: the all-too-obviously-named Adam (Rogers) might just be the real deal – the first walking, talking, fully humanoid Artificial Intelligence … suddenly starts to veer into creepy territory when Adam begins exhibiting some inclinations both ‘hot’ and ‘bothered’ for our lady Andrews.
(Wink/wink: can’t say that I blame ‘im!)
From there, Shahin Chandrasoma’s smart script traffics in some far more conventional and bubbly territory (“Do androids dream wet dreams?”) as Adam’s fatal attraction starts to look more Demon Seed (1977) than it does Short Circuit (1986). Sequences show him in his private time exploring live porn on the internet, and he even manages to cleverly position a webcam (of sorts) in Joy’s apartment, a development that earns both the android and audiences the welcome turn at Joy’s partial butt crack. (The things a robot does for love!) From there, his obsession grows, but – as cruel plot subroutines would have it – the reporter is drawn to the inventor’s more stoic and subtler genius (Webber is full-on channeling The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons at this point), and this is where Uncanny draws much of its uncanniness for its final act.
Like many SciFi thrillers that have come before have done, Uncanny's story relies on a narrative sleight of hand (things are decidedly NOT what they seem, kinda/sorta in that ol’ M. Night Shyamalan way of motion picture storytelling), and no doubt viewers might notice some of Chandrasoma and director Leutwyler’s more obvious misdirections (I won’t spoil it). This certainly isn’t a perfect potboiler, but I’d argue it was never entirely meant to be: instead, Uncanny finishes as it starts, always being more about the human condition that it ever truly was anything robotic … and that may be the harshest lesson for both man and machine of all.
Granted, this is the kind of film that nerds, geeks, and general SciFi enthusiasts will have a blast with (with, as a said, some reservations for its more ‘soapy’ elements); but it’s also the type of feature which might win the genre some crossover appeal: Griffiths and her suitors are all lookers, and Uncanny might just turn out to be one of those unheard-of releases that finds itself the recipient of solid word-of-mouth.
Uncanny (2015) is produced by Accelerated Matter, Shoreline Entertainment, Emergent Behavior, Ambush Entertainment, and Uncanny. DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Director Matthew Leutwyler does an impressive job sighting and sounding the picture, though some of the close-ups seemed a wee bit too high (or too low) and the flick is adorned with those God awful JJ Abrams’ lens flares far too often. Packaging states that there is closed captioned for the Hearing-Impaired (though there was no specific subtitling track that I could find). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you have about 10 minutes of deleted scenes (nothing all that grand, so far as I found).
Highly recommended.
I’m a SciFi junkie, and that means there are parts of Uncanny that I just couldn’t get enough of – the classic misdirect, the nuanced discussions of artificial intelligence, etc. Granted, I could’ve done without the JJ Abrams’ lens flare effects constantly peppering the screen and some of the more obvious potboiler elements could’ve been dialed back just a bit … but – in the end – I’m still left with a smart, excellently conceived, and well performed cautionary tale about what’s likely going on psychologically behind-the-scenes in the whole man-versus-machine smackdown.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD of Uncanny 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
Like many SciFi thrillers that have come before have done, Uncanny's story relies on a narrative sleight of hand (things are decidedly NOT what they seem, kinda/sorta in that ol’ M. Night Shyamalan way of motion picture storytelling), and no doubt viewers might notice some of Chandrasoma and director Leutwyler’s more obvious misdirections (I won’t spoil it). This certainly isn’t a perfect potboiler, but I’d argue it was never entirely meant to be: instead, Uncanny finishes as it starts, always being more about the human condition that it ever truly was anything robotic … and that may be the harshest lesson for both man and machine of all.
Granted, this is the kind of film that nerds, geeks, and general SciFi enthusiasts will have a blast with (with, as a said, some reservations for its more ‘soapy’ elements); but it’s also the type of feature which might win the genre some crossover appeal: Griffiths and her suitors are all lookers, and Uncanny might just turn out to be one of those unheard-of releases that finds itself the recipient of solid word-of-mouth.
Uncanny (2015) is produced by Accelerated Matter, Shoreline Entertainment, Emergent Behavior, Ambush Entertainment, and Uncanny. DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? Director Matthew Leutwyler does an impressive job sighting and sounding the picture, though some of the close-ups seemed a wee bit too high (or too low) and the flick is adorned with those God awful JJ Abrams’ lens flares far too often. Packaging states that there is closed captioned for the Hearing-Impaired (though there was no specific subtitling track that I could find). Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you have about 10 minutes of deleted scenes (nothing all that grand, so far as I found).
Highly recommended.
I’m a SciFi junkie, and that means there are parts of Uncanny that I just couldn’t get enough of – the classic misdirect, the nuanced discussions of artificial intelligence, etc. Granted, I could’ve done without the JJ Abrams’ lens flare effects constantly peppering the screen and some of the more obvious potboiler elements could’ve been dialed back just a bit … but – in the end – I’m still left with a smart, excellently conceived, and well performed cautionary tale about what’s likely going on psychologically behind-the-scenes in the whole man-versus-machine smackdown.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD of Uncanny 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
"The more you care, the more the world finds ways to hurt you for it."
-- Jupiter Jones (as played by Mila Kunis)
-- Jupiter Jones (as played by Mila Kunis)
Here's the thing about Jupiter Ascending ... and feel free to say I'm wrong at any point ...
In fairness, I haven't seen enough of it to analyze it the way I should. When this one was widely panned in its theatrical run, I opted to wait until it came on cable to watch it; and the few times I tried to get through it -- for whatever reason -- it just couldn't keep my interest, so I gave up on it. (Yes, yes, yes: it's one of the films on my Bucket List, so -- life permitting -- I will get around to it and no doubt have something fully to say about it.) Mila Kunis -- in particular -- felt a bit of a miscast to me, and I wasn't quite sure of what all was going on with Channing Tatum's character, and I'll simply leave it at the point of saying it probably isn't/wasn't a film for me. That could change -- should I take it all in in it's infinite glory -- but perhaps at that time I felt like its visuals were more about spectacle than they were substance.
But I have followed to film -- to a lesser degree -- only because I've often that the Wachowskis -- much like M. Night Shyamalan -- are a phenomenon unto themselves. Given their somewhat financially underperformance for studios following in the wake of The Matrix franchise, I've always been at a loss to understand how they -- like Shyamalan, again -- keep getting work! And ... not cheap work! But high paying gigs with some pretty incredible budgets! Has Hollywood learned nothing from throwing money away on these vanity projects? Or are the studio suits still hedging their bets, hoping against hope that they'll produce something that truly redefines cinema as The Matrix did?
I will say that -- even though it was a critical and commercial failure -- I had an awful lot of fun with their big screen adaptation of Speed Racer (2008). I vaguely recall writing somewheres back in its day that -- were I a young one, much like the age in which I first discovered the immortal Star Wars -- Speed Racer might've been the kind of film that truly turned me on to visual storytelling. I'm not even remotely suggesting that these two pictures should be thought of and/or dissected in the same breath; I'm just saying that Racer had the kind of frenetic energy that could've inspired a trend of young filmmakers to pick up their cameras and try to do something in that same mileau.
But I digress ... as this is supposed to be about Jupiter Ascending ...
Not all that long ago, I recall reading something that Kunis said in an interview. She was asked something to the effect of how/why Ascending failed to 'ascend,' as it were; and I thought her response kinda/sorta interesting as well as kinda/sorta stupid. I Googled and can't find the piece now, but -- entirely from memory I'm going now -- the actress suggested that she knew the flick would be a failure when -- in pre-production -- the studio came in and slashed the budget in half. In a general sense, that's a sentiment I think many of us -- even those not in the entertainment business -- can understand and appreciate ... but for perspective's sake what's missing here is that the Wachowskis were still given anywhere between $170 million to $216 million (it's reported differently across the Information Superhighway) ... and, think what you may, that's still an incredible amount of money! Heck, they shot The Matrix (and revolutionized moviemaking, I might add) on a fraction of that!
Alas, only in Hollywood can the 'brightest among us' continue to insist that only by spending -- ahem -- potentially $400 million dollars can a cast and crew produce a compelling and successful space saga!
So I won't throw any more barbs at Ascending ... not today, anyway. As I said, I really need to digest all of it. I just think, sometimes, projects are destined to fail because there's no there there, and maybe that's why it missed its mark ultimately.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Jupiter Jones was born under a night sky, with signs predicting that she was destined for great things. Now grown, Jupiter dreams of the stars but wakes up to the cold reality of a job cleaning other people's houses and an endless run of bad breaks. Only when Caine Wise, a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives on Earth to track her down does Jupiter begin to glimpse the fate that has been waiting for her all along - her genetic signature marks her as next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the cosmos."
In fairness, I haven't seen enough of it to analyze it the way I should. When this one was widely panned in its theatrical run, I opted to wait until it came on cable to watch it; and the few times I tried to get through it -- for whatever reason -- it just couldn't keep my interest, so I gave up on it. (Yes, yes, yes: it's one of the films on my Bucket List, so -- life permitting -- I will get around to it and no doubt have something fully to say about it.) Mila Kunis -- in particular -- felt a bit of a miscast to me, and I wasn't quite sure of what all was going on with Channing Tatum's character, and I'll simply leave it at the point of saying it probably isn't/wasn't a film for me. That could change -- should I take it all in in it's infinite glory -- but perhaps at that time I felt like its visuals were more about spectacle than they were substance.
But I have followed to film -- to a lesser degree -- only because I've often that the Wachowskis -- much like M. Night Shyamalan -- are a phenomenon unto themselves. Given their somewhat financially underperformance for studios following in the wake of The Matrix franchise, I've always been at a loss to understand how they -- like Shyamalan, again -- keep getting work! And ... not cheap work! But high paying gigs with some pretty incredible budgets! Has Hollywood learned nothing from throwing money away on these vanity projects? Or are the studio suits still hedging their bets, hoping against hope that they'll produce something that truly redefines cinema as The Matrix did?
I will say that -- even though it was a critical and commercial failure -- I had an awful lot of fun with their big screen adaptation of Speed Racer (2008). I vaguely recall writing somewheres back in its day that -- were I a young one, much like the age in which I first discovered the immortal Star Wars -- Speed Racer might've been the kind of film that truly turned me on to visual storytelling. I'm not even remotely suggesting that these two pictures should be thought of and/or dissected in the same breath; I'm just saying that Racer had the kind of frenetic energy that could've inspired a trend of young filmmakers to pick up their cameras and try to do something in that same mileau.
But I digress ... as this is supposed to be about Jupiter Ascending ...
Not all that long ago, I recall reading something that Kunis said in an interview. She was asked something to the effect of how/why Ascending failed to 'ascend,' as it were; and I thought her response kinda/sorta interesting as well as kinda/sorta stupid. I Googled and can't find the piece now, but -- entirely from memory I'm going now -- the actress suggested that she knew the flick would be a failure when -- in pre-production -- the studio came in and slashed the budget in half. In a general sense, that's a sentiment I think many of us -- even those not in the entertainment business -- can understand and appreciate ... but for perspective's sake what's missing here is that the Wachowskis were still given anywhere between $170 million to $216 million (it's reported differently across the Information Superhighway) ... and, think what you may, that's still an incredible amount of money! Heck, they shot The Matrix (and revolutionized moviemaking, I might add) on a fraction of that!
Alas, only in Hollywood can the 'brightest among us' continue to insist that only by spending -- ahem -- potentially $400 million dollars can a cast and crew produce a compelling and successful space saga!
So I won't throw any more barbs at Ascending ... not today, anyway. As I said, I really need to digest all of it. I just think, sometimes, projects are destined to fail because there's no there there, and maybe that's why it missed its mark ultimately.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Jupiter Jones was born under a night sky, with signs predicting that she was destined for great things. Now grown, Jupiter dreams of the stars but wakes up to the cold reality of a job cleaning other people's houses and an endless run of bad breaks. Only when Caine Wise, a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives on Earth to track her down does Jupiter begin to glimpse the fate that has been waiting for her all along - her genetic signature marks her as next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the cosmos."
Furthermore, it's often been said that one truly grasps where one stands in life when you can examine who's talking about you. (I think it's an old wives' tale, adage, or refrain.) So in that respect? Jupiter Ascending garnered the attention of GALECA: The Society Of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics. (Heck, I didn't even know there was such a thing!) In 2016, they nominated the film in their annual awards recognition series in the category of 'Campy Flick Of The Year.'
Maybe that was my take with what little of it I watched. Too campy?
Don't worry. I'll eventually know for certain.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Maybe that was my take with what little of it I watched. Too campy?
Don't worry. I'll eventually know for certain.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
What does it take to scare people?
It’s a question at the heart of any good horror film, much less a great one. First, there has to be some kind of frightening premise, and what’s more frightening that to see people essentially void of any trace of humanity? Sure, there’s the mechanization of men and women – think of it as the ‘Borgification’ of mankind (if Trekkers, Trekkies, and general Trek enthusiasts will pardon the usage) – but it’s the gradually blending of man and machine that’s much scarier (in most cases) than the finished product. For my tastes, the more flesh, the better … that’s because human flesh always serves to remind me that I’m watching what was a former human being now turned into something else … something bizarre … something decidedly unlike me … and that’s what instills true horror.
In the past two decades, one of the more effective diversions within all of filmdom – especially where horror films are concerned – has been the phenomenon of the ‘found footage’ film. It essentially started with The Blair Witch Project, and it’s found a few interesting riffs or variations … but none might be so inspired, so brazen, and so zany as what director Richard Raaphorst has done with a script (in part) of his own invention, Frankenstein’s Army.
And what an invention it is!
(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 …)
Near the end of World War II, a crack squad of Soviet soldiers are making their way across occupied territory on a secret mission to locate a deranged Nazi scientist – Dr. Frankenstein (intended to be the son of the one featured in the original Frankenstein) – who’s known to be secretly conducting some of the most bizarre genetic experiments ever conceived.
And, seriously, that’s probably all you need to know going into Frankenstein’s Army, a variation on the ‘found footage’ format film as our lead character/narrator is fundamentally tasked with capturing their mission on tape of the era. In fact, one could argue that knowing only this tiny fragment of what the film is about could conceivably be too much; part war-time road trip but equal part war-torn mind trip, ARMY is a balls-to-the-wall delight in all things bizarre.
It’s a question at the heart of any good horror film, much less a great one. First, there has to be some kind of frightening premise, and what’s more frightening that to see people essentially void of any trace of humanity? Sure, there’s the mechanization of men and women – think of it as the ‘Borgification’ of mankind (if Trekkers, Trekkies, and general Trek enthusiasts will pardon the usage) – but it’s the gradually blending of man and machine that’s much scarier (in most cases) than the finished product. For my tastes, the more flesh, the better … that’s because human flesh always serves to remind me that I’m watching what was a former human being now turned into something else … something bizarre … something decidedly unlike me … and that’s what instills true horror.
In the past two decades, one of the more effective diversions within all of filmdom – especially where horror films are concerned – has been the phenomenon of the ‘found footage’ film. It essentially started with The Blair Witch Project, and it’s found a few interesting riffs or variations … but none might be so inspired, so brazen, and so zany as what director Richard Raaphorst has done with a script (in part) of his own invention, Frankenstein’s Army.
And what an invention it is!
(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 …)
Near the end of World War II, a crack squad of Soviet soldiers are making their way across occupied territory on a secret mission to locate a deranged Nazi scientist – Dr. Frankenstein (intended to be the son of the one featured in the original Frankenstein) – who’s known to be secretly conducting some of the most bizarre genetic experiments ever conceived.
And, seriously, that’s probably all you need to know going into Frankenstein’s Army, a variation on the ‘found footage’ format film as our lead character/narrator is fundamentally tasked with capturing their mission on tape of the era. In fact, one could argue that knowing only this tiny fragment of what the film is about could conceivably be too much; part war-time road trip but equal part war-torn mind trip, ARMY is a balls-to-the-wall delight in all things bizarre.
Sure, one would be hard-pressed to warn the uninitiated that this is destined to be a cult film. It certainly has all of the makings, but first and foremost is the consideration that you seriously do not want to think too hard about Army. When you do, yes, much of it comes crashing apart. Like the thrill-house fun-ride, Army is about ‘the experience.’ When you think about it too deeply, you realize it couldn’t-wouldn’t-shouldn’t work in any probable fashion, but for the purposes of a cult flick, it works exactly the way it was probably always intended.
I’ll admit that the first twenty minutes of this (or so) was a bit of a slog, but I’d be hard-pressed to figure out where and what to cut because, as it stands, Army plays out as a lean, mean less-than-90 minutes carnival ride. Like most other cult films, I’d want to leave it just as it is; otherwise, losing the slow parts would mean having a theatrical experience running at about one hour, and that would no doubt reduce its effectiveness.
Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is produced by Dark Sky Films, Pellicola Films, and XYZ Films. DVD distribution is being handled through MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds about as solid as one would expect from a World War II era ‘found footage’ flick would be, so you can expect a reasonable but artistic amount of faulty images and soundtracking – rest assured, it’s all a part of the package. Lastly, there’s a wonderful little ‘making of’ short and several creature highlights that emphasize how deeply these artisans involved with the project truly love the art of filmmaking. Enjoy.
Highly Recommended.
Frankenstein’s Army is probably destined to be a cult classic someday, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. There’s so much going for it in the crazy, zany department that I’d imagine an entire school of film-nerds will find plenty to love about it. It’s a kinda/sorta mash-up of so many fringe cinematic styles, all of which are captured in the ‘found footage’ style, making it feel very much like a “Wartime Home Videos of the Damned.” Part punk, part splatter, part horror, part nihilistic nightmare, this was a macabre road trip I had no problem making.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Frankenstein’s Army by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
I’ll admit that the first twenty minutes of this (or so) was a bit of a slog, but I’d be hard-pressed to figure out where and what to cut because, as it stands, Army plays out as a lean, mean less-than-90 minutes carnival ride. Like most other cult films, I’d want to leave it just as it is; otherwise, losing the slow parts would mean having a theatrical experience running at about one hour, and that would no doubt reduce its effectiveness.
Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is produced by Dark Sky Films, Pellicola Films, and XYZ Films. DVD distribution is being handled through MPI Media Group. As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds about as solid as one would expect from a World War II era ‘found footage’ flick would be, so you can expect a reasonable but artistic amount of faulty images and soundtracking – rest assured, it’s all a part of the package. Lastly, there’s a wonderful little ‘making of’ short and several creature highlights that emphasize how deeply these artisans involved with the project truly love the art of filmmaking. Enjoy.
Highly Recommended.
Frankenstein’s Army is probably destined to be a cult classic someday, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. There’s so much going for it in the crazy, zany department that I’d imagine an entire school of film-nerds will find plenty to love about it. It’s a kinda/sorta mash-up of so many fringe cinematic styles, all of which are captured in the ‘found footage’ style, making it feel very much like a “Wartime Home Videos of the Damned.” Part punk, part splatter, part horror, part nihilistic nightmare, this was a macabre road trip I had no problem making.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Frankenstein’s Army by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
- Published on
Well, well, well … leave it to the French!
At a time when George Lucas’ immortal Space Fantasy classic Star Wars was making its way around the world inspiring a whole new generation of storytellers, the French were producing a little something something called La fille à la fourrure … which according to Googe Translate turns out to be The Furry Girl in English. Apparently, this was an Adult-themed romp that – depending upon when and where you saw it – may also have been theatrically or commercially billed as The Girl In The Fur Coat, Starship Eros, Naked Lovers, Fornicating Aliens, or even The Porno Zombies. Who knows? I guess maybe you can judge a book by its cover!
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
“Aliens from the planet Eros revive the dead on Earth and turn them into horny zombies.”
What? It could happen …
In any event, the feature was directed by Claude Pierson. I’ve done an online search, and unfortunately I don’t see much information regarding the man and/or his work. A quick summary of his IMDB.com profile suggests that perhaps he’s most well known for a cinematic adaptation of the novel “Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu” that was released as Justine De Sade in 1972. Furry Girl’s script is showing attributed to Huguette Boisvert, and it does appear (also from IMDB.com) that these two worked together on several occasions throughout their respective careers in the business.
As can happen with these titles that are increasingly obscure, reviews on the web are scarce. I did find a single one – well, asides from the basic info on IMDB.com – but it appears that the author of it didn’t know French, and the film wasn’t subtitled. (I say this full well that subtitles in – ahem – adult films are probably not very accurate nor much needed in most cases.) Still, the reviewer seemed somewhat surprised that Furry Girl took its central premise very seriously – that of aliens inhabiting human corpses for the purposes of copulating – when a bit of humor might very well have been what the project needed.
As for the on-screen talent, Furry Girl starred Didier Aubriot, Alain Saury (in one of his last screen roles), Ursula White (who appears to be the marquee name draw here), Barbara Moose, and Lilian Allan as ‘the extraterrestrial.’
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
At a time when George Lucas’ immortal Space Fantasy classic Star Wars was making its way around the world inspiring a whole new generation of storytellers, the French were producing a little something something called La fille à la fourrure … which according to Googe Translate turns out to be The Furry Girl in English. Apparently, this was an Adult-themed romp that – depending upon when and where you saw it – may also have been theatrically or commercially billed as The Girl In The Fur Coat, Starship Eros, Naked Lovers, Fornicating Aliens, or even The Porno Zombies. Who knows? I guess maybe you can judge a book by its cover!
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
“Aliens from the planet Eros revive the dead on Earth and turn them into horny zombies.”
What? It could happen …
In any event, the feature was directed by Claude Pierson. I’ve done an online search, and unfortunately I don’t see much information regarding the man and/or his work. A quick summary of his IMDB.com profile suggests that perhaps he’s most well known for a cinematic adaptation of the novel “Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu” that was released as Justine De Sade in 1972. Furry Girl’s script is showing attributed to Huguette Boisvert, and it does appear (also from IMDB.com) that these two worked together on several occasions throughout their respective careers in the business.
As can happen with these titles that are increasingly obscure, reviews on the web are scarce. I did find a single one – well, asides from the basic info on IMDB.com – but it appears that the author of it didn’t know French, and the film wasn’t subtitled. (I say this full well that subtitles in – ahem – adult films are probably not very accurate nor much needed in most cases.) Still, the reviewer seemed somewhat surprised that Furry Girl took its central premise very seriously – that of aliens inhabiting human corpses for the purposes of copulating – when a bit of humor might very well have been what the project needed.
As for the on-screen talent, Furry Girl starred Didier Aubriot, Alain Saury (in one of his last screen roles), Ursula White (who appears to be the marquee name draw here), Barbara Moose, and Lilian Allan as ‘the extraterrestrial.’
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve done a bit of reading this morning regarding the documentary/mockumentary The Visit (2015), and the reviews are a bit uneven.
It would appear that this project as written and directed by Michael Madsen (not the actor but another Michael Madsen) tried to give a rather dry, unemotional, but intellectual extrapolation of what our world might look like if and when our civilization came in contact with an arriving galactic intelligence. I’ve even watched a few snippets of it online (it’s up for free with ads on YouTube.com). While I found it an interesting diversion, I’m still not sure that – as a somewhat fictionalized proposition – it works as well as it could. I will add that such circumstances as aliens arriving on Earth has long been the province of some great minds who’ve produced some incredible fictional accounts – from 1953’s The War Of The Worlds to 2016’s Arrival – so let’s agree that Mr. Madsen had an uphill battle from the outset.
Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
“This documentary-style film shows how government agencies try to cope with human mankind’s first contact with alien life.”
A quick perusal of the cast listing suggests that Madsen did go to great lengths to bring in a variety of specialists from government and academia to discuss the potential reality of such extraordinary circumstances, and – in my own opinion – I suppose it’s grand to get a different perspective on potential first contact. Certainly, establishing once and for all that we’re not alone in the vast, vast universe would create some chaos socially, psychologically, and spiritually; and likely in these areas that the feature teaches us more about ourselves than it ever does another civilization.
To the film’s credit, The Visit garnered a good amount of praise – but no wins – while appearing on the film festival circuit, with audiences at the DocAviv Film Festival, the Hamptons International Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, and more being understandably fascinated with it.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
It would appear that this project as written and directed by Michael Madsen (not the actor but another Michael Madsen) tried to give a rather dry, unemotional, but intellectual extrapolation of what our world might look like if and when our civilization came in contact with an arriving galactic intelligence. I’ve even watched a few snippets of it online (it’s up for free with ads on YouTube.com). While I found it an interesting diversion, I’m still not sure that – as a somewhat fictionalized proposition – it works as well as it could. I will add that such circumstances as aliens arriving on Earth has long been the province of some great minds who’ve produced some incredible fictional accounts – from 1953’s The War Of The Worlds to 2016’s Arrival – so let’s agree that Mr. Madsen had an uphill battle from the outset.
Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
“This documentary-style film shows how government agencies try to cope with human mankind’s first contact with alien life.”
A quick perusal of the cast listing suggests that Madsen did go to great lengths to bring in a variety of specialists from government and academia to discuss the potential reality of such extraordinary circumstances, and – in my own opinion – I suppose it’s grand to get a different perspective on potential first contact. Certainly, establishing once and for all that we’re not alone in the vast, vast universe would create some chaos socially, psychologically, and spiritually; and likely in these areas that the feature teaches us more about ourselves than it ever does another civilization.
To the film’s credit, The Visit garnered a good amount of praise – but no wins – while appearing on the film festival circuit, with audiences at the DocAviv Film Festival, the Hamptons International Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, and more being understandably fascinated with it.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 01.25.2023.C: 2022's 'Huesera: The Bone Woman' Looks To Put A Horrorific Spin On Motherhood
It's been a little while since I've posted any new trailers.
Some of that is honestly owed to the fact that I really haven't seen all that many of any great interest to me. If it doesn't appeal to me, then I'm hesitant to share it in this space as I feel it likely won't be all that inviting to the rest of you. Such is the case of trying to maintain my esteemed position on the cutting edge of genre projects, so I do hope that you folks appreciate me kinda/sorta keeping up a bit of a wall around you, me, and the rest of mankind. It's a dirty job ... but somebody's gotta do it!
However ...
The trailer for Huesera: The Bone Woman was offered to me last week via a distributor relationship. I didn't get around to watching it until yesterday (I've had a lot on my plate, as of late), and I nearly (nearly!) shut it off about halfway through it as it just came across as far too d-o-m-e-s-t-i-c than authentically scary. But then ... the sound effects kicked in ... and the truly Horror-based aesthetics ramped into gear ... and while I'm not convinced this one might be the dream come true as its marketing staffers promise it still does have a little something something in its tank, I suspect.
IMDB.com shows that this Horror/Fantasy was written (in part) and directed by Michelle Garza Cervera. For some reason, it's a name I recognize, but I can't figure out where and/or why. I've even looked at her published online resume, and sadly nothing looks all that familiar. Perhaps it's a name I've encountered in passing somewheres. While Huesera doesn't look to be her theatrical debut project, its preview certainly has some expressed similarities with other films that have come to pass ... so this one might be worth the price of admission as they say.
As for on-screen talent?
Again, the reliable IMDB.com lists Alfonso Dosal, Mayra Batalla, Mercedes Hernández, Natalia Solián, and Sonia Couoh as ones to watch.
Here's the plot summary as provided:
"Valeria has long dreamed about becoming a mother. After learning that she's pregnant, she expects to feel happy, yet something's off."
Trailer is below. You folks know what to do about that.
Some of that is honestly owed to the fact that I really haven't seen all that many of any great interest to me. If it doesn't appeal to me, then I'm hesitant to share it in this space as I feel it likely won't be all that inviting to the rest of you. Such is the case of trying to maintain my esteemed position on the cutting edge of genre projects, so I do hope that you folks appreciate me kinda/sorta keeping up a bit of a wall around you, me, and the rest of mankind. It's a dirty job ... but somebody's gotta do it!
However ...
The trailer for Huesera: The Bone Woman was offered to me last week via a distributor relationship. I didn't get around to watching it until yesterday (I've had a lot on my plate, as of late), and I nearly (nearly!) shut it off about halfway through it as it just came across as far too d-o-m-e-s-t-i-c than authentically scary. But then ... the sound effects kicked in ... and the truly Horror-based aesthetics ramped into gear ... and while I'm not convinced this one might be the dream come true as its marketing staffers promise it still does have a little something something in its tank, I suspect.
IMDB.com shows that this Horror/Fantasy was written (in part) and directed by Michelle Garza Cervera. For some reason, it's a name I recognize, but I can't figure out where and/or why. I've even looked at her published online resume, and sadly nothing looks all that familiar. Perhaps it's a name I've encountered in passing somewheres. While Huesera doesn't look to be her theatrical debut project, its preview certainly has some expressed similarities with other films that have come to pass ... so this one might be worth the price of admission as they say.
As for on-screen talent?
Again, the reliable IMDB.com lists Alfonso Dosal, Mayra Batalla, Mercedes Hernández, Natalia Solián, and Sonia Couoh as ones to watch.
Here's the plot summary as provided:
"Valeria has long dreamed about becoming a mother. After learning that she's pregnant, she expects to feel happy, yet something's off."
Trailer is below. You folks know what to do about that.
Also, I'd be remiss in my duties as editor-in-chief if I failed to mention that Huesera has enjoyed a wealth of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit. It's presently showing a 6.7 audience score (out of 10) on IMDB.com, and -- even more impressive -- it's showing an 80 (out of 100) score on Metacritic.com. Those, my friends, are some high marks!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve often said that the true beauty of watching and researching as many films as I do is that I’ll always run across something that somehow has entirely escaped my notice.
Granted, when we’re dealing with domestic releases that isn’t all that common these days. Having seen so many – having read about so many – from the big tentpole releases to some small independent pictures here and there – I’ve stumbled across a great many projects that I never heard about. When appropriate, I try to add them to the pages of SciFiHistory.Net; if I don’t have the time immediately, then I add it to the growing list of citations I can only hope (at this point) to get to in a single lifetime. An even greater joy is when I fall face first into an older picture that involves some big name talent whose participation likely made it a better and more memorable outing than had they sat this one out, and those – my friends – are very rare, indeed.
But … I’m here to let you know that I’ve found another one!
The Vagrant (1992) apparently came and went fairly quickly from theaters back in its day; and – after digesting it completely – it ain’t all that hard to see why. Part Horror and part Black Comedy, its various pieces – including performances from such notables as the late Bill Paxton, Colleen Camp, and national treasures like Marshall Bell and Michael Ironside – are occasionally a bit over-the-top, maybe even a bit grotesque for the sake of gratuitousness. I know director Chris Walas’ name more for his work in the field of Special Effects than I do directing, and I’m not sure this story (as penned by Richard Jefferies) could’ve worked all that differently in the hands of another storyteller. All-in-all, it’s a bit uneven, a bit undercooked, maybe even a bit unclear …
… and yet that just might be the source of its unmistakably charm. It definitely has ‘cult’ written all over it, and I’d give it a strong thumbs up if only for audiences who like that kind of thing.
(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 businessman buys a house, but he has a hard time trying to get rid of its previous tenant, a dirty bum.”
Granted, when we’re dealing with domestic releases that isn’t all that common these days. Having seen so many – having read about so many – from the big tentpole releases to some small independent pictures here and there – I’ve stumbled across a great many projects that I never heard about. When appropriate, I try to add them to the pages of SciFiHistory.Net; if I don’t have the time immediately, then I add it to the growing list of citations I can only hope (at this point) to get to in a single lifetime. An even greater joy is when I fall face first into an older picture that involves some big name talent whose participation likely made it a better and more memorable outing than had they sat this one out, and those – my friends – are very rare, indeed.
But … I’m here to let you know that I’ve found another one!
The Vagrant (1992) apparently came and went fairly quickly from theaters back in its day; and – after digesting it completely – it ain’t all that hard to see why. Part Horror and part Black Comedy, its various pieces – including performances from such notables as the late Bill Paxton, Colleen Camp, and national treasures like Marshall Bell and Michael Ironside – are occasionally a bit over-the-top, maybe even a bit grotesque for the sake of gratuitousness. I know director Chris Walas’ name more for his work in the field of Special Effects than I do directing, and I’m not sure this story (as penned by Richard Jefferies) could’ve worked all that differently in the hands of another storyteller. All-in-all, it’s a bit uneven, a bit undercooked, maybe even a bit unclear …
… and yet that just might be the source of its unmistakably charm. It definitely has ‘cult’ written all over it, and I’d give it a strong thumbs up if only for audiences who like that kind of thing.
(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 businessman buys a house, but he has a hard time trying to get rid of its previous tenant, a dirty bum.”
Regular readers of this space know all-too-well that I refrain from spoiling any film – new or old – especially when it involves details I think best kept locked up until discovered on their own. That said, I’m still going to confess that IMDB.com’s plot summary isn’t entirely accurate. It has the benefit of being brief and perhaps setting up the circumstances that ultimately await young and earnest Graham Krakowski (played winningly here by Paxton), but it’s still just a bit misleading … for the right purposes.
In the hands of an everyman like Paxton, Krakowski is your typical young urban professional (think ‘yuppie,’ for those of you who know the term). Who’s doing everything he can smartly to get ahead at work – garnering praise from the ‘corner office’ but not at the risk of being perceived as butt-kissing – and in his private life. Because he’s reached the point in his personal development that purchasing a house is the smart thing to do, he’s put in the research and believes he’s found a place that might usher in the next chapter in his existence. Living his days in the proper step-by-step formula, Graham is the perennial white-collar worker aiming at the right choices.
Therein lies the beauty of The Vagrant’s simple, underlying theme: life rarely goes as planned.
Something invariably throws the proverbial monkey wrench into the mix, and it’s here that The Vagrant excels. It introduces Krakowski to the absolute antithesis of his existence: a homeless man (who is – for all intents and purposes – best known as ‘The Vagrant’ abiding by my spoiler rules) has not only taken up residence in the vacant lot across the street from Graham’s dream house but also he can seemingly find his way inside the place whenever he chooses. Try as he might to keep the unwashed, unclean, and unkempt itinerant out and away from his personal business, Krakowski fails at every opportunity, so much so that one might begin to suspect magic – if not downright undiagnosed psychosis – might be afoot.
In fact, Jefferies’ script deliberately toys with Krakowski’s increasingly fragile psyche up and to the point wherein audiences just might begin questioning if the lines of reality have blurred. We learn that Graham sleepwalks on occasion, and it starts to look as if he himself might be his own worst enemy in these unintended nocturnal episodes. Yet because The Vagrant really is the stuff of living nightmares we’re eventually brought back to the point that these things taking place are very real, potentially very deadly, and inevitably requiring extraordinary solutions.
As for the cast?
In the hands of an everyman like Paxton, Krakowski is your typical young urban professional (think ‘yuppie,’ for those of you who know the term). Who’s doing everything he can smartly to get ahead at work – garnering praise from the ‘corner office’ but not at the risk of being perceived as butt-kissing – and in his private life. Because he’s reached the point in his personal development that purchasing a house is the smart thing to do, he’s put in the research and believes he’s found a place that might usher in the next chapter in his existence. Living his days in the proper step-by-step formula, Graham is the perennial white-collar worker aiming at the right choices.
Therein lies the beauty of The Vagrant’s simple, underlying theme: life rarely goes as planned.
Something invariably throws the proverbial monkey wrench into the mix, and it’s here that The Vagrant excels. It introduces Krakowski to the absolute antithesis of his existence: a homeless man (who is – for all intents and purposes – best known as ‘The Vagrant’ abiding by my spoiler rules) has not only taken up residence in the vacant lot across the street from Graham’s dream house but also he can seemingly find his way inside the place whenever he chooses. Try as he might to keep the unwashed, unclean, and unkempt itinerant out and away from his personal business, Krakowski fails at every opportunity, so much so that one might begin to suspect magic – if not downright undiagnosed psychosis – might be afoot.
In fact, Jefferies’ script deliberately toys with Krakowski’s increasingly fragile psyche up and to the point wherein audiences just might begin questioning if the lines of reality have blurred. We learn that Graham sleepwalks on occasion, and it starts to look as if he himself might be his own worst enemy in these unintended nocturnal episodes. Yet because The Vagrant really is the stuff of living nightmares we’re eventually brought back to the point that these things taking place are very real, potentially very deadly, and inevitably requiring extraordinary solutions.
As for the cast?
As mentioned, the reliable Paxton is just as reliable as he’s ever been. He carries much of this project and its outcome on his shoulders, but he’s surrounded by men and women who capably show up and turn in some respectable moments each. Bell – as the Vagrant – is a visual nightmare; his scarred face, milky eye, and blackened teeth definitely go the distance to creating something frightening enough to last memorably in those who discover this little gem. Ironside – a genre mainstay for as long as I can recall – never quite settles in here as comfortably as I would’ve liked, and that might be because his character veers toward cartoonish at time: a veteran cop whose done and seen it all, he makes a dark turn in the last reel that felt more like a screenwriter’s invention than it did a natural character evolution. Colleen Camp has possibly stolen as many scenes as she’s ever been in; here – as the hyper-sexed real estate agent who takes a shining to Krakowski – it would’ve been nice to see her a bit more as I think her zaniness worked precisely as intended. Lastly, the fetching Mitzi Kapture (oh, where oh where have you gone?) gets high marks as Graham’s comely girlfriend who tries against hope to ground the young professional in domestic bliss but yet can’t quite come to terms with his precarious personality.
Reflecting upon the journey, I think that The Vagrant’s subversiveness probably was found a bit too risky to put this thing out with a wide theatrical release. As I said above, it’s one of those rare flicks that isn’t quite specific enough grounded in any one genre, choosing instead of cross over – perhaps even back-and-forth – with traditional Horror, conventional then dark Comedy, as well as the mainstream urban thriller. Because it never commits to any one theme, it likely confused studio suits in much the same way Tremors (1990) had done just a few years before. Saddled with this thematic inconsistency, The Vagrant only found extremely limited airings, eventually being dumped into the retail/rental market where it finally found an audience. That’s a shame because I’d argue it deserved better: it definitely deserves to be seen, though I think only those who gravitate toward cult flicks might inevitably embrace it as the diamond-in-the-rough that it remains.
Like every good Horror concept, the film does have a very solid twist – a final surprise – withheld until the final reel, and that’s one thing that I think was handled intelligently enough to encourage folks to give it a single viewing. It may not be as grand or as frightening as it was intended, but it definitely gives one something to mull over the next time you see that scruffy fellow standing on the corner with a sign asking you for your spare change. Who is that fellow? What might his true backstory be? Why could avoiding his glance – why might not giving him a buck – be the worst choice you ever made? As is the case with living life unbridled, you never truly know … do you?
Do you?
Reflecting upon the journey, I think that The Vagrant’s subversiveness probably was found a bit too risky to put this thing out with a wide theatrical release. As I said above, it’s one of those rare flicks that isn’t quite specific enough grounded in any one genre, choosing instead of cross over – perhaps even back-and-forth – with traditional Horror, conventional then dark Comedy, as well as the mainstream urban thriller. Because it never commits to any one theme, it likely confused studio suits in much the same way Tremors (1990) had done just a few years before. Saddled with this thematic inconsistency, The Vagrant only found extremely limited airings, eventually being dumped into the retail/rental market where it finally found an audience. That’s a shame because I’d argue it deserved better: it definitely deserves to be seen, though I think only those who gravitate toward cult flicks might inevitably embrace it as the diamond-in-the-rough that it remains.
Like every good Horror concept, the film does have a very solid twist – a final surprise – withheld until the final reel, and that’s one thing that I think was handled intelligently enough to encourage folks to give it a single viewing. It may not be as grand or as frightening as it was intended, but it definitely gives one something to mull over the next time you see that scruffy fellow standing on the corner with a sign asking you for your spare change. Who is that fellow? What might his true backstory be? Why could avoiding his glance – why might not giving him a buck – be the worst choice you ever made? As is the case with living life unbridled, you never truly know … do you?
Do you?
The Vagrant (1992) was produced by Brooksfilms and Canal+. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the reliable people at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds from start-to-finish were quite good, even though there were a few sequences of grain likely attributed more to flaws missed while in production. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? I was provided a screener copy, so I’m going (in part) from the publicity materials provided that say this was a brand-new 2K restoration along with some newly-produced cast and crew interviews (Bell, Ironside, Camp, and Walas are all here, and their recollections are solid). Lastly, the materials claim first pressings also receive a collector’s booklet with new artwork and essays; but as I wasn’t provided those I can’t speak to their efficacy.
Recommended … but only truly if you’re a purveyor of cult flicks, obscure Horror releases, and/or oddball black comedies.
I think – with a film like The Vagrant – it goes without saying that the motion picture won’t be for everyone. Its comic moments are a bit fleeting at times, occasionally played a bit over-the-top, and its Horror elements are likely too few and far between to truly light a fire in that genre’s most ardent fans. I suspect this was the type of project that no one quite knew what to do with once completed, and this certainty probably left it with the scant theatrical airings it was afforded. As can happen over time, home video releases likely gave it new life, as renters are far more forgiving with features that lean toward the fringes and forgotten films.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray screener/copy of The Vagrant 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
Recommended … but only truly if you’re a purveyor of cult flicks, obscure Horror releases, and/or oddball black comedies.
I think – with a film like The Vagrant – it goes without saying that the motion picture won’t be for everyone. Its comic moments are a bit fleeting at times, occasionally played a bit over-the-top, and its Horror elements are likely too few and far between to truly light a fire in that genre’s most ardent fans. I suspect this was the type of project that no one quite knew what to do with once completed, and this certainty probably left it with the scant theatrical airings it was afforded. As can happen over time, home video releases likely gave it new life, as renters are far more forgiving with features that lean toward the fringes and forgotten films.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray screener/copy of The Vagrant 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
"In the grand history of the cosmos, more than thirteen thousand million years old, our Earth is replicated elsewhere."
-- Dr. Richard Berendzen (from the film)
-- Dr. Richard Berendzen (from the film)
Right before the screen fully faded to black and the credits were set to roll in 1979's oft-maligned Star Trek: The Motion Picture, these words appeared on the silver screen: "The human adventure is just beginning."
Setting aside the controversy regarding whether that film was good or bad (I've often argued that it's very, very good), I think that phrase certainly summed up the way many of us in genre truly think about Science Fiction films: namely, the very best of them are about the human condition -- this ongoing adventure -- and not so much the flashes, bells, and whistles storytellers like to cram inside them. At the film's heart, there's a real heart -- a human heart -- that beats in time with yours and mine. It suffers the same shortcomings, has the same strengths, and experiences an awful lot of what you and I do. Occasionally, I suppose it's safe to suggest that maybe a filmmaker or two goes way into the deep end of the pool, choosing to functionally minimize most of a flick's SciFi and/or Fantasy elements in favor of focusing more strongly on that human core ... and from what I've read that's probably why a feature like Another Earth (2011) probably only skirted legitimate SciFi fandom by appealing to a more centrist and/or artsy audience.
The picture premiered on this day back in 2011 screening for audiences in attendance of the Sundance Film Festival. Actress and budding auteur Brit Marling headlined the piece, and why not? She and director Mike Cahill collaborated on the screenplay, and they cast such talent as William Mapother, Matthew-Lee Erlbach, DJ Flava, and Meggan Lennon to join them on this journey into the heart of man. Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"On the night of the discovery of a duplicate Earth in the Solar system, an ambitious young student and an accomplished composer cross paths in a tragic accident."
Setting aside the controversy regarding whether that film was good or bad (I've often argued that it's very, very good), I think that phrase certainly summed up the way many of us in genre truly think about Science Fiction films: namely, the very best of them are about the human condition -- this ongoing adventure -- and not so much the flashes, bells, and whistles storytellers like to cram inside them. At the film's heart, there's a real heart -- a human heart -- that beats in time with yours and mine. It suffers the same shortcomings, has the same strengths, and experiences an awful lot of what you and I do. Occasionally, I suppose it's safe to suggest that maybe a filmmaker or two goes way into the deep end of the pool, choosing to functionally minimize most of a flick's SciFi and/or Fantasy elements in favor of focusing more strongly on that human core ... and from what I've read that's probably why a feature like Another Earth (2011) probably only skirted legitimate SciFi fandom by appealing to a more centrist and/or artsy audience.
The picture premiered on this day back in 2011 screening for audiences in attendance of the Sundance Film Festival. Actress and budding auteur Brit Marling headlined the piece, and why not? She and director Mike Cahill collaborated on the screenplay, and they cast such talent as William Mapother, Matthew-Lee Erlbach, DJ Flava, and Meggan Lennon to join them on this journey into the heart of man. Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"On the night of the discovery of a duplicate Earth in the Solar system, an ambitious young student and an accomplished composer cross paths in a tragic accident."
To the film's credit, Another Earth garnered a good share of recognition during festival screenings as well as throughout awards' season. Still, what matters most to those of us who traffic in the realm of SciFi closely are the Saturn Awards, sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films. In that respect, Another Earth received two solid nominations (but no wins) in the categories of 'Best Actress' (for Ms. Marling) and 'Best Writing' (which she shared with Cahill).
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ