- Published on
"First, the terror. And then a moment of hunger. This is how the sense of taste disappears from our world. They don't even have time to give the disease a name."
-- Susan (as played by Eva Green)
-- Susan (as played by Eva Green)
Erm ... how do I say this both delicately and respectfully? I think I'll try it this way: " Like Schindler's List (1993), Perfect Sense (2011) isn't a film I think folks say they enjoyed. But both are haunting visions one remembers."
As I've mentioned before, an incredible number of my reviews penned and posted during my time as an Amazon.com Reviewer have been -- alas -- lost to history, and Perfect Sense is one of them. I will have to watch it again some time in order to offer up the most accurate and relevant observations on it. My fragile memory being what it is, I can only muster up some scraps of visuals and feelings from it. What I can recall is that I absolutely loved Eva Green in it -- and Ewan McGregor did some solid work as well -- along with the increasingly tragic love story bound to the narrative. Essentially, this remains a 'boy meets girl' story, but it's all set against the backdrop of an unexplainable plague that's slowly destroying mankind. First, it robs your senses -- kind of the way sufferers reported that COVID affected their sense of taste or smell -- and then it absolutely kills you.
Argh. What a way to go.
I do also remember -- back in the day -- someone suggesting that perhaps the Illuminati wanted to film made in order to usher in a greater understanding of what it would be like for all of mankind to realize that Mother Nature had finally 'had it up to here' with us and decided it was time to wipe us from the face of the Earth. (Keep in mind, peeps, that this was nearly a decade before COVID, so maybe there's something to that silly theory!) Who knows? I suppose stranger things have happened. Whatever the truth there may be, I guess there's nothing wrong with casting two great-looking actors at the top of their game to depict the increasingly grim circumstances each and every one us could await should these circumstances truly come to pass.
It's a frightening film. It's a frightening film all the way until its closing scene.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A chef and a scientist fall in love as an epidemic begins to rob people of their sensory perceptions."
As I've mentioned before, an incredible number of my reviews penned and posted during my time as an Amazon.com Reviewer have been -- alas -- lost to history, and Perfect Sense is one of them. I will have to watch it again some time in order to offer up the most accurate and relevant observations on it. My fragile memory being what it is, I can only muster up some scraps of visuals and feelings from it. What I can recall is that I absolutely loved Eva Green in it -- and Ewan McGregor did some solid work as well -- along with the increasingly tragic love story bound to the narrative. Essentially, this remains a 'boy meets girl' story, but it's all set against the backdrop of an unexplainable plague that's slowly destroying mankind. First, it robs your senses -- kind of the way sufferers reported that COVID affected their sense of taste or smell -- and then it absolutely kills you.
Argh. What a way to go.
I do also remember -- back in the day -- someone suggesting that perhaps the Illuminati wanted to film made in order to usher in a greater understanding of what it would be like for all of mankind to realize that Mother Nature had finally 'had it up to here' with us and decided it was time to wipe us from the face of the Earth. (Keep in mind, peeps, that this was nearly a decade before COVID, so maybe there's something to that silly theory!) Who knows? I suppose stranger things have happened. Whatever the truth there may be, I guess there's nothing wrong with casting two great-looking actors at the top of their game to depict the increasingly grim circumstances each and every one us could await should these circumstances truly come to pass.
It's a frightening film. It's a frightening film all the way until its closing scene.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A chef and a scientist fall in love as an epidemic begins to rob people of their sensory perceptions."
Festivals and organizations are quite fond of mankind's demise, especially when given top talent like McGregor and Green. This one garnered a solid handful of accolades, and heck even I liked what I saw.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Oh, how we’ve all come a long way, baby!
You kids today might not remember the joy of internet chatrooms. (Yes, yes, yes: I know that they still exist, but methinks that they’re not quite the same as they were back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.) In many ways, that’s where the whole problem with anonymity and the Internet truly started as anyone with the right software and a modem could log on, join a chat, and spout off damn near any thing without suffering a consequence in the slightest. Occasionally, a moderator would kick some blowhards out – or freeze them out – but more often than not folks just dropped off and went into a different room, leaving the proliferation of idiocy up for grabs to anyone who wanted to discover it.
A good many pictures – both telefilms and theatrical releases – tried to tap into the phenomenon, but none of them really found major success in any lasting way. The same could be said for today’s Social Media culture; though films like Searching (2018) and the more recent Missing (2023) have staked out solid thriller territory, I don’t believe either has found the kind of critical acclaim and/or commercial success that will make them long-term contenders to the throne. Still, those two pictures are head-and-shoulders above a little something called .Com For Murder (Dot Com For Murder), which really only revels in the sleezier aspects of online chatting by giving some web-based psychopath a bit more skills than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry had back in the day.
(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 woman suspects that the person she encountered on the Internet is a killer.”
You kids today might not remember the joy of internet chatrooms. (Yes, yes, yes: I know that they still exist, but methinks that they’re not quite the same as they were back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.) In many ways, that’s where the whole problem with anonymity and the Internet truly started as anyone with the right software and a modem could log on, join a chat, and spout off damn near any thing without suffering a consequence in the slightest. Occasionally, a moderator would kick some blowhards out – or freeze them out – but more often than not folks just dropped off and went into a different room, leaving the proliferation of idiocy up for grabs to anyone who wanted to discover it.
A good many pictures – both telefilms and theatrical releases – tried to tap into the phenomenon, but none of them really found major success in any lasting way. The same could be said for today’s Social Media culture; though films like Searching (2018) and the more recent Missing (2023) have staked out solid thriller territory, I don’t believe either has found the kind of critical acclaim and/or commercial success that will make them long-term contenders to the throne. Still, those two pictures are head-and-shoulders above a little something called .Com For Murder (Dot Com For Murder), which really only revels in the sleezier aspects of online chatting by giving some web-based psychopath a bit more skills than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry had back in the day.
(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 woman suspects that the person she encountered on the Internet is a killer.”
Frankly, it isn’t that often that I have to work really, really, really hard to come up with something positive to say about a production, but I have to admit that – having just finished screening .Com For Murder (Dot Com For Murder) – I’m a bit at a loss. It isn’t as if it’s an entirely inferior production because there are some name commodities packed in there, what with stars Nastassja Kinski, Nicollette Sheridan, Huey Lewis, and even the recognizable Melinda Clarke filling in the biggest roles. It’s just that there’s so little compelling action tied in with the story and its color-by-numbers delivery that I suspect most viewers are going to consider it an entirely forgettable affair.
Now … if it had clocked in under ninety minutes – a timeframe once lauded to be desirable across all genre entries – then I might not have felt that most of it was a big waste of time. That – and given the fact that as a thriller this kind of thing has been done before ad infinitum – pretty much destined this one to the trash heap of dead cinema. Maybe it should’ve stayed there, instead of getting such a primo release from the great and reliable Arrow Films. How this thing fell onto anyone’s radar and just why said ‘expert’ thought it desired a contemporary makeover will likely end up one of life’s greatest mysteries.
The film’s saving grace is that writer/director Nico Mastorakis stole from the best: clearly, he (and the others who contributed to the script) sought to ‘contemporize’ one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best feature. 1954’s Rear Window pitted recuperating photographer L.B. Jefferies (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his ‘gal Friday’ Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) against neighbor Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) whom they suspect has not only murdered his ailing wife but also did unspeakable things to her dead body. The bulk of the action takes place entirely in Jefferies’ apartment as they watch and reflect on the lives of everyone they see through that ‘rear window,’ an activity that nearly costs them their mortal coils.
Dot Com mirrors Window to a large degree, what with gal pals Sondra (Nastassja Kinski) and Misty (Nicollette Sheridan) stumbling into what appears to be a series of online affairs gone awry. (FYI: Sondra is even confined to a wheelchair, perhaps as direct an intentional nod to the source inspiration as Mastorakis’ wanted to include.) When Sondra believes she’s tapped into an inappropriate relationship between her gone-for-the-weekend husband (The Who’s Roger Daltrey, in a curious cameo), she inadvertently sets in motion the series of events that leads to a hacker/killer named Werther (Jeffery Dean) setting his sights on more than ‘you’ve got mail.’ He wants blood, and he’ll stop at nothing to get it.
Well, the biggest problem here – as I see it – is that Natassja Kinski is certainly no Jimmy Stewart, and Nicollette Sheridan is no Grace Kelly … though I will admit that she’s arguably just as good to ogle. (I’m full-blooded male, and I suffer the usual full-blooded male curse.) These two make for affable chums, but they don’t have the chemistry required to really elevate this story beyond its dull pacing and predictable circumstances. Inspiration does strike like a bolt of lightning in the final reel, but I’ll leave that alone as I do try to avoid spoiling plot details for those who may wish to discover this film all on their own.
Now … if it had clocked in under ninety minutes – a timeframe once lauded to be desirable across all genre entries – then I might not have felt that most of it was a big waste of time. That – and given the fact that as a thriller this kind of thing has been done before ad infinitum – pretty much destined this one to the trash heap of dead cinema. Maybe it should’ve stayed there, instead of getting such a primo release from the great and reliable Arrow Films. How this thing fell onto anyone’s radar and just why said ‘expert’ thought it desired a contemporary makeover will likely end up one of life’s greatest mysteries.
The film’s saving grace is that writer/director Nico Mastorakis stole from the best: clearly, he (and the others who contributed to the script) sought to ‘contemporize’ one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best feature. 1954’s Rear Window pitted recuperating photographer L.B. Jefferies (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his ‘gal Friday’ Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) against neighbor Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) whom they suspect has not only murdered his ailing wife but also did unspeakable things to her dead body. The bulk of the action takes place entirely in Jefferies’ apartment as they watch and reflect on the lives of everyone they see through that ‘rear window,’ an activity that nearly costs them their mortal coils.
Dot Com mirrors Window to a large degree, what with gal pals Sondra (Nastassja Kinski) and Misty (Nicollette Sheridan) stumbling into what appears to be a series of online affairs gone awry. (FYI: Sondra is even confined to a wheelchair, perhaps as direct an intentional nod to the source inspiration as Mastorakis’ wanted to include.) When Sondra believes she’s tapped into an inappropriate relationship between her gone-for-the-weekend husband (The Who’s Roger Daltrey, in a curious cameo), she inadvertently sets in motion the series of events that leads to a hacker/killer named Werther (Jeffery Dean) setting his sights on more than ‘you’ve got mail.’ He wants blood, and he’ll stop at nothing to get it.
Well, the biggest problem here – as I see it – is that Natassja Kinski is certainly no Jimmy Stewart, and Nicollette Sheridan is no Grace Kelly … though I will admit that she’s arguably just as good to ogle. (I’m full-blooded male, and I suffer the usual full-blooded male curse.) These two make for affable chums, but they don’t have the chemistry required to really elevate this story beyond its dull pacing and predictable circumstances. Inspiration does strike like a bolt of lightning in the final reel, but I’ll leave that alone as I do try to avoid spoiling plot details for those who may wish to discover this film all on their own.
Still, Dot Com musters a weird bit of charm by casting crooner Huey Lewis in the role of a veteran FBI Agent who apparently works for the bureau 24/7 as there is otherwise no logical reason why he’d be available as quickly and as conveniently as he is here to ride in with an attempt to rescue our ladies in distress. Perhaps watching him and Daltrey do the acting thing might make this one a curiosity for some, but otherwise? Like those annoying pop-up adverts from the days of dial-up computering, this one deserves to be closed quickly.
.Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) was produced by Omega Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the good folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds were, mostly, very good, though I’ll admit that the flick’s overall cinematography was a bit jumbled in places: clearly director Mastorakis wanted to capture this trendy yarn with a certain flourish, and I’m just not entirely certain that was the best approach.
If you’re looking for special features, then buckle up! This is Arrow Films, after all, and they never disappoint, even with some tepid flicks as this one is. Stars Roger Daltrey and Huey Lewis are on-board with some archival interviews. There’s a new featurette wherein the director revisits his time working on the film. There are also making-of shorts, image galleries, and the theatrical trailer. The provided advertising materials also boast that the packaging includes some artwork along with a collector’s booklet, but as I was only provided a pre-fab copy I can’t speak to the efficacy of those inserts.
Not really recommended. .Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) plays more like a direct-to-cable bit of shlock. There’s really no narrative beat that heightens the tension precisely the way even a passable film should. Given the fact that there’s no performance in here that swings for the cheap seats, it’s hard to find any compelling reason to encourage folks to look it over … unless you need a Huey Lewis or Roger Daltrey quick fix.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screener/copy 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
.Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) was produced by Omega Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the good folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds were, mostly, very good, though I’ll admit that the flick’s overall cinematography was a bit jumbled in places: clearly director Mastorakis wanted to capture this trendy yarn with a certain flourish, and I’m just not entirely certain that was the best approach.
If you’re looking for special features, then buckle up! This is Arrow Films, after all, and they never disappoint, even with some tepid flicks as this one is. Stars Roger Daltrey and Huey Lewis are on-board with some archival interviews. There’s a new featurette wherein the director revisits his time working on the film. There are also making-of shorts, image galleries, and the theatrical trailer. The provided advertising materials also boast that the packaging includes some artwork along with a collector’s booklet, but as I was only provided a pre-fab copy I can’t speak to the efficacy of those inserts.
Not really recommended. .Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) plays more like a direct-to-cable bit of shlock. There’s really no narrative beat that heightens the tension precisely the way even a passable film should. Given the fact that there’s no performance in here that swings for the cheap seats, it’s hard to find any compelling reason to encourage folks to look it over … unless you need a Huey Lewis or Roger Daltrey quick fix.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screener/copy 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
Wasn’t it Icarus who flew too close to the sun and – to his astonishment – melted his wings and doomed him for his arrogance?
This is a sentiment that pervades a vast number of Science Fiction and Fantasy films. Even Dr. Frankenstein found himself receiving an epiphany too late to perhaps do anything about it when he unleashed his monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Sometimes cheating death can be a bad thing, no? That’s the thing about hubris, I suppose: it blinds us to the real possibilities of destiny – of what very well might be waiting at the end of the rainbow (hint: it’s not a pot of gold) – and all we’re left with is a quick ending brought about by our very own lack of foresight. Yes, such a comeuppance isn’t restricted to only genre films – there are plenty of dramas, mysteries, and even conventional comedies that tinker with similar cause-and-effect scenarios – but it is only SciFi that typically blinds its cinematic geniuses to formulaic perfection, putting them on the road to ruin well before they’ve mustered the intuition to recognize the deadly path they’re on.
That’s pretty much the sum behind The Asphyx, an early 1970’s attempt to kinda/sorta blend steampunk with some English/Gothic Horror. Its pacing is slow, to say the least, and its performances are only occasionally inspired. Though it builds around an interesting premise – the fringe science to control one’s life – it really does very little with the concept, reducing it to the point of being a cliché within any otherwise curious experiment. So while it isn’t particular good, it also isn’t particular bad, leaving director Peter Newbrook possibly having a bit more in the script (from Christina Beers, Laurence Beers, and Brian Comport) than he knew precisely how to stage.
(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 …)
This is a sentiment that pervades a vast number of Science Fiction and Fantasy films. Even Dr. Frankenstein found himself receiving an epiphany too late to perhaps do anything about it when he unleashed his monster on the unsuspecting villagers. Sometimes cheating death can be a bad thing, no? That’s the thing about hubris, I suppose: it blinds us to the real possibilities of destiny – of what very well might be waiting at the end of the rainbow (hint: it’s not a pot of gold) – and all we’re left with is a quick ending brought about by our very own lack of foresight. Yes, such a comeuppance isn’t restricted to only genre films – there are plenty of dramas, mysteries, and even conventional comedies that tinker with similar cause-and-effect scenarios – but it is only SciFi that typically blinds its cinematic geniuses to formulaic perfection, putting them on the road to ruin well before they’ve mustered the intuition to recognize the deadly path they’re on.
That’s pretty much the sum behind The Asphyx, an early 1970’s attempt to kinda/sorta blend steampunk with some English/Gothic Horror. Its pacing is slow, to say the least, and its performances are only occasionally inspired. Though it builds around an interesting premise – the fringe science to control one’s life – it really does very little with the concept, reducing it to the point of being a cliché within any otherwise curious experiment. So while it isn’t particular good, it also isn’t particular bad, leaving director Peter Newbrook possibly having a bit more in the script (from Christina Beers, Laurence Beers, and Brian Comport) than he knew precisely how to stage.
(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 product packaging:
“Utilizing an experimental photographic device, a scientist capture what appears to be the image of the Asphyx – the ancient Greek spirit of the dead. With the help of his adopted son, he conducts further experiments and conceives of a way to harness the Asphyx and thereby gain immortality. But, as every visionary scientist should know, defying the laws of the natural and spiritual world unleashes dreadful consequences …”
In the days of old in United States’ advertising, there once was a commercial for a particular brand of margarine that always ended with one singular line: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” The trick here was that it wasn’t margarine, but it tasted so much like it that buyers couldn’t tell the difference, so there was a price to pay when Mother Nature – a character in the ads – was duped. At the end of the bit, a kind of vengeful wrath would be unleashed – lightning, winds, rains, etc., but all to comic effect, of course – and audiences would be reminded of a valuable lesson that seemingly always escapes our supposed brightest minds.
Well … that’s the basic premise behind The Asphyx: be careful what you wish for because it’ll likely be a curse. Thus, Sir Hugo Cunningham (played by Robert Stephens) stumbles across the ‘science’ that opens the door to immortality, and not only does he wish to rush through but also he schemes to take all of his family with. Obviously, this desire only serves to be his undoing – much in the same way Mother Nature paid back those who dared to toy with margarine authenticity – but I don’t want to get ahead of myself …
Sadly, there is an awful lot of ground that gets covered before The Asphyx gets to its seminal set of circumstances, and that is the film’s great hubris as so very little of it is delivered with any sense of urgency.
Our lead is given a rather theatrical beginning, including introductions for friends and family as well as a new love interest – all of which take a bit of time in setting this particular tale in motion. The fact that Cunningham essentially stumbles into this specialty, though it is given a very weak foundation in the ‘spirit photography’ of a certain bygone era, slows the picture down a bit when perhaps some other modus operandi might’ve accomplished more with less. If the script had started with the man chasing these answers over the loss of a previous wife, then perhaps this film wouldn’t have felt so languid. However, the loss of the new fiancé and another untimely death that take place on screen in order to align the scientist’s personal interests with the narrative throughline. Why introduce two characters just to kill them moments later? We weren’t attached to them, so how are we to conclude that Cunningham was with so little screen time? In fact, once the Asphyx appears, the audience is finally given a welcome distraction once it finally rears its cosmological (or is that existential?) head as opposed to what is otherwise a bit too banal melodrama.
Ah, if the problems only started and stopped there!
“Utilizing an experimental photographic device, a scientist capture what appears to be the image of the Asphyx – the ancient Greek spirit of the dead. With the help of his adopted son, he conducts further experiments and conceives of a way to harness the Asphyx and thereby gain immortality. But, as every visionary scientist should know, defying the laws of the natural and spiritual world unleashes dreadful consequences …”
In the days of old in United States’ advertising, there once was a commercial for a particular brand of margarine that always ended with one singular line: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” The trick here was that it wasn’t margarine, but it tasted so much like it that buyers couldn’t tell the difference, so there was a price to pay when Mother Nature – a character in the ads – was duped. At the end of the bit, a kind of vengeful wrath would be unleashed – lightning, winds, rains, etc., but all to comic effect, of course – and audiences would be reminded of a valuable lesson that seemingly always escapes our supposed brightest minds.
Well … that’s the basic premise behind The Asphyx: be careful what you wish for because it’ll likely be a curse. Thus, Sir Hugo Cunningham (played by Robert Stephens) stumbles across the ‘science’ that opens the door to immortality, and not only does he wish to rush through but also he schemes to take all of his family with. Obviously, this desire only serves to be his undoing – much in the same way Mother Nature paid back those who dared to toy with margarine authenticity – but I don’t want to get ahead of myself …
Sadly, there is an awful lot of ground that gets covered before The Asphyx gets to its seminal set of circumstances, and that is the film’s great hubris as so very little of it is delivered with any sense of urgency.
Our lead is given a rather theatrical beginning, including introductions for friends and family as well as a new love interest – all of which take a bit of time in setting this particular tale in motion. The fact that Cunningham essentially stumbles into this specialty, though it is given a very weak foundation in the ‘spirit photography’ of a certain bygone era, slows the picture down a bit when perhaps some other modus operandi might’ve accomplished more with less. If the script had started with the man chasing these answers over the loss of a previous wife, then perhaps this film wouldn’t have felt so languid. However, the loss of the new fiancé and another untimely death that take place on screen in order to align the scientist’s personal interests with the narrative throughline. Why introduce two characters just to kill them moments later? We weren’t attached to them, so how are we to conclude that Cunningham was with so little screen time? In fact, once the Asphyx appears, the audience is finally given a welcome distraction once it finally rears its cosmological (or is that existential?) head as opposed to what is otherwise a bit too banal melodrama.
Ah, if the problems only started and stopped there!
This is England, after all, so everything English must unfold based on the social norms of the day, and that has these events seemingly taking their sweet time to appear on screen. (Yes, I think I’ve watched paint drying faster than some of this.) The script tries very hard to legitimize the alleged science here (do they not realize they’re making a movie?), so much of what takes place doesn’t only appear but also needs to be talked about, giving the picture a clunkiness it never quite recovers from. About the time you’re very clear on the specifics, something happens anew that requires even more exposition – there’s a sequence involving one of Cunningham’s colleagues that could’ve easily stayed on the chopping block – and it’s almost as if director Newbrook tried to avoid real dramatic tension at all costs … a crying shame if ever there were.
When all is said and done, The Asphyx boils down to yet one more attempt by a series of characters to cheat death. That alone is a premise that has enjoyed a long life (gasp!) in Horror and Fantasy, and it’s even had a franchise all of its own not all that long ago: the Final Destination pictures toyed with its cast being chased down by the Grim Reaper when they survived some event that should’ve spelled their demise. As this version stands, it really seems as if it would’ve been a vastly improved one-off episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits instead of a full motion picture; a truncated cut that stuck centrally to the fancy bits would’ve at the very least kept an audience’s interest better than this one does with a measure of bloat.
The Asphyx (1972) was produced by Glendale Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds of the theatrical version (86 minutes) were very good, though some might wonder if the special effects sequences even for their day were a bit substandard. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then there is an extended 99-minute cut of the picture that rather obviously blends HD with SD footage (of decidedly inferior quality); an audio commentary hosted by writers Kim Newman and Stephen Jones; and the theatrical trailer. It’s an interesting collection to consider, though I found the commentary track a bit uninteresting … which can happen from time to time.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
While not a particular good film, The Asphyx benefits to a small degree by not being particular bad, either. Its cinematography is quite good in a few places, and the sequences involving capturing these elusive creatures do have a good visceral thrill to them in a few spots. But so very much of the fate awaiting these characters is so obviously predictable that you’re never compelled to care about them very deeply if even at all … as they’re all inevitably destined for the trash heap of history or going to survive with some consequence worse than death.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Asphyx (1972) 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
When all is said and done, The Asphyx boils down to yet one more attempt by a series of characters to cheat death. That alone is a premise that has enjoyed a long life (gasp!) in Horror and Fantasy, and it’s even had a franchise all of its own not all that long ago: the Final Destination pictures toyed with its cast being chased down by the Grim Reaper when they survived some event that should’ve spelled their demise. As this version stands, it really seems as if it would’ve been a vastly improved one-off episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits instead of a full motion picture; a truncated cut that stuck centrally to the fancy bits would’ve at the very least kept an audience’s interest better than this one does with a measure of bloat.
The Asphyx (1972) was produced by Glendale Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds of the theatrical version (86 minutes) were very good, though some might wonder if the special effects sequences even for their day were a bit substandard. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then there is an extended 99-minute cut of the picture that rather obviously blends HD with SD footage (of decidedly inferior quality); an audio commentary hosted by writers Kim Newman and Stephen Jones; and the theatrical trailer. It’s an interesting collection to consider, though I found the commentary track a bit uninteresting … which can happen from time to time.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
While not a particular good film, The Asphyx benefits to a small degree by not being particular bad, either. Its cinematography is quite good in a few places, and the sequences involving capturing these elusive creatures do have a good visceral thrill to them in a few spots. But so very much of the fate awaiting these characters is so obviously predictable that you’re never compelled to care about them very deeply if even at all … as they’re all inevitably destined for the trash heap of history or going to survive with some consequence worse than death.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Asphyx (1972) 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
"Do you have the crazy?"
-- Rod (as played by Sahr Ngaujah)
-- Rod (as played by Sahr Ngaujah)
I think some of the very best Science Fiction and Fantasy stories ever have toyed directly with the unseen assault that technology has on our bodies.
All one need do these days is consult Google for the plethora of theories (conspiracy or not) worldwide on what the exposure of implementing 5G technology could be doing to ourselves. Heck, go back a few centuries, and even some inspired writing was focused on what the advent of any other new (back then) but relatively primative (based on today's standards) machinery would have on subsequent generations. Even a tale as timeless as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine was -- in some ways -- more about the dangers of using it (what we learned of ourselves) than it was anything else, so storytellers have certainly invested in this kind of creative extrapolation whenever an opportunity presented itself.
Lo and behold, 2007's The Signal kinda/sorta did much of the same -- via its Horror construct -- by featuring residents exposed to a silent but deadly frequency that caused confusion if not downright madness as a result. If you think about it, confusion might push any of us toward the direction of doing something dangerous, but madness? Well, as you can guess, that had this film's characters teetering on the brink of actions quite deadly. Essentially, this signal induced an unimaginable level of paranoia, and the players engaged in all kinds of nasty business as a consequence of exposure.
Written and directed by the team of David Bruckner, Dan Bush, and Jacob Gentry, the Horror/Fantasy starred Anessa Ramsey, Justin Welborn, Scott Poythress, Sahr Ngaujah, and AJ Bowen. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A horror film told in three parts, from three perspectives, in which a mysterious transmission that turns people into killers invades every cell phone, radio, and television."
All one need do these days is consult Google for the plethora of theories (conspiracy or not) worldwide on what the exposure of implementing 5G technology could be doing to ourselves. Heck, go back a few centuries, and even some inspired writing was focused on what the advent of any other new (back then) but relatively primative (based on today's standards) machinery would have on subsequent generations. Even a tale as timeless as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine was -- in some ways -- more about the dangers of using it (what we learned of ourselves) than it was anything else, so storytellers have certainly invested in this kind of creative extrapolation whenever an opportunity presented itself.
Lo and behold, 2007's The Signal kinda/sorta did much of the same -- via its Horror construct -- by featuring residents exposed to a silent but deadly frequency that caused confusion if not downright madness as a result. If you think about it, confusion might push any of us toward the direction of doing something dangerous, but madness? Well, as you can guess, that had this film's characters teetering on the brink of actions quite deadly. Essentially, this signal induced an unimaginable level of paranoia, and the players engaged in all kinds of nasty business as a consequence of exposure.
Written and directed by the team of David Bruckner, Dan Bush, and Jacob Gentry, the Horror/Fantasy starred Anessa Ramsey, Justin Welborn, Scott Poythress, Sahr Ngaujah, and AJ Bowen. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A horror film told in three parts, from three perspectives, in which a mysterious transmission that turns people into killers invades every cell phone, radio, and television."
While audiences can be a bit fickle with themes that tinker a bit too closely with science they don't quite understand, these tales generally garner a bit of acclaim and attention from the artistic community. As you can guess, The Signal did quite well on the film festival circuit, garnering some popular marks from such institutions as the Sitges - Catalonia International Film Festival, the Neuchatel International Fantastic Film Festival, the Film Independent Spirit Awards, and the Fangoria Chainsaw Awards.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper ... so long as The Signal doesn't get to you!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper ... so long as The Signal doesn't get to you!
-- EZ
- Published on
"They're testing us, Nic. Like little rats."
-- Jonah (played by Beau Knapp)
-- Jonah (played by Beau Knapp)
Let me say this without getting into a full review of The Signal, an at best middling exploration of what I think to be is an otherwise good idea: come its big finish, the script really only ended up toying with the audience -- much in the same way it did its characters -- leaving you ultimately feeling full yet empty the way you occasionally can feel after ingesting what you thought was going to be a good meal.
Too harsh?
Meh.
I guess it's that I loved so much of the production, right up until its kinda/sorta disastrous closing, at which point you're left with loosely re-evaluating everything that took place up to the level of absurdity. In fact, I could suggest that The Signal's story -- as scripted by Carlyle Eubank, William Eubank (who also directed), and David Frigerio -- was truly only getting started when it came to the finale: once you have a complete grasp of the ... erm ... ahhh ... "the storytelling concept," it's only then that I'd now want to see how the surviving players might want to consider their respective places in the wider cosmos at large. As no follow-up has been delivered, I'm guessing we're all just left at this critical impasse, making of it what we will in the final estimation.
Generally speaking, I am a fan of features that toy with reality, our perceptions of it, and how we cope with its sometimes fragile nature. Where a flick like The Signal fails is that it strives very efficiently toward misdirecting viewers away from 'the twist' of its ending -- M. Night Shyamalan is still writing checks on what is essentially a lot of scripts similar in construction but varied in presentation: depending upon how you react to the plight of these characters, you might feel cheated by having spent over ninety minutes getting to know them, savor their struggles, only to have the rugged ripped out from under you (and them) with the reveal.
Sigh.
I did so much want to know what happens next?
That's just how I'm wired.
Here's the plot summary as provided by the good folks at IMDB.com:
"On a road trip, Nic and two friends are drawn to an isolated area by a computer genius. When everything suddenly goes dark, Nic regains consciousness - only to find himself in a waking nightmare."
Too harsh?
Meh.
I guess it's that I loved so much of the production, right up until its kinda/sorta disastrous closing, at which point you're left with loosely re-evaluating everything that took place up to the level of absurdity. In fact, I could suggest that The Signal's story -- as scripted by Carlyle Eubank, William Eubank (who also directed), and David Frigerio -- was truly only getting started when it came to the finale: once you have a complete grasp of the ... erm ... ahhh ... "the storytelling concept," it's only then that I'd now want to see how the surviving players might want to consider their respective places in the wider cosmos at large. As no follow-up has been delivered, I'm guessing we're all just left at this critical impasse, making of it what we will in the final estimation.
Generally speaking, I am a fan of features that toy with reality, our perceptions of it, and how we cope with its sometimes fragile nature. Where a flick like The Signal fails is that it strives very efficiently toward misdirecting viewers away from 'the twist' of its ending -- M. Night Shyamalan is still writing checks on what is essentially a lot of scripts similar in construction but varied in presentation: depending upon how you react to the plight of these characters, you might feel cheated by having spent over ninety minutes getting to know them, savor their struggles, only to have the rugged ripped out from under you (and them) with the reveal.
Sigh.
I did so much want to know what happens next?
That's just how I'm wired.
Here's the plot summary as provided by the good folks at IMDB.com:
"On a road trip, Nic and two friends are drawn to an isolated area by a computer genius. When everything suddenly goes dark, Nic regains consciousness - only to find himself in a waking nightmare."
To the film's credit, it did garner some attention from the BloodGuts UK Horror Awards, a ceremony largely dedicated -- as its title suggests -- to honoring the best in Horror releases annually. Actor Laurence Fishburne -- a tremendous asset to many genre films -- received a 'Best Actor' nomination for their 2014 roster; and composer Nima Fakhrara enjoyed a nomination in the category of 'Best Soundtrack/Score.' Furthermore, at the 2014 Sitges - Catalonian International Film Festival, The Signal took home top honors in the category of 'Best Special Effects.'
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Good morning, and Happy Friday, regular readers!
As some of you know from following my reviews and general whatnot reasonably closely, I've had an ongoing love/hate relationship with Amazon.com. (No, no, no: this doesn't involve my purchasing history!) For the better part of a decade and one-half, I was one of the site's frequent contributors, having built my reviews up in stature to the point of achieving their Top 1,000 Amazon Reviewers. (Think what you will, but that was a pretty significant accomplishment, in its day.) Then -- not all that long back -- the retailer rather unceremoniously and definitely unprofessionally dumped those of us who for many years had worked alongside them building their identity with absolutely no personal gain from it. To make matters worse, even once we were following their new rules, the powers that be ultimately decided to remove everything many of us had contributed, banishing our accounts to obscurity and then denying us the opportunity to participate in any way whatsoever ... well, except for still being happy to take our money, that is.
Because I'd been doing it for so long, I had an incredible portfolio of reviews writing over there. I had started going back and grabbing my stuff once they announced their changes, hoping to save it into my own files for posterity's sake ... but, alas, I wasn't fast enough. Before I knew it, everything I had posted there was gone. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to follow the rules and still suffer a culling, and I'm sure those of you who have experienced similar circumstances know all too well of what I'm speaking. It's ... just ... damn ... infuriating.
Well, lo and behold, I did some digging in some old back-up files over the weekend; and I did manage to locate a good amount of stuff, reviews written from roughly 2012 and onward for a few years. (I'm still plumbing the depths of old disks and stuff, so I might locate more in the future.) Yesterday, I posted a few of these old pieces on the MainPage -- reviews for films A Haunting At Silver Falls (2013) and Reversion (2015) -- and it's my intent to eventually get all of the appropriate content blogged here on my own site. So you will start to see some older reviews mixed in with the current stuff. I just wanted to warn you to be on the look-out for it.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As some of you know from following my reviews and general whatnot reasonably closely, I've had an ongoing love/hate relationship with Amazon.com. (No, no, no: this doesn't involve my purchasing history!) For the better part of a decade and one-half, I was one of the site's frequent contributors, having built my reviews up in stature to the point of achieving their Top 1,000 Amazon Reviewers. (Think what you will, but that was a pretty significant accomplishment, in its day.) Then -- not all that long back -- the retailer rather unceremoniously and definitely unprofessionally dumped those of us who for many years had worked alongside them building their identity with absolutely no personal gain from it. To make matters worse, even once we were following their new rules, the powers that be ultimately decided to remove everything many of us had contributed, banishing our accounts to obscurity and then denying us the opportunity to participate in any way whatsoever ... well, except for still being happy to take our money, that is.
Because I'd been doing it for so long, I had an incredible portfolio of reviews writing over there. I had started going back and grabbing my stuff once they announced their changes, hoping to save it into my own files for posterity's sake ... but, alas, I wasn't fast enough. Before I knew it, everything I had posted there was gone. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to follow the rules and still suffer a culling, and I'm sure those of you who have experienced similar circumstances know all too well of what I'm speaking. It's ... just ... damn ... infuriating.
Well, lo and behold, I did some digging in some old back-up files over the weekend; and I did manage to locate a good amount of stuff, reviews written from roughly 2012 and onward for a few years. (I'm still plumbing the depths of old disks and stuff, so I might locate more in the future.) Yesterday, I posted a few of these old pieces on the MainPage -- reviews for films A Haunting At Silver Falls (2013) and Reversion (2015) -- and it's my intent to eventually get all of the appropriate content blogged here on my own site. So you will start to see some older reviews mixed in with the current stuff. I just wanted to warn you to be on the look-out for it.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
"It's quite a place. A place of good times and bad, of pain and growth, but in the end a place of great hope. - But if you ever do come aboard, remember one thing: No one there is exactly what he seems. But then, who is?"
-- G'Kar (played by Andreas Katsulas)
-- G'Kar (played by Andreas Katsulas)
OK, haters, get this straight: I don't dislike Babylon 5 or any of its derivatives. My issue with it is entirely from outside the (TV) box in that I just don't get why the program meant so much to so, so, so many. I've watched the whole series -- I've avoided the subsequent movies, of which Babylon 5: The Legend Of The Rangers is included, mostly because some ardent fans told me that they were a frustrating experience. I've always said that -- while I found it quite good and with an incredible cast -- it just didn't resonate with me the way other shows have. In some ways, those sentiments are kinda/sorta like folks from the late 1960's who watched Star Trek in its original run while the rest of mankind ignored it, only to discover it in television syndication later. Just because this franchise doesn't mean as much to me doesn't dismiss any of its strengths and/or weaknesses ... so let that (hopefully) be the end of that debate.
In any event, it was on this day back in 2002 that series' creator J. Michael Straczynski sought to bring it back to the airwaves in the form of an all-new serial, but The Legend Of The Rangers failed to gain any traction with audiences. As can often happen in the business of broadcast television, I think it's safe to suggest that the SciFi Channel (now Syfy) is as much to blame as anyone in this missed opportunity (there's a solid summation of Legend's history on Cancelled Before It Began right here, so I won't relive it), and I'd definitely agree with any like-minded thinker who suggested that perhaps the Rangers might very well have been the best opportunity to bring B5 back, especially given that it had really only disappeared a few years previous. Such a narrative focus could've played out in a variety of ways ... but, as they say, it wasn't meant to be.
Written by Straczynski, the telefilm was directed by Michael Vejar, a proven veteran of TV production. The project starred Dylan Neal, Alex Zahara, Myriam Sorois, Dean Marshall, and Enid-Raye Adams; and there's absolutely no doubt that a long-term series could very well have meant returning and/or recurring guest stints from any of B5's regulars. (In fact, Andreas Katsulas was on board for the pilot.) Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"A disgraced Ranger takes command of an old, possibly haunted, ship on an escort mission that encounters deadly peril from a new enemy civilization."
In any event, it was on this day back in 2002 that series' creator J. Michael Straczynski sought to bring it back to the airwaves in the form of an all-new serial, but The Legend Of The Rangers failed to gain any traction with audiences. As can often happen in the business of broadcast television, I think it's safe to suggest that the SciFi Channel (now Syfy) is as much to blame as anyone in this missed opportunity (there's a solid summation of Legend's history on Cancelled Before It Began right here, so I won't relive it), and I'd definitely agree with any like-minded thinker who suggested that perhaps the Rangers might very well have been the best opportunity to bring B5 back, especially given that it had really only disappeared a few years previous. Such a narrative focus could've played out in a variety of ways ... but, as they say, it wasn't meant to be.
Written by Straczynski, the telefilm was directed by Michael Vejar, a proven veteran of TV production. The project starred Dylan Neal, Alex Zahara, Myriam Sorois, Dean Marshall, and Enid-Raye Adams; and there's absolutely no doubt that a long-term series could very well have meant returning and/or recurring guest stints from any of B5's regulars. (In fact, Andreas Katsulas was on board for the pilot.) Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"A disgraced Ranger takes command of an old, possibly haunted, ship on an escort mission that encounters deadly peril from a new enemy civilization."
I have read a bit of review/reaction to the telefilm online, and -- without getting into some of the particulars -- it does seem as if B5's core fandom wasn't all that impressed with this fledgling property. While some of that might be owed to the obvious push into territory that may've left too much of the established mythology behind or 'on the back burner' as it were, we all know that Straczynski -- with his skills as a storyteller -- could likely have 'righted that ship' if the prospect had been picked up and given life as an ongoing serial. It didn't ... and this is where it all ended, to a great degree.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Memories can be powerful instruments to drive personal change. They teach us. They guide us. They serve as cautionary speed bumps as we travel down the road of life, always present to remind us of where we’ve been as well as what we did that caused us pain, remorse, happiness, and even unbridled elation. But the sad sorry truth is that, inevitably, recollections of events not only help shape us into the people perhaps we were all destined to be but also not necessarily that who we wished we were.
This is the realm which writer/director Jose Nestor Marquez fathoms with his melodramatic SciFi potboiler – Reversion – which opened theatrically on October 9, 2015 (in the U.S.). In it, actress Aja Naomi King (ABC TV’s How To Get Away With Murder) stars as Sophie Clé, senior marketing executive to her father’s company on the verge of revolutionizing the tech industry with the release of the Oubli, a wearable device that highlights and deeply enhances a positive personal memory of the user’s choosing. By amplifying all the best that remembrance has to offer, the tool becomes a means to perfect the individual’s ability to achieve a kind of personal harmony, thereby maximizing the possibility to lead a better life.
As a Science Fiction film, Reversion rather easily taps into a world “just around the corner,” familiar enough to encourage a more mainstream audience to take notice but willing to ask more than a few cerebral questions about reality that’ll keep the nerdier of us interested. In fact, the Oubli operates via an APP interface on the user’s tablet or SmartPhone not all that unlike the Bluetooth-enabled ‘fitness’ tech that’s all today’s consumer rage. Marquez’s script is smart and timely, offering audiences a glimpse into one of the popular ‘what if’ scenarios that drives so much of the better stories that dabble in futurism. At all times, this tale remains one with a decidedly human focus, but it’s a yarn that relies on the technological inclusion in order to unfold the way it does.
This is the realm which writer/director Jose Nestor Marquez fathoms with his melodramatic SciFi potboiler – Reversion – which opened theatrically on October 9, 2015 (in the U.S.). In it, actress Aja Naomi King (ABC TV’s How To Get Away With Murder) stars as Sophie Clé, senior marketing executive to her father’s company on the verge of revolutionizing the tech industry with the release of the Oubli, a wearable device that highlights and deeply enhances a positive personal memory of the user’s choosing. By amplifying all the best that remembrance has to offer, the tool becomes a means to perfect the individual’s ability to achieve a kind of personal harmony, thereby maximizing the possibility to lead a better life.
As a Science Fiction film, Reversion rather easily taps into a world “just around the corner,” familiar enough to encourage a more mainstream audience to take notice but willing to ask more than a few cerebral questions about reality that’ll keep the nerdier of us interested. In fact, the Oubli operates via an APP interface on the user’s tablet or SmartPhone not all that unlike the Bluetooth-enabled ‘fitness’ tech that’s all today’s consumer rage. Marquez’s script is smart and timely, offering audiences a glimpse into one of the popular ‘what if’ scenarios that drives so much of the better stories that dabble in futurism. At all times, this tale remains one with a decidedly human focus, but it’s a yarn that relies on the technological inclusion in order to unfold the way it does.
From the publicity materials:
“Reversion centers on Sophie Clé, a delighted user of the Oubli, a wisp of high-tech jewelry that wraps behind the ear and uses neuroscience to help users experience their most joyful memories as if they were happening for the first time. In addition to being the head of marketing for the company that makes this revolutionary memory-enhancing wearable device, she is also the daughter of its inventor, Jack Clé (Colm Feore). Sophie’s most joyful memory is the last day she saw her mother alive, fifteen years earlier. But on the eve of the Oubli’s worldwide launch, a stranger named Isa (Jeanette Samano) kidnaps Sophie, setting off a chain of events that remind us all, you can’t escape what you can’t forget.”
In traditional mystery fashion, Sophie finds herself drawn further and further into what appears to be a case of mistaken identity behind a fateful occurrence between her parents. On this quest for the truth, her only confidante remains Ayden, her company-provided chauffeur and bodyguard. Ayden is played by Gary Dourdan, formerly part of the ensemble of players aboard CBS TV’s powerful CSI franchise. For my tastes, Dourdan was pretty perfectly cast as the soft-spoken outsider who knows more than he’s willing to let on; as he begrudgingly realizes Sophie will stop at nothing to reveal facts she finds in conflict with reality (or even what she believes it to be), all he can do is walk that fine line between service and loyalty even at the risk of his own life.
As a potboiler, however, Reversion isn’t perfect, much like the science it depicts.
“Reversion centers on Sophie Clé, a delighted user of the Oubli, a wisp of high-tech jewelry that wraps behind the ear and uses neuroscience to help users experience their most joyful memories as if they were happening for the first time. In addition to being the head of marketing for the company that makes this revolutionary memory-enhancing wearable device, she is also the daughter of its inventor, Jack Clé (Colm Feore). Sophie’s most joyful memory is the last day she saw her mother alive, fifteen years earlier. But on the eve of the Oubli’s worldwide launch, a stranger named Isa (Jeanette Samano) kidnaps Sophie, setting off a chain of events that remind us all, you can’t escape what you can’t forget.”
In traditional mystery fashion, Sophie finds herself drawn further and further into what appears to be a case of mistaken identity behind a fateful occurrence between her parents. On this quest for the truth, her only confidante remains Ayden, her company-provided chauffeur and bodyguard. Ayden is played by Gary Dourdan, formerly part of the ensemble of players aboard CBS TV’s powerful CSI franchise. For my tastes, Dourdan was pretty perfectly cast as the soft-spoken outsider who knows more than he’s willing to let on; as he begrudgingly realizes Sophie will stop at nothing to reveal facts she finds in conflict with reality (or even what she believes it to be), all he can do is walk that fine line between service and loyalty even at the risk of his own life.
As a potboiler, however, Reversion isn’t perfect, much like the science it depicts.
While the premise remains solid, Sophie rarely drives the story forward with her own convictions. Instead, her character is more often the recipient of other’s efforts – she practically stumbles into revelation after revelation here rather than uncover anything organically – always playing the victim instead of a detective hell bent on getting to the bottom of it … whatever ‘it’ may be. And actress King occasionally looks perhaps a bit too young at times to convincingly pull off all shades of Marquez’s troubled creation. Still, that lends itself well to the infomercial-like portrayal Reversion gives to the Oubli: she’s always the beautiful, wrinkle-free face of consumer-sought blissfulness.
Both Feore and Dourdan’s performances are reliable – if not occasionally predictable – as it’s clear fairly early on that their motivations were always intended to remain suspect from start-to-finish. Are they the guilty parties, or are they merely covering up some even darker secret? As an actor, Feore has always maintained a workmanlike charm even in his more obscure roles; and – though the tabloids have had a field day with his personal struggles – Dourdan remains a bankable talent who easily inhabits alpha males with a tortured undercurrent like his ‘Ayden’ here. Personally, I’d love to see both of them get more work, but the industry it what it is.
In the end, Reversion reverts to what some may find to be solutions all-too-easy, but I’d argue that’s exactly the human condition the film best explores: in our core, we’re all creatures of habit, and those habits will always (always!) take us back to moments of clarity … much like the Oubli’s central purpose. What we choose to do with that information will define as well as haunt us because we can never fully escape the humanity – or inhumanity – that’s as much a part of our past as it is our future. Thankfully, there’ll never be an APP for that.
-- EZ
Both Feore and Dourdan’s performances are reliable – if not occasionally predictable – as it’s clear fairly early on that their motivations were always intended to remain suspect from start-to-finish. Are they the guilty parties, or are they merely covering up some even darker secret? As an actor, Feore has always maintained a workmanlike charm even in his more obscure roles; and – though the tabloids have had a field day with his personal struggles – Dourdan remains a bankable talent who easily inhabits alpha males with a tortured undercurrent like his ‘Ayden’ here. Personally, I’d love to see both of them get more work, but the industry it what it is.
In the end, Reversion reverts to what some may find to be solutions all-too-easy, but I’d argue that’s exactly the human condition the film best explores: in our core, we’re all creatures of habit, and those habits will always (always!) take us back to moments of clarity … much like the Oubli’s central purpose. What we choose to do with that information will define as well as haunt us because we can never fully escape the humanity – or inhumanity – that’s as much a part of our past as it is our future. Thankfully, there’ll never be an APP for that.
-- EZ
- Published on
A good friend and I have a running debate about the nature of horror films that centers around why so many scripts involve protagonists and/or victims of a high school age. My friend contends consistently that youth of that ripe, young age haven’t quite been spoiled (or is that soiled?) by the cynicism of adulthood, and, as such, ghosts and spirits are drawn to them. Me? Well, I tend to think that youth of that ripe, young age are too stupid to know how to handle themselves when ghosts or spirits show up on the scene, and, as such, they make easy victims for both willing heavies, vengeful phantoms, and budding screenwriters.
(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 two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Due to some decidedly tragic events that never quite get a definitive explanation, Jordan (played by comely Alix Elizabeth Gitter whose given an “introducing” screen credit though this appears to be her tenth filmed production) comes to live with her aunt Anne (Tara Westwood) – her mother’s twin – and uncle Kevin (Steve Bacic), a greasy sort whose behaviors harkens back to only the best closeted pedophiles. After finding a ring close to the nearby Silver Falls, Jordan finds herself suddenly troubled with visions of dead girls – twin sisters killed at the hands of their own father (or were they?). Faced with no alternative, Jordan desperately tries to convince anyone who’ll listen that these restless spirits only hope to convey a message from beyond: the real murderer is still out there … and now anyone who can see the twins is in danger!
(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 two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
Due to some decidedly tragic events that never quite get a definitive explanation, Jordan (played by comely Alix Elizabeth Gitter whose given an “introducing” screen credit though this appears to be her tenth filmed production) comes to live with her aunt Anne (Tara Westwood) – her mother’s twin – and uncle Kevin (Steve Bacic), a greasy sort whose behaviors harkens back to only the best closeted pedophiles. After finding a ring close to the nearby Silver Falls, Jordan finds herself suddenly troubled with visions of dead girls – twin sisters killed at the hands of their own father (or were they?). Faced with no alternative, Jordan desperately tries to convince anyone who’ll listen that these restless spirits only hope to convey a message from beyond: the real murderer is still out there … and now anyone who can see the twins is in danger!
For all its narrative stumbles (and there are plenty), A Haunting At Silver Falls tries very hard to buck the trend of the traditional ghost-terrorizing-teens story by more strongly embracing the element of mystery. The only significant problem with this is that element doesn’t really rear its head until an hour into a 90-minute story, leaving the first two-thirds to feel unnecessary formulaic about – you guessed it – the traditional ghost-terrorizing-teen tale. Without trying to rewrite the script post-production (mostly because I, too, hate critics who think they turn out a tighter plot), I think director Brett Donowho (don’t know who?) may’ve been better served by having scribes Cam Cannon, Rachel Long, and Brian Pittman give their pages another pass with the single request of amping up the whodunit aspect much earlier.
Otherwise, Haunting ends up feeling too predictable. It’s populated with just the right amount of troubled teens for the casual viewer to see through the usual narrative trickery (the first half plods along with a heavy ‘been there done that’ attitude), but kudos to them all for giving it a decent try. Granted, there were hints that something more was afoot – the Sheriff’s son seems to know the story of the twins’ deaths isn’t what most people think, but he’s relegated so strongly into the background that he never comes off as more than Jordan’s would-be stalker. Westwood and Bacic’s performances as the doting, adoptive aunt and uncle feels like they have something to hide, and – lo and behold – before it’s all over, they do! They do have something to hide! Those are the kinds of ‘gimmes’ that could’ve been lessened with a meaner, leaner draft. Shot as it is, Haunting feels somewhat like they were making it up as they went, so maybe they were.
And that’s a disservice to some respectable work by “newcomer” Gitter as well as James Cavlo’s underused role as Larry, Jordan’s kinda/sorta boyfriend. These two fresh faces did they best they could with their time and skills to deliver serviceable performances surrounding youths in trouble. If more attention had been paid to the script’s ‘trouble,’ then their work might not have felt so wasted. There’s an ambiguity in their final screen moment that shouldn’t be there; I’ll take that as further evidence of scriptwriters struggling to define definitively what was actually going on here … plus the obligatory and expectable big finish tells me they watched one too many horror flicks in their time and just sought to mimic the polish.
Otherwise, Haunting ends up feeling too predictable. It’s populated with just the right amount of troubled teens for the casual viewer to see through the usual narrative trickery (the first half plods along with a heavy ‘been there done that’ attitude), but kudos to them all for giving it a decent try. Granted, there were hints that something more was afoot – the Sheriff’s son seems to know the story of the twins’ deaths isn’t what most people think, but he’s relegated so strongly into the background that he never comes off as more than Jordan’s would-be stalker. Westwood and Bacic’s performances as the doting, adoptive aunt and uncle feels like they have something to hide, and – lo and behold – before it’s all over, they do! They do have something to hide! Those are the kinds of ‘gimmes’ that could’ve been lessened with a meaner, leaner draft. Shot as it is, Haunting feels somewhat like they were making it up as they went, so maybe they were.
And that’s a disservice to some respectable work by “newcomer” Gitter as well as James Cavlo’s underused role as Larry, Jordan’s kinda/sorta boyfriend. These two fresh faces did they best they could with their time and skills to deliver serviceable performances surrounding youths in trouble. If more attention had been paid to the script’s ‘trouble,’ then their work might not have felt so wasted. There’s an ambiguity in their final screen moment that shouldn’t be there; I’ll take that as further evidence of scriptwriters struggling to define definitively what was actually going on here … plus the obligatory and expectable big finish tells me they watched one too many horror flicks in their time and just sought to mimic the polish.
A Haunting At Silver Falls (2013) is produced by Enderby Entertainment and Tony-Seven Films. DVD distribution is being handled by Inception Media Group, LLC. As for the technical specifications, the film is smartly produced with some very solid cinematography and some impressive sound editing. Alas, there are no special features to speak of – a shame in this day and age. Minimally, I would’ve liked to know just how much of this “inspired by a chilling, true story” was actually inspired by a chilling, true story, but methinks it wasn’t meant to be.
Mildly recommended.
While not entirely predictable, A Haunting At Silver Falls remains plagued by too many elements already explored by other vastly superior films. What’s disappointing about that is it ends up wasting some solid work by its two young stars as well as leaves other more interesting narrative possibilities completely unexplored. In horror, not all is what it seems. In fact, rarely is ‘all’ what it seems. Had Haunting dabbled more heavily in those parts of its script, it may’ve had a better chance at being discovered. This tale inspired by “a chilling, true story” needed less truth and more chill.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Inception Media Group, LLC provided me with an advance copy of A Haunting At Silver Falls for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
Mildly recommended.
While not entirely predictable, A Haunting At Silver Falls remains plagued by too many elements already explored by other vastly superior films. What’s disappointing about that is it ends up wasting some solid work by its two young stars as well as leaves other more interesting narrative possibilities completely unexplored. In horror, not all is what it seems. In fact, rarely is ‘all’ what it seems. Had Haunting dabbled more heavily in those parts of its script, it may’ve had a better chance at being discovered. This tale inspired by “a chilling, true story” needed less truth and more chill.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Inception Media Group, LLC provided me with an advance copy of A Haunting At Silver Falls for the expressed purposes of completing this review.
-- EZ
- Published on
Having seen so many independent entries into the realm of Science Fiction and Fantasy over the years, I have lost count of them but occasionally one resonates and will remain active in some distant corner of my brain. 2008's Sleep Dealer is one of those features: while I don't distinctly recall all of its details, I fondly remember thinking it was exactly the kind of smaller flick that indie types should be spending their time with ... a compelling yarn with science and commerce gone a bit awry firmly against an examination of the human condition.
Alas -- if IMDB.com is any indication -- writer/director Alex Rivera really didn't ride the wave of success to anything reasonably similar in reputation. (Folks, that's not an insult; it's just that people like me who write about these projects for a living do hope to see budding auteurs ascend even higher with the next and their next and their next forays into films, and methinks we're honestly surprised when that doesn't happen.) Dealer definitely put the man on the creative map; in fact, I do recall thinking at the time it was the kind of yarn that Hollywood might very well get its mitts into and attempt to rework -- albeit with a bigger budget and grander marquee names -- but that I'm aware of no such remake/rehash/reboot has come to pass. That's a shame to a degree, though I also wonder if more money thrown at a great idea might only cheapen the experience.
In any event, here's the plot summary for the SciFi/Thriller as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"The near future. Like tomorrow. In a world marked by closed borders, corporate warriors, and a global computer network, three strangers risk their lives to connect, break through the barriers of technology, and unseal their fates."
For what it's worth, I saw the project as tinkering a bit with classism the way Science Fiction can smartly do from time-to-time, showing us an entire class of people made faceless as workers who were taxed with essentially keeping our world running but being constantly denied the benefits of those labors. (Yeah, yeah, yeah: I realize that sounds a bit Communist in many ways, and yet it's an authentic aspect of many, many great stories.) I don't recall all the specifics regarding the main character's personal struggle -- there was an element in his past history that kinda/sorta felt a bit too 'preachy' that I won't go into -- but the film was still a quick trip into a nightmarish prospect for the near-future ... the one lurking in wait just right around the corner.
Well done.
Alas -- if IMDB.com is any indication -- writer/director Alex Rivera really didn't ride the wave of success to anything reasonably similar in reputation. (Folks, that's not an insult; it's just that people like me who write about these projects for a living do hope to see budding auteurs ascend even higher with the next and their next and their next forays into films, and methinks we're honestly surprised when that doesn't happen.) Dealer definitely put the man on the creative map; in fact, I do recall thinking at the time it was the kind of yarn that Hollywood might very well get its mitts into and attempt to rework -- albeit with a bigger budget and grander marquee names -- but that I'm aware of no such remake/rehash/reboot has come to pass. That's a shame to a degree, though I also wonder if more money thrown at a great idea might only cheapen the experience.
In any event, here's the plot summary for the SciFi/Thriller as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
"The near future. Like tomorrow. In a world marked by closed borders, corporate warriors, and a global computer network, three strangers risk their lives to connect, break through the barriers of technology, and unseal their fates."
For what it's worth, I saw the project as tinkering a bit with classism the way Science Fiction can smartly do from time-to-time, showing us an entire class of people made faceless as workers who were taxed with essentially keeping our world running but being constantly denied the benefits of those labors. (Yeah, yeah, yeah: I realize that sounds a bit Communist in many ways, and yet it's an authentic aspect of many, many great stories.) I don't recall all the specifics regarding the main character's personal struggle -- there was an element in his past history that kinda/sorta felt a bit too 'preachy' that I won't go into -- but the film was still a quick trip into a nightmarish prospect for the near-future ... the one lurking in wait just right around the corner.
Well done.
As can happen with some wonderfully made independent features, Sleep Dealer garnered a good amount of praise from the professional audiences who discovered it and appreciated what it did with its complicated subject matter. Its appearance at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival was its most storied as the writing team of Rivera and David Riker took home trophies in both the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film Prize and the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award. (Rivera missed out -- having to settle for nomination's honor alone -- in the Dramatic Category of the festival's Grand Jury Prize.) Furthermore, throughtout 2008, the film screened at a solid handful of venues, often the recipient of solid praise from the onlookers. (For a complete rundown, I encourage readers to check out the film's IMDB.com awards page right here.)
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ