- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com citation:
“A scientist trains a man with an advanced telepathic ability called ‘scanning,’ to stop a dangerous Scanner with extraordinary psychic powers from waging war against non scanners.”
Honestly, I’ve had this love/hate thing with director David Cronenberg his entire career. (Don't worry, Dave: it's me, not you.) In short, I’ve never much cared for his original works.
While they’ve occasionally had some inspired ideas, I just haven’t been all that smitten with anything beyond the look and, sometimes, the practical effects work that’s matched his various visions. Some of it I find just plain confusing – Videodrome (1983) started out as a unique Horror procedural but then morphed into an experimental piece with some macabre visuals – while others I ended up being bored silly over – Dead Ringers (1988) was a particular snooze. I will say I’ve enjoyed his adaptations of other peoples’ idea better than extrapolations of his own – he directed the earliest version of Stephen King’s The Dead Zone (1983) which I’d argue is still the best King book-turned-film as well as a heart-wrenching incarnation of The Fly (1986) – but otherwise I guess I’d conclude by suggesting his original stuff just hasn’t been for me.
1981’s Scanners is a film that, arguably, put Cronenberg on the entertainment map.
It was both written and produced very quickly in late 1979 (1978?) in order to take advantage of some Canadian tax benefits; and – from what I’ve read – it was a bit of a chaotic shoot, often times with the writer/director crafting scenes quite literally the morning before they were shot. As a consequence, the narrative was naturally tweaked a bit – not unheard of in the creative process – and the end result is a tale that feels part like it was a Horror-inspired yarn that somehow turned the corner into a government conspiracy potboiler. Sadly, the elements of the mystery – there either is or isn’t a global cabal behind scanners and, depending upon one’s interpretation, they either seek to harness their power or wipe them out – end up being exposed in information dumps delivered more like afterthoughts than anything intended originally.
From the film’s IMDB.com citation:
“A scientist trains a man with an advanced telepathic ability called ‘scanning,’ to stop a dangerous Scanner with extraordinary psychic powers from waging war against non scanners.”
Honestly, I’ve had this love/hate thing with director David Cronenberg his entire career. (Don't worry, Dave: it's me, not you.) In short, I’ve never much cared for his original works.
While they’ve occasionally had some inspired ideas, I just haven’t been all that smitten with anything beyond the look and, sometimes, the practical effects work that’s matched his various visions. Some of it I find just plain confusing – Videodrome (1983) started out as a unique Horror procedural but then morphed into an experimental piece with some macabre visuals – while others I ended up being bored silly over – Dead Ringers (1988) was a particular snooze. I will say I’ve enjoyed his adaptations of other peoples’ idea better than extrapolations of his own – he directed the earliest version of Stephen King’s The Dead Zone (1983) which I’d argue is still the best King book-turned-film as well as a heart-wrenching incarnation of The Fly (1986) – but otherwise I guess I’d conclude by suggesting his original stuff just hasn’t been for me.
1981’s Scanners is a film that, arguably, put Cronenberg on the entertainment map.
It was both written and produced very quickly in late 1979 (1978?) in order to take advantage of some Canadian tax benefits; and – from what I’ve read – it was a bit of a chaotic shoot, often times with the writer/director crafting scenes quite literally the morning before they were shot. As a consequence, the narrative was naturally tweaked a bit – not unheard of in the creative process – and the end result is a tale that feels part like it was a Horror-inspired yarn that somehow turned the corner into a government conspiracy potboiler. Sadly, the elements of the mystery – there either is or isn’t a global cabal behind scanners and, depending upon one’s interpretation, they either seek to harness their power or wipe them out – end up being exposed in information dumps delivered more like afterthoughts than anything intended originally.
Lead star Stephen Lack (as Cameron Vale) capably handles the emotional weight of this film on his shoulders.
Though he’s positioned as little more than a vagrant in the story’s opening moments, we eventually learn that he’s lead the life of a transient somewhat by design: Scanners have been monitored for years, though exactly how and why this has been done is kept concealed until later in the picture. He, in particular, has been kept 'in the shadows' and disallowed to live a normal life. We watch in this set-up as he uses his powers against those who would judge him, and it’s easy to identify with his struggle to just make ends meet, even if that means pilfering a leftover sandwich from an abandoned lunch tray. Under his stewardship, Vale is likeable and relatable, so his evolution from wayward lost soul to the film’s potential hero works.
As his nemesis, genre great Michael Ironside (as Darryl Revok) has likely forgotten more about chewing scenery than most actors ever learn, much less master.
Though the actor hasn’t always played ‘the heavy,’ I can say with conviction that, when he has, he’s remembered for it. (Hell, he might even be revered for it.) Genre fans have enjoyed his abilities in such projects as television's V, Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (1983), Total Recall (1990), and Terminator Salvation (2009). His IMDB.com profile is fast approaching 300 different screen roles. He’s that rare talent who inhabits those dark elements and brings them to the surface with practiced ease. His early scenes here are laced with an undercurrent of evil; we see him watching developments from afar and, in some cases, tinkering in these events, all seemingly intent on capturing Vale before … before … well … before …
Therein lies the crux of my problem with Scanners: it holds far too many of its secrets back until its last reel when Revok and Vale’s true identities are finally revealed, as is the role others have played in this grand Machiavellian drama. The imperfect structure of this plot – the who’s, the what’s, the why’s – end up being reserved to the point wherein the audience can’t truly appreciate the earlier drama except to conclude that it’s all well-done, well-captured, and well-intended. Having the logic to understand some of these characters’ motivation earlier would likely have bridged the gap otherwise created here, and I can’t help but wonder if this was a consequence of not having a completed script before all was said and done. The true cores of characters played by Jennifer O’Neill and Patrick McGoohan end up feeling lost in the shuffle to craft a narrative in progress, and even the late McGoohan is on record as not knowing what this was all about while it was in production. Dare I say, it shows?
Setting those quibbles aside, Scanners feels more and more about a few impressive action and effects sequences than it does the investigation of its proposed dark cabal and their nefarious eugenics. Lack and Ironside make for great polar opposites in this world of evil and (maybe) good (maybe just lesser evil), but this particular story only gave them a single big scene together … and I would’ve loved more.
Though he’s positioned as little more than a vagrant in the story’s opening moments, we eventually learn that he’s lead the life of a transient somewhat by design: Scanners have been monitored for years, though exactly how and why this has been done is kept concealed until later in the picture. He, in particular, has been kept 'in the shadows' and disallowed to live a normal life. We watch in this set-up as he uses his powers against those who would judge him, and it’s easy to identify with his struggle to just make ends meet, even if that means pilfering a leftover sandwich from an abandoned lunch tray. Under his stewardship, Vale is likeable and relatable, so his evolution from wayward lost soul to the film’s potential hero works.
As his nemesis, genre great Michael Ironside (as Darryl Revok) has likely forgotten more about chewing scenery than most actors ever learn, much less master.
Though the actor hasn’t always played ‘the heavy,’ I can say with conviction that, when he has, he’s remembered for it. (Hell, he might even be revered for it.) Genre fans have enjoyed his abilities in such projects as television's V, Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (1983), Total Recall (1990), and Terminator Salvation (2009). His IMDB.com profile is fast approaching 300 different screen roles. He’s that rare talent who inhabits those dark elements and brings them to the surface with practiced ease. His early scenes here are laced with an undercurrent of evil; we see him watching developments from afar and, in some cases, tinkering in these events, all seemingly intent on capturing Vale before … before … well … before …
Therein lies the crux of my problem with Scanners: it holds far too many of its secrets back until its last reel when Revok and Vale’s true identities are finally revealed, as is the role others have played in this grand Machiavellian drama. The imperfect structure of this plot – the who’s, the what’s, the why’s – end up being reserved to the point wherein the audience can’t truly appreciate the earlier drama except to conclude that it’s all well-done, well-captured, and well-intended. Having the logic to understand some of these characters’ motivation earlier would likely have bridged the gap otherwise created here, and I can’t help but wonder if this was a consequence of not having a completed script before all was said and done. The true cores of characters played by Jennifer O’Neill and Patrick McGoohan end up feeling lost in the shuffle to craft a narrative in progress, and even the late McGoohan is on record as not knowing what this was all about while it was in production. Dare I say, it shows?
Setting those quibbles aside, Scanners feels more and more about a few impressive action and effects sequences than it does the investigation of its proposed dark cabal and their nefarious eugenics. Lack and Ironside make for great polar opposites in this world of evil and (maybe) good (maybe just lesser evil), but this particular story only gave them a single big scene together … and I would’ve loved more.
I’ve watched enough Cronenberg to know that – as a storyteller – he likely knows what he wants when he sees it, and this film is no different.
The flick is understandably revered for its showdown and – even more so – its incredible head-exploding sequence; the director employed some of the best effects people of the era to get those scenes ‘in the can,’ and it shows. (Industry legend Dick Smith essentially pioneered a whole new bladder system for this film and others, and the genius of putting it on display here shows.) But all of the whizzes, booms, and bangs without greater narrative context (or emotional resonance) genuinely robs these characters of the requisite impact, leaving Scanners a bit listless … and some of us with headaches all of our own.
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties if I failed to point out that Scanners is not without its ardent supporters. It started a franchise – I believe there were two sequels, though I’ve not read anything all that complementary about their quality – and something indeed needs to be said for that. Also, I know I’ve read about a potential reboot not once but twice (even a television version has been talked about, I believe); and I’d heartily encourage someone to dust off the property and give audiences another go-round. There’s potential for more journeys into this universe; I just hope the next visit doesn’t go up like a skull under mental manipulation!
Scanners (1981) was produced by Canadian Film Development Corporation and a few other participants. DVD distribution (for this particular release) was coordinated by the reliable Criterion Company. As for the technical specifications? Well, you’ll believe a head can explode! The sights and sounds are fabulous from start-to-finish. As for the special features? This 2018 release offered up a new restored 2K transfer supervised by Cronenberg himself, and it certainly looks fabulous. While short a commentary track (gasp!), there are a few other items worth your time, including:
Recommended. While imperfect and not always entirely rational, Scanners is still recommended viewing, especially for students of the 1980’s, horror aficionados, and (definitely) Cronenberg purists. I’m hardly the auteur’s biggest fan – just hasn’t struck a chord with me as he has so many others – but the film kept my interest; and – when it was over – I wished a bit more time had been spent with story as opposed to spectacle. Rewatchability is good … but I’ll bet whoever picks this one up for a reboot will bring more depth to its mystery.
-- EZ
The flick is understandably revered for its showdown and – even more so – its incredible head-exploding sequence; the director employed some of the best effects people of the era to get those scenes ‘in the can,’ and it shows. (Industry legend Dick Smith essentially pioneered a whole new bladder system for this film and others, and the genius of putting it on display here shows.) But all of the whizzes, booms, and bangs without greater narrative context (or emotional resonance) genuinely robs these characters of the requisite impact, leaving Scanners a bit listless … and some of us with headaches all of our own.
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties if I failed to point out that Scanners is not without its ardent supporters. It started a franchise – I believe there were two sequels, though I’ve not read anything all that complementary about their quality – and something indeed needs to be said for that. Also, I know I’ve read about a potential reboot not once but twice (even a television version has been talked about, I believe); and I’d heartily encourage someone to dust off the property and give audiences another go-round. There’s potential for more journeys into this universe; I just hope the next visit doesn’t go up like a skull under mental manipulation!
Scanners (1981) was produced by Canadian Film Development Corporation and a few other participants. DVD distribution (for this particular release) was coordinated by the reliable Criterion Company. As for the technical specifications? Well, you’ll believe a head can explode! The sights and sounds are fabulous from start-to-finish. As for the special features? This 2018 release offered up a new restored 2K transfer supervised by Cronenberg himself, and it certainly looks fabulous. While short a commentary track (gasp!), there are a few other items worth your time, including:
- The Scanners Way – a documentary examining the film’s special effects;
- Mental Saboteur – an interview with Ironside;
- The Ephemoral Diaries – A 2012 interview with Lack;
- The Bob Mclean Show – a brief interview with Cronenberg;
- And a few additional niceties. It’s a great collection fans will appreciate.
Recommended. While imperfect and not always entirely rational, Scanners is still recommended viewing, especially for students of the 1980’s, horror aficionados, and (definitely) Cronenberg purists. I’m hardly the auteur’s biggest fan – just hasn’t struck a chord with me as he has so many others – but the film kept my interest; and – when it was over – I wished a bit more time had been spent with story as opposed to spectacle. Rewatchability is good … but I’ll bet whoever picks this one up for a reboot will bring more depth to its mystery.
-- EZ
- Published on
The difficulty of reviewing an ongoing mystery procedural – say something like David Lynch’s ground-breaking Twin Peaks or, more recently, Netflix’s short-lived Archive 81 – is that viewers are tasked with digesting only a single morsel of a larger meal but being asked to determine its quality bite by bite. Instead of pronouncing judgment of the end result, they’re required to sound-off on each successive sampling of the whole – which is getting progressively smaller, obviously – and that’s a challenging process by which to make or break one’s supper, much less compliment or insult the chef.
Still, as programs dabbling in the paranormal, otherworldly, and supernatural are presently very ‘trendy,’ it’s probably as good a time as any for a streaming outlet like Amazon to come up with their own addition to the genre; and their brand-new serial Outer Range is probably as good an opportunity as anything else. While grounded firmly in what we’d commonly accept as the American frontier (it takes place on a cattle ranch in Wyoming), its main storyline involves little more than a ‘hole in the ground’ that very well might be the gateway to … well … I’m getting ahead of myself.
(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 …)
Here's the series’ premise as provided by the good folks at IMDB.com:
“A rancher fighting for his land and family discovers an unfathomable mystery at the edge of Wyoming’s wilderness.”
As one who’s done more than his fair share of reading into topics of High Strangeness, here’s the dirty little secret most folks ignore about such events: whoever is piloting those flying saucers has no interest or desire to land on the White House lawn.
You see, those visitors from other worlds have no interest in being taken to our leaders as so many stories, films, and TV shows have suggested. They prefer to traffic in the dark or areas wherein they’ll not be disturbed from doing whatever it is they’re intent on doing. The American President would want to sit down with them, maybe share a chat, or – even worse – capture, kill, and dissect them, all in the pursuit of galactic peace, mind you. So it’s much easy for these shady goings-on to take place in small towns, out in the sticks, and places only angels fear to tread.
In fact, I’d encourage those who believe otherwise to do a bit of research. While there have been some history of the paranormal tied to the big cities, it’s far more common for curious occurrences to happen in places like Skinwalker Ranch, a private property spanning over five hundred acres in near Ballard, Utah. The location has been the subject of television shows, movies, and books; while the true facts are not without some controversy, my point remains the same – High Strangeness is tied to places far and wide where there’s some freedom to exercise without humanity’s prying eyes. Need more? Check into the cattle mutilations that have been taking place for decades in and around Colorado’s San Luis Valley, a topic recently explored in the great documentary On The Trail Of UFOs – Night Visitors (2022). What’s happening there couldn’t happen freely in the ‘burbs or on any New York City street; these operators need the peace and quiet of the great outdoors … and that’s why I’d argue Outer Range is perfectly set.
Still, as programs dabbling in the paranormal, otherworldly, and supernatural are presently very ‘trendy,’ it’s probably as good a time as any for a streaming outlet like Amazon to come up with their own addition to the genre; and their brand-new serial Outer Range is probably as good an opportunity as anything else. While grounded firmly in what we’d commonly accept as the American frontier (it takes place on a cattle ranch in Wyoming), its main storyline involves little more than a ‘hole in the ground’ that very well might be the gateway to … well … I’m getting ahead of myself.
(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 …)
Here's the series’ premise as provided by the good folks at IMDB.com:
“A rancher fighting for his land and family discovers an unfathomable mystery at the edge of Wyoming’s wilderness.”
As one who’s done more than his fair share of reading into topics of High Strangeness, here’s the dirty little secret most folks ignore about such events: whoever is piloting those flying saucers has no interest or desire to land on the White House lawn.
You see, those visitors from other worlds have no interest in being taken to our leaders as so many stories, films, and TV shows have suggested. They prefer to traffic in the dark or areas wherein they’ll not be disturbed from doing whatever it is they’re intent on doing. The American President would want to sit down with them, maybe share a chat, or – even worse – capture, kill, and dissect them, all in the pursuit of galactic peace, mind you. So it’s much easy for these shady goings-on to take place in small towns, out in the sticks, and places only angels fear to tread.
In fact, I’d encourage those who believe otherwise to do a bit of research. While there have been some history of the paranormal tied to the big cities, it’s far more common for curious occurrences to happen in places like Skinwalker Ranch, a private property spanning over five hundred acres in near Ballard, Utah. The location has been the subject of television shows, movies, and books; while the true facts are not without some controversy, my point remains the same – High Strangeness is tied to places far and wide where there’s some freedom to exercise without humanity’s prying eyes. Need more? Check into the cattle mutilations that have been taking place for decades in and around Colorado’s San Luis Valley, a topic recently explored in the great documentary On The Trail Of UFOs – Night Visitors (2022). What’s happening there couldn’t happen freely in the ‘burbs or on any New York City street; these operators need the peace and quiet of the great outdoors … and that’s why I’d argue Outer Range is perfectly set.
The Abbott Ranch is an expansive and scenic locale, one that may have been subject to unexplained events for quite some time (if subplots are any indication).
Royal Abbott (played by the great Josh Brolin) finds himself plagued by some curious sounds emanating from his wide, open spaces. Though his family don’t seem to notice these otherworldly hums, he does repeatedly; and he’s eventually drawn to what appears to be the source – a massive hole in one of his prairies seems to extend to nowhere. While no bottom is visible, the gaping maw is always accented with some curious floating mist; it might be dirt or fog, but it’s clearly ignoring the laws of physics as it rather languidly dances against gravity in an almost hypnotic pattern.
Nothing unconventional is without ‘the conventional’ in episodic television, and Outer Space is no different. Royal’s family gets drawn into a land grab instigating by their neighbors, the Tillersons (the patriarch – Wayne Tillerson – is played by the scene-chewing Will Patton). Before you know it, Royal’s sons – Perry (Tom Pelphrey) and Rhett (Lewis Pullman) – are drawn into a fistfight with one of the Tillerson men, and the results are life-altering in more ways than one. Some cattle have disappeared – have they been abducted or might they merely have fallen into that hole – and even Perry’s wife has gone missing. If that isn’t enough, then how about a curiously wealthy traveler – Autumn (Imogene Poots) – entering the lives of the Abbotts while on her own vision quest?
Mind you: though all of these winding subplots appear as little more than the usual fare tied to adult soap opera program, they’re all equally laced with the wild and weird in ways I’ll not spoil for those who’ve yet to view the first hour. It’s an interesting concoction … but, as I warned above, it’s hard to truly pass judgment on the pilot episode precisely because nothing is definitive. Nothing is complete. These are the opening, establishing moves on a game just beginning – even the last reel delivers a shocking surprise that might serve to redefine where the main arc could be going – and I’m not a reviewer inclined to heap praise when little has been earned.
As pilot hours go, Outer Range’s ‘The Void’ is at its best when teasing the conventional. How will Royal survive the legal challenge to snatch his west pasture out from under him? Why is he so indifferent to ideas of faith, and why is he so angry at God Almighty? Where did Rebecca Abbott get off to, and why has the family seemingly accepted her absence? What is it that ties Autumn to a ranch she’s never seen before? What fate awaits Perry and Rhett, and just how will they answer for the sin of murder?
As for the paranormal?
Well, consider the ‘unconventional’ just icing on the ‘conventional’ cake.
Saddle up, pardners. This might be the wild ride you’re been waiting for … but only time will tell.
-- EZ
Royal Abbott (played by the great Josh Brolin) finds himself plagued by some curious sounds emanating from his wide, open spaces. Though his family don’t seem to notice these otherworldly hums, he does repeatedly; and he’s eventually drawn to what appears to be the source – a massive hole in one of his prairies seems to extend to nowhere. While no bottom is visible, the gaping maw is always accented with some curious floating mist; it might be dirt or fog, but it’s clearly ignoring the laws of physics as it rather languidly dances against gravity in an almost hypnotic pattern.
Nothing unconventional is without ‘the conventional’ in episodic television, and Outer Space is no different. Royal’s family gets drawn into a land grab instigating by their neighbors, the Tillersons (the patriarch – Wayne Tillerson – is played by the scene-chewing Will Patton). Before you know it, Royal’s sons – Perry (Tom Pelphrey) and Rhett (Lewis Pullman) – are drawn into a fistfight with one of the Tillerson men, and the results are life-altering in more ways than one. Some cattle have disappeared – have they been abducted or might they merely have fallen into that hole – and even Perry’s wife has gone missing. If that isn’t enough, then how about a curiously wealthy traveler – Autumn (Imogene Poots) – entering the lives of the Abbotts while on her own vision quest?
Mind you: though all of these winding subplots appear as little more than the usual fare tied to adult soap opera program, they’re all equally laced with the wild and weird in ways I’ll not spoil for those who’ve yet to view the first hour. It’s an interesting concoction … but, as I warned above, it’s hard to truly pass judgment on the pilot episode precisely because nothing is definitive. Nothing is complete. These are the opening, establishing moves on a game just beginning – even the last reel delivers a shocking surprise that might serve to redefine where the main arc could be going – and I’m not a reviewer inclined to heap praise when little has been earned.
As pilot hours go, Outer Range’s ‘The Void’ is at its best when teasing the conventional. How will Royal survive the legal challenge to snatch his west pasture out from under him? Why is he so indifferent to ideas of faith, and why is he so angry at God Almighty? Where did Rebecca Abbott get off to, and why has the family seemingly accepted her absence? What is it that ties Autumn to a ranch she’s never seen before? What fate awaits Perry and Rhett, and just how will they answer for the sin of murder?
As for the paranormal?
Well, consider the ‘unconventional’ just icing on the ‘conventional’ cake.
Saddle up, pardners. This might be the wild ride you’re been waiting for … but only time will tell.
-- EZ
- Published on
The truth is that I’m an O.G. Star Trek fan.
No, I was a bit young when it aired in its original run on television, as I would’ve only been 2,3, and 4 at the time; but I retain a very distinct memory of seeing it some time in 1969 or 1970, so it could’ve been a first-run episode. And I do recall reading several of the photonovels (ask your parents, kids) as well as a few of the prose ones during their original run … so there.
The point I’m making here is that unlike many who pontificate about Trek I have been around. As they say, whatever Trek we’re on, “this isn’t my first rodeo.” And, yes, I’ll freely admit any time I’m asked about which incarnation is my favorite that it just doesn’t get any better than Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I’ve no doubt that some of this is owed to nostalgia – we’re all human, so we’re all equally wired that way – but I also possess a fondness for storytelling of a different bygone era … and so very much of the original series just tickles my fancy.
I believe it was DC Comics in the 1980’s that had a pretty successful run with the Star Trek brand. To their benefit, they scored a handful of writers and artists who actually penned and drew some fabulous tales that, thematically, went hand-in-hand with the tone of The Wrath Of Khan, The Search For Spock, and The Voyage Home. At some point, the license transitioned to Marvel Comics, and I followed along for much of that ride, as well. I recall being not as impressed with the stories for the most part, but the creative team did put out some very good stuff involving Deep Space Nine, one of the franchise’s most overlooked incarnations.
So, again, I am speaking from this foundation with respect to my thoughts of IDW Publishing.
They’re a bit of an odd duck, IDW. For a number of years I was involved in reviews at Amazon.com (until that megacompany dumped thousands of us from their roster after changing the rules on us), and I was provided content from several graphic publishers. Dark Horse was certainly the most fan-friendly, but no matter how often I tried establishing myself with IDW they just never replied. I believe at one point I did receive an email implying they would be offering me content, but their instructions on how to obtain it were a bit bizarre, so I gave up on them.
Still, because I’m a huge Trek fan, I’m inclined to pick up the occasional graphic novels these days. (The prices of independent issues made me give up on regular comic book reading long ago.) IDW does some respectable work – The Q Conflict is good, though a bit lukewarm, which I’ll get to in a moment: of what I’ve read, I think the tales they’ve told with the JJ Abrams’ version of Trek have been better than any other crew. JJ’s universe is far more ‘pop culture’ leaning than the others, so perhaps it’s not all that difficult to identify the tone and run with it in new adventures. Hats off to them on a job well done.
The Q Conflict came highly recommended to me by an internet friend. I read the premise – Q and a small group of the franchise’s omnipotent fellows choose to run a war by proxy, enlisting the crews of the original show, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager to serve as their pawns for the throwdown. Though I’ve never been much of a fan of these all-powerful beings, I decided – after doing a bit of reading of how well the miniseries was received – to give it a go.
No, I was a bit young when it aired in its original run on television, as I would’ve only been 2,3, and 4 at the time; but I retain a very distinct memory of seeing it some time in 1969 or 1970, so it could’ve been a first-run episode. And I do recall reading several of the photonovels (ask your parents, kids) as well as a few of the prose ones during their original run … so there.
The point I’m making here is that unlike many who pontificate about Trek I have been around. As they say, whatever Trek we’re on, “this isn’t my first rodeo.” And, yes, I’ll freely admit any time I’m asked about which incarnation is my favorite that it just doesn’t get any better than Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I’ve no doubt that some of this is owed to nostalgia – we’re all human, so we’re all equally wired that way – but I also possess a fondness for storytelling of a different bygone era … and so very much of the original series just tickles my fancy.
I believe it was DC Comics in the 1980’s that had a pretty successful run with the Star Trek brand. To their benefit, they scored a handful of writers and artists who actually penned and drew some fabulous tales that, thematically, went hand-in-hand with the tone of The Wrath Of Khan, The Search For Spock, and The Voyage Home. At some point, the license transitioned to Marvel Comics, and I followed along for much of that ride, as well. I recall being not as impressed with the stories for the most part, but the creative team did put out some very good stuff involving Deep Space Nine, one of the franchise’s most overlooked incarnations.
So, again, I am speaking from this foundation with respect to my thoughts of IDW Publishing.
They’re a bit of an odd duck, IDW. For a number of years I was involved in reviews at Amazon.com (until that megacompany dumped thousands of us from their roster after changing the rules on us), and I was provided content from several graphic publishers. Dark Horse was certainly the most fan-friendly, but no matter how often I tried establishing myself with IDW they just never replied. I believe at one point I did receive an email implying they would be offering me content, but their instructions on how to obtain it were a bit bizarre, so I gave up on them.
Still, because I’m a huge Trek fan, I’m inclined to pick up the occasional graphic novels these days. (The prices of independent issues made me give up on regular comic book reading long ago.) IDW does some respectable work – The Q Conflict is good, though a bit lukewarm, which I’ll get to in a moment: of what I’ve read, I think the tales they’ve told with the JJ Abrams’ version of Trek have been better than any other crew. JJ’s universe is far more ‘pop culture’ leaning than the others, so perhaps it’s not all that difficult to identify the tone and run with it in new adventures. Hats off to them on a job well done.
The Q Conflict came highly recommended to me by an internet friend. I read the premise – Q and a small group of the franchise’s omnipotent fellows choose to run a war by proxy, enlisting the crews of the original show, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager to serve as their pawns for the throwdown. Though I’ve never been much of a fan of these all-powerful beings, I decided – after doing a bit of reading of how well the miniseries was received – to give it a go.
The straight skinny?
Meh.
My issue with Q and like-minded folks is that the stories essentially involve no real risk much less consequence. After all, when reality can be reshaped at the snap of fingers, where is there any legitimate danger to anyone involved? Episodes of The Next Generation – namely ‘Tapestry’ and ‘All Good Things’ – circumvented that narrative shortcoming (to a degree) by leaving these lowly humans to be the true masters of their fate. Not all of the Q episodes did this, true, but these two uniquely derailed any attempts by those ‘gods’ to step up and alter the outcomes.
By comparison, The Q Conflict falls short.
In fact, Q sets all of these events in motion, giving these various crews an opportunity to ‘play a game’ wherein there are decidedly no consequences whatsoever to the players. In fact, I believe it was Captain Picard who insists on that very rule, that there be no deaths, etc., and this framework – whether you like it or not – simply removes any possibility of tension from the entire arc. While some might argue that, “Well, this is a comic book, and no writer is going to kill off any of the main characters anyway” … and my reply would be, “Then why tell this story anyway? These gods are merely monkeying around in their own affairs and using humans as a form of entertainment … so why go along with it?”
I know, I know, I know. I do tend to overthink things, especially when it comes to stories. I do this because I’m a story nut. I prefer a good story over great characters, and I do this because even marginal characters can do good work in a good story: bad characters can’t – or typically, they can’t – and they accomplish nothing. But give any character a good story and you cross that first hurdle of having something that is relatable. The Q Conflict, as told, just wasn’t relatable. At least, not to me.
Now, this isn’t to say that I disliked the tale, because that would be far from the truth. Scribe Scott Tipton certainly has a good grasp of these characters, so much so that he manages to breath a bit of life into even the smallest of scenes throughout this arc. Even some unusual choices of guest stars are plucked from The Next Generation’s run and given a bit of screen time in this tale, and their scenes and dialogue feel authentic to what audiences came to know of them on television. That, alone, is probably why an awful lot of readers rated this Conflict as highly as they did: with this expansive number of Starfleet’s finest on display, there’s something to be said for ‘getting it right.’
That aside, it all ends probably the way any longtime Trekker, Trekkie, or general Trek enthusiast might suspect: with a snap of Q’s fingers, everything is pretty much back to normal … and that only underscores the objection I raised above about little to no risk. A few players do receive a bit of an evolution – Wesley Crusher apparently undergoes a bit of a makeover, but I’ll refrain there from any other spoilers – but the end result is much the same: nothing ventured, nothing gained.
While The Q Conflict is worth the time and investment (I picked this one up entirely on my own dime), it isn’t one I’ll be revisiting any time soon.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Meh.
My issue with Q and like-minded folks is that the stories essentially involve no real risk much less consequence. After all, when reality can be reshaped at the snap of fingers, where is there any legitimate danger to anyone involved? Episodes of The Next Generation – namely ‘Tapestry’ and ‘All Good Things’ – circumvented that narrative shortcoming (to a degree) by leaving these lowly humans to be the true masters of their fate. Not all of the Q episodes did this, true, but these two uniquely derailed any attempts by those ‘gods’ to step up and alter the outcomes.
By comparison, The Q Conflict falls short.
In fact, Q sets all of these events in motion, giving these various crews an opportunity to ‘play a game’ wherein there are decidedly no consequences whatsoever to the players. In fact, I believe it was Captain Picard who insists on that very rule, that there be no deaths, etc., and this framework – whether you like it or not – simply removes any possibility of tension from the entire arc. While some might argue that, “Well, this is a comic book, and no writer is going to kill off any of the main characters anyway” … and my reply would be, “Then why tell this story anyway? These gods are merely monkeying around in their own affairs and using humans as a form of entertainment … so why go along with it?”
I know, I know, I know. I do tend to overthink things, especially when it comes to stories. I do this because I’m a story nut. I prefer a good story over great characters, and I do this because even marginal characters can do good work in a good story: bad characters can’t – or typically, they can’t – and they accomplish nothing. But give any character a good story and you cross that first hurdle of having something that is relatable. The Q Conflict, as told, just wasn’t relatable. At least, not to me.
Now, this isn’t to say that I disliked the tale, because that would be far from the truth. Scribe Scott Tipton certainly has a good grasp of these characters, so much so that he manages to breath a bit of life into even the smallest of scenes throughout this arc. Even some unusual choices of guest stars are plucked from The Next Generation’s run and given a bit of screen time in this tale, and their scenes and dialogue feel authentic to what audiences came to know of them on television. That, alone, is probably why an awful lot of readers rated this Conflict as highly as they did: with this expansive number of Starfleet’s finest on display, there’s something to be said for ‘getting it right.’
That aside, it all ends probably the way any longtime Trekker, Trekkie, or general Trek enthusiast might suspect: with a snap of Q’s fingers, everything is pretty much back to normal … and that only underscores the objection I raised above about little to no risk. A few players do receive a bit of an evolution – Wesley Crusher apparently undergoes a bit of a makeover, but I’ll refrain there from any other spoilers – but the end result is much the same: nothing ventured, nothing gained.
While The Q Conflict is worth the time and investment (I picked this one up entirely on my own dime), it isn’t one I’ll be revisiting any time soon.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
PROGRAMMING NOTE
Though SciFiHistory.Net is generally dedicated to showcasing properties from all of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror, I’ll occasionally – as reviewer – take the opportunity to review what I judge to be like-minded fare … and the field of High Strangeness certainly has elements that tweak the curiosity of myself and my fans. UFOs, cryptids, and the paranormal and supernatural are more than just storytelling elements; they’re legitimate phenomena deserving our attention, scientific examination, and ongoing investigation. Occasionally including documentaries dealing with such subjects should in no way, shape, or form discount the reality of these experiences or insult the integrity of researchers committed to finding answers to some of life’s most complex mysteries.
On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors (2022) is currently available for streaming on all major web platforms. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to purchase and view the documentary. It’s a extremely high-caliber investigation into the unexplained activity surrounding Colorado’s San Luis Valley.
On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors (2022) is currently available for streaming on all major web platforms. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to purchase and view the documentary. It’s a extremely high-caliber investigation into the unexplained activity surrounding Colorado’s San Luis Valley.
(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 …)
Even as a little sprite, I was fascinating with flying saucers and aliens.
When you’re an innocent wide-eyed urchin like I was in the early 1970’s, you’re blissfully unaware that there are darker components – very frightening factors – to the wider UFO enigma. It isn’t until I was considerably older that I could appreciate the discussion surrounding abduction, alien implants, and cattle mutilations. While Night Visitors doesn’t delve deeply into each of these areas, the 80-minute documentary hones in chiefly on encounters limited to San Luis Valley in Colorado, choosing chiefly to question what could be the source of these bizarre animal attacks and what do residents of the area make of it.
Though I could be wrong, I believe it was award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe who first risked her career by bringing these disfigurements to light: her documentary A Strange Harvest won an Emmy for daring to breach a little publicized phenomenon when few others would even acknowledge something was definitely amiss. Decades later, we’re no closer to answers, but thankfully writer/director Seth Breedlove isn’t one to let sleeping dogs lie: he and his host Shannon Legro take a trip back to the area for another attempt to stir the pot, though it’s clear just before these credits roll there’s still an incredible amount of work needing to be done.
Anyone who’s followed the UFO field alone knows the central problem to even launching a plausible investigation surrounding strange lights in the sky knows what a daunting challenge it truly is. Rarely is physical evidence left behind, and the supporting eyewitness reports can be contradictory if not confusing. However, in instances of cattle mutilation, experts are quick to dismiss the tangible because the recovered clues aren’t suggestive of any understandable conclusion. When the details don’t point to a relatable solution, officials tend to recklessly discount an entire affair for no other reason that it eludes their conception of the world … a sad state of affairs if ever there were.
Breedlove’s witnesses are everyday folk. They’re no different that you or me. They’re the kind of people who populate parts of the country where a wide frontier still exists. They’re not seeking fame and fortune, nor are they sharing their experiences with hopes of landing some lucrative film or television deal. They’re salt-of-the-earth types. And yet they’re surrounded by not only animals that won’t be tamed but a mystery that defies any conventional excuse. All they want are answers; I find it a tragedy that so few people are willing to listen to their questions.
As any fan of the Fox Television's stellar series The X-Files knows, "The truth is out there." Let's just hope that Breedlove and his confidantes keep searching for it.
On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors (2022) is produced by Small Town Monster. According to the provided press materials I’ve viewed, the product is available for streaming on all major web platforms. As for the technical specifications? This production looks and sounds exceptional.
Highly recommended. What I’ve always found so compelling about the field of High Strangeness is that, typically, raising a single good question about a phenomenon leads to a seemingly endless series of other questions that are equally important. While there are no answers provided in On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors, there is ample discussion surrounding the topics of UFOs, abductions, contactee experiences, and cattle mutilations, so much so that any reasonable person might ask, “Why is it that the government isn’t investigating and demanding answers?” Well, the truth is maybe they are. Maybe they’re behind all of it. Their absence in the public discourse regarding these phenomena only deepens the mystery … and it’s a mystery that isn’t going away any time soon.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at 1091 Pictures provided me with a complimentary streaming link of On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors 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.
Even as a little sprite, I was fascinating with flying saucers and aliens.
When you’re an innocent wide-eyed urchin like I was in the early 1970’s, you’re blissfully unaware that there are darker components – very frightening factors – to the wider UFO enigma. It isn’t until I was considerably older that I could appreciate the discussion surrounding abduction, alien implants, and cattle mutilations. While Night Visitors doesn’t delve deeply into each of these areas, the 80-minute documentary hones in chiefly on encounters limited to San Luis Valley in Colorado, choosing chiefly to question what could be the source of these bizarre animal attacks and what do residents of the area make of it.
Though I could be wrong, I believe it was award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe who first risked her career by bringing these disfigurements to light: her documentary A Strange Harvest won an Emmy for daring to breach a little publicized phenomenon when few others would even acknowledge something was definitely amiss. Decades later, we’re no closer to answers, but thankfully writer/director Seth Breedlove isn’t one to let sleeping dogs lie: he and his host Shannon Legro take a trip back to the area for another attempt to stir the pot, though it’s clear just before these credits roll there’s still an incredible amount of work needing to be done.
Anyone who’s followed the UFO field alone knows the central problem to even launching a plausible investigation surrounding strange lights in the sky knows what a daunting challenge it truly is. Rarely is physical evidence left behind, and the supporting eyewitness reports can be contradictory if not confusing. However, in instances of cattle mutilation, experts are quick to dismiss the tangible because the recovered clues aren’t suggestive of any understandable conclusion. When the details don’t point to a relatable solution, officials tend to recklessly discount an entire affair for no other reason that it eludes their conception of the world … a sad state of affairs if ever there were.
Breedlove’s witnesses are everyday folk. They’re no different that you or me. They’re the kind of people who populate parts of the country where a wide frontier still exists. They’re not seeking fame and fortune, nor are they sharing their experiences with hopes of landing some lucrative film or television deal. They’re salt-of-the-earth types. And yet they’re surrounded by not only animals that won’t be tamed but a mystery that defies any conventional excuse. All they want are answers; I find it a tragedy that so few people are willing to listen to their questions.
As any fan of the Fox Television's stellar series The X-Files knows, "The truth is out there." Let's just hope that Breedlove and his confidantes keep searching for it.
On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors (2022) is produced by Small Town Monster. According to the provided press materials I’ve viewed, the product is available for streaming on all major web platforms. As for the technical specifications? This production looks and sounds exceptional.
Highly recommended. What I’ve always found so compelling about the field of High Strangeness is that, typically, raising a single good question about a phenomenon leads to a seemingly endless series of other questions that are equally important. While there are no answers provided in On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors, there is ample discussion surrounding the topics of UFOs, abductions, contactee experiences, and cattle mutilations, so much so that any reasonable person might ask, “Why is it that the government isn’t investigating and demanding answers?” Well, the truth is maybe they are. Maybe they’re behind all of it. Their absence in the public discourse regarding these phenomena only deepens the mystery … and it’s a mystery that isn’t going away any time soon.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at 1091 Pictures provided me with a complimentary streaming link of On The Trail Of UFOs: Night Visitors by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
- Published on
I know, I know, I know. Here's what you're thinking: "Oh, look, another show our humble editor doesn't like as much as other critics!"
Now, wait a minute. I've never said I didn't like Stranger Things. The truth of the matter is that I'm actually quite fond of the show and its storytellers' ability to really effectively recapture what was the magic of 1980's storytelling. However, I thought they truly jumped the shark in their third season, when it felt like they had left the 80's behind just a bit in favor of a vastly different feel, much more contemporary. Yes, I realize they set it at a mall ... but, again, it was the overall 'feel' of the program I'm talking about -- not the setting -- and it just 'felt' like they were going bigger when what worked best was that small town aesthetic.
But again: I never said I didn't like Stranger Things. I like it quite a bit.
In any event, I realize that it's crossed its mid-point as a vehicle, and the inevitable ending is heading our way. As an audience, we've watched these kids save their world -- and ours, too, in the process -- and if this video tells me anything effectively it's that they aren't kids any longer. They're grown into teenagers, and some of the boys are no doubt shaving by now. (The shaving is probably part of a completely other storyline, though.) Netflix has already confirmed that there will be a fifth and final season, but the promotion for Season 4 is revving into gear.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
Now, wait a minute. I've never said I didn't like Stranger Things. The truth of the matter is that I'm actually quite fond of the show and its storytellers' ability to really effectively recapture what was the magic of 1980's storytelling. However, I thought they truly jumped the shark in their third season, when it felt like they had left the 80's behind just a bit in favor of a vastly different feel, much more contemporary. Yes, I realize they set it at a mall ... but, again, it was the overall 'feel' of the program I'm talking about -- not the setting -- and it just 'felt' like they were going bigger when what worked best was that small town aesthetic.
But again: I never said I didn't like Stranger Things. I like it quite a bit.
In any event, I realize that it's crossed its mid-point as a vehicle, and the inevitable ending is heading our way. As an audience, we've watched these kids save their world -- and ours, too, in the process -- and if this video tells me anything effectively it's that they aren't kids any longer. They're grown into teenagers, and some of the boys are no doubt shaving by now. (The shaving is probably part of a completely other storyline, though.) Netflix has already confirmed that there will be a fifth and final season, but the promotion for Season 4 is revving into gear.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
It's very true that I'm always opining that I just don't read all that much any longer. Some of this is owed to the fact that it naturally takes a lot of time away from my abilities to blog -- being one of the web's premiere Science Fiction and Fantasy entertainment blogs doesn't happen overnight, you know -- and I do try to stick to my guns in this space. Still, when I do have a bit of free time, I'm prone to pick up darn near anything ... and this little gem caught my eyes in the Barnes and Noble last month.
I'd heard about author William Gibson's script for Alien 3. As I understand the story, the studio was looking for some input on where they could take the Alien universe after the box office success of Aliens (thank you, James Cameron), so a call was put out to the writing community. Gibson was one of the big names that actually responded -- if I understand the particulars correctly, he even got to a second draft on the project before the suits inevitably passed. Some of his tale's details have been online for ages, but I decided rather than wade through those why not actually read a full-fledged adaptation of the first draft to see what all the fuss was about.
Without spoiling too many of the surprises, I found Alien 3 a bit undercooked mostly because it essentially repeats much of what made Aliens such a break-out phenomenon: Gibson's story puts the Xenomorphs in high gear as their species infects not one but two different space stations -- pretty big, life-sustaining colonies -- which inevitably have to go the way of the dodo in order to keep the creatures from destroying life everywhere. But because it's so similar -- because it really copies the tone and pace of the Cameron film -- I'm not surprised the studio passed.
Now, I'm not abreast of what author Gibson may've been 'assigned' by the studio -- getting near to spoiler territory here, peeps -- but Ripley really isn't even in here. Upon their arrival/rescue from a deep space recovery, her ship is infected with another of the aliens -- one that hibernated inside the android Bishop -- and this is important because events transpire that lead to the hero being put into a comatose state. Although Newt and Nicks survive, the child is sent packing not long after being given a bit of story (along with Ripley in stasis again), leaving Hicks and Bishop to take charge and eliminate this kinda/sorta all-new breed of Xenos in the action.
1992's big screen outing -- Alien 3 -- has lived through as awful lot of criticism for how that movie killed off Newt and Hicks unceremoniously, leaving Ripley alone once more (though Bishop makes a brief appearance) to fight and save the day in a space-based penal colony when it's learned that she's also infected and dying from an alien spore. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of other reasons to dislike the third outing, but fans seemed to be most insulted by the way two beloved characters were dispatched so callously. Gibson's novel pretty much would have remedied this situation (to a point), choosing instead of sacrificing Ripley ... and I can't imagine audiences would've been happy with this turn of events.
There are a few other items introduced to the wider Alien universe. For example, one of these space colonies is actually an offshoot of a Socialist/Communist state, and the narrative pretty much re-introduces the Cold War albeit set in space. While these two sides -- capitalists and (erm) other -- are at odds with one another, there is not all-out-war of any kind. (Peacetime agreements have kept them playing nicely.) The company -- Weiland-Yutani -- is still up to their old shenanigans trying against all hopes to 'weaponize' the alien species, and Gibson's tale kinda/sorta explores how this all-powerful corporation might even up-the-ante from efforts in Aliens to make such an outcome possible. While this aspect was a bit derivative, it still built on established canon in a way viewers could relate.
Alas, because so very much of the action was dedicated to reliving the frenzy of Aliens, I just wasn't all that impressed with the novel. True, it was great to see Hicks back in action -- the book gives him a new complement of wannabe Colonial Marines to shoulder up into action with -- but they're largely retreads of folks we've already seen in this universe and end up being disposable when the right set of circumstances present themselves. Similarly, Bishop gets a welcome amount of additional screentime, but the book ends up treating the synthetic more as comic relief (in my opinion), and it just didn't work tonally for me as often as it was tried.
Perhaps the biggest change to the Xenomorph mythology (at least, as presented on film) is that the egg-laying aspect of their birthing process gets a huge overhaul: Gibson eliminates that breeding function, and these aliens have evolved to the point of simply being an airborne virus. In other words, all a victim need be is standing in close proximity to another infected person (to a degree), and he/she can also be turned into an alien incubator. No longer must a single egg be deposited: now a human being can produce many tiny alien hatchlings, thus increasing the species ability to propagate exponentially.
I've read that Gibson himself toned down this aspect in his version of the second draft; still, based on this foundation being so similar to Aliens, I'm not inclined to seek that one out and give it a read. I believe it's available out there -- comic adaptation? -- but I'll pass. Besides, unlike so many, I'm one who was actually kinda/sorta okay with the developments of Alien 3 as presented on film. Certainly, I can understand the collective disappointment over Newt and Hicks' deaths, but that story definitely wanted to take the character of Ripley to some very dark places emotionally, so I think their respective deaths were a necessary evil. Telling that story the way the studio did, Ripley needed to be entirely on-her-own, especially given where she ends up.
So ... I guess I'd conclude Gibson's Alien 3 wasn't an awful read. It served up some nice action, revisited the characters of Hicks and Bishop (for those who liked that sort of thing), and pushed the boundaries of what was possible with Xenomorph biology. In the end, however, I just felt it was too much a rehash of Aliens thematically to stand entirely on its own the way the resulting film does.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I'd heard about author William Gibson's script for Alien 3. As I understand the story, the studio was looking for some input on where they could take the Alien universe after the box office success of Aliens (thank you, James Cameron), so a call was put out to the writing community. Gibson was one of the big names that actually responded -- if I understand the particulars correctly, he even got to a second draft on the project before the suits inevitably passed. Some of his tale's details have been online for ages, but I decided rather than wade through those why not actually read a full-fledged adaptation of the first draft to see what all the fuss was about.
Without spoiling too many of the surprises, I found Alien 3 a bit undercooked mostly because it essentially repeats much of what made Aliens such a break-out phenomenon: Gibson's story puts the Xenomorphs in high gear as their species infects not one but two different space stations -- pretty big, life-sustaining colonies -- which inevitably have to go the way of the dodo in order to keep the creatures from destroying life everywhere. But because it's so similar -- because it really copies the tone and pace of the Cameron film -- I'm not surprised the studio passed.
Now, I'm not abreast of what author Gibson may've been 'assigned' by the studio -- getting near to spoiler territory here, peeps -- but Ripley really isn't even in here. Upon their arrival/rescue from a deep space recovery, her ship is infected with another of the aliens -- one that hibernated inside the android Bishop -- and this is important because events transpire that lead to the hero being put into a comatose state. Although Newt and Nicks survive, the child is sent packing not long after being given a bit of story (along with Ripley in stasis again), leaving Hicks and Bishop to take charge and eliminate this kinda/sorta all-new breed of Xenos in the action.
1992's big screen outing -- Alien 3 -- has lived through as awful lot of criticism for how that movie killed off Newt and Hicks unceremoniously, leaving Ripley alone once more (though Bishop makes a brief appearance) to fight and save the day in a space-based penal colony when it's learned that she's also infected and dying from an alien spore. Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of other reasons to dislike the third outing, but fans seemed to be most insulted by the way two beloved characters were dispatched so callously. Gibson's novel pretty much would have remedied this situation (to a point), choosing instead of sacrificing Ripley ... and I can't imagine audiences would've been happy with this turn of events.
There are a few other items introduced to the wider Alien universe. For example, one of these space colonies is actually an offshoot of a Socialist/Communist state, and the narrative pretty much re-introduces the Cold War albeit set in space. While these two sides -- capitalists and (erm) other -- are at odds with one another, there is not all-out-war of any kind. (Peacetime agreements have kept them playing nicely.) The company -- Weiland-Yutani -- is still up to their old shenanigans trying against all hopes to 'weaponize' the alien species, and Gibson's tale kinda/sorta explores how this all-powerful corporation might even up-the-ante from efforts in Aliens to make such an outcome possible. While this aspect was a bit derivative, it still built on established canon in a way viewers could relate.
Alas, because so very much of the action was dedicated to reliving the frenzy of Aliens, I just wasn't all that impressed with the novel. True, it was great to see Hicks back in action -- the book gives him a new complement of wannabe Colonial Marines to shoulder up into action with -- but they're largely retreads of folks we've already seen in this universe and end up being disposable when the right set of circumstances present themselves. Similarly, Bishop gets a welcome amount of additional screentime, but the book ends up treating the synthetic more as comic relief (in my opinion), and it just didn't work tonally for me as often as it was tried.
Perhaps the biggest change to the Xenomorph mythology (at least, as presented on film) is that the egg-laying aspect of their birthing process gets a huge overhaul: Gibson eliminates that breeding function, and these aliens have evolved to the point of simply being an airborne virus. In other words, all a victim need be is standing in close proximity to another infected person (to a degree), and he/she can also be turned into an alien incubator. No longer must a single egg be deposited: now a human being can produce many tiny alien hatchlings, thus increasing the species ability to propagate exponentially.
I've read that Gibson himself toned down this aspect in his version of the second draft; still, based on this foundation being so similar to Aliens, I'm not inclined to seek that one out and give it a read. I believe it's available out there -- comic adaptation? -- but I'll pass. Besides, unlike so many, I'm one who was actually kinda/sorta okay with the developments of Alien 3 as presented on film. Certainly, I can understand the collective disappointment over Newt and Hicks' deaths, but that story definitely wanted to take the character of Ripley to some very dark places emotionally, so I think their respective deaths were a necessary evil. Telling that story the way the studio did, Ripley needed to be entirely on-her-own, especially given where she ends up.
So ... I guess I'd conclude Gibson's Alien 3 wasn't an awful read. It served up some nice action, revisited the characters of Hicks and Bishop (for those who liked that sort of thing), and pushed the boundaries of what was possible with Xenomorph biology. In the end, however, I just felt it was too much a rehash of Aliens thematically to stand entirely on its own the way the resulting film does.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
The thing I admire most about conventional Horror films: practically anyone with a camera and a cast can make one, no matter the budget.
The thing I hate most about conventional Horror films: practically anyone with a camera and a cast can make one, no matter the budget.
And therein lies Horror’s dirty little secret: all too often, storytellers and studios prefer to stick to an almost Fascistic formulaic approach to what scares audiences. If it’s been done before and made money, then look for it to be done again even if that means settling for just a bit less. But if we dress it up with a bit more blood, maybe it’ll make more? Because they can be made fast and cheap, the potential for profit remains very good, and this is precisely why it’s demonstrably easy to get almost any slasher-based thriller and chiller into some studio pipeline somewhere: the evidence shows that folks will plunk down a few dollars for such vicarious delights year-round.
Still, back when exploitation features were really just crawling out of the grave, these filmmakers did strive to assign some gimmick to them. For example, Killer A likes to conduct his business with a drill while Killer B prefers the ice pick. When that trend dried out, Killer C only slashes girls who reside in sorority houses while Killer D prefers hacking and slashing his way through American suburbs. When interest in various locales subsided, then those drawing first blood decided it was time to stake a claim to the holidays, so things like Bloody Christmas, Friday the 13th, and more were born … so it’s only natural that somewhere some psychotic stuck out New Year’s Eve, right?
New Year’s Evil (1980) probably didn’t leave much impression with audiences of its era. Like so many other flicks, it’s largely derivative, hosting a cast of regular types who all ‘kick the bucket’ well within the formula for slasher films. But it’s continued to build a bit of a cult following for any number of reasons, and I’ll try to provide enough reason for you to check it out after the break …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
The thing I hate most about conventional Horror films: practically anyone with a camera and a cast can make one, no matter the budget.
And therein lies Horror’s dirty little secret: all too often, storytellers and studios prefer to stick to an almost Fascistic formulaic approach to what scares audiences. If it’s been done before and made money, then look for it to be done again even if that means settling for just a bit less. But if we dress it up with a bit more blood, maybe it’ll make more? Because they can be made fast and cheap, the potential for profit remains very good, and this is precisely why it’s demonstrably easy to get almost any slasher-based thriller and chiller into some studio pipeline somewhere: the evidence shows that folks will plunk down a few dollars for such vicarious delights year-round.
Still, back when exploitation features were really just crawling out of the grave, these filmmakers did strive to assign some gimmick to them. For example, Killer A likes to conduct his business with a drill while Killer B prefers the ice pick. When that trend dried out, Killer C only slashes girls who reside in sorority houses while Killer D prefers hacking and slashing his way through American suburbs. When interest in various locales subsided, then those drawing first blood decided it was time to stake a claim to the holidays, so things like Bloody Christmas, Friday the 13th, and more were born … so it’s only natural that somewhere some psychotic stuck out New Year’s Eve, right?
New Year’s Evil (1980) probably didn’t leave much impression with audiences of its era. Like so many other flicks, it’s largely derivative, hosting a cast of regular types who all ‘kick the bucket’ well within the formula for slasher films. But it’s continued to build a bit of a cult following for any number of reasons, and I’ll try to provide enough reason for you to check it out after the break …
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“On a totally punked-out New Year’s Eve, TV hostess Diane ‘Blaze’ Sullivan counts down the hours to midnight. But as her show progresses, every hour, on the hour, a savage maniac slashes up a new female victim. As the trail of mutilated bodies spreads throughout the city, it becomes apparent that the psychopath’s ultimate target is Blaze herself. Desperate to stop the bloody rampage, the police frantically seal off the ongoing televised festivities. But the killer is quicker than they suspected – and he's also the last one anyone suspects.”
Conventional Horror like slasher features just have never been my cup of tea.
The biggest complaint I have with them is that they’re generally constructed with an easily deduced formula, one that practically requires that the characters themselves remain bland and nondescript because it’s really only the manner of their deaths that matter. Occasionally, something novel or different slips through, but all too often storytellers who dabble in this subset do so because they think they’re bringing just enough originality to the premise to elevate their project above others. That’s really not the case with director Emmett Alston’s New Year’s Evil. (To clarify, he’s also credited with the film’s original story, though he passed screenwriting duties to his writing partner, Leonard Neubauer.)
Without divulging too many spoilers for those who read here, this Evil relies on a not-so-anonymous slasher whose central motivation remains a mystery throughout much of the picture. Detectives (and smart viewers) will obviously suspect that his intent ties somehow to the film’s female lead, Diane Sullivan (Roz Kelly), and they’ll be vindicated in the final reel when the script does dish a modestly impressive twist that probably should have been reserved for an otherwise better project. It’s best to conclude that our killer has enough justification to shed as much blood as he does, and – dare I point out? – he even manages to squeeze in the possibility of a sequel, though none ever came to pass.
But as I said, what matters here are the deaths. In that respect, Evil never paid enough attention to making the body count all that momentous. As grim endings go, these are fairly benign, and I suspect that accounts for why the picture never accomplished more from the days of yore. Or is that gore?
“On a totally punked-out New Year’s Eve, TV hostess Diane ‘Blaze’ Sullivan counts down the hours to midnight. But as her show progresses, every hour, on the hour, a savage maniac slashes up a new female victim. As the trail of mutilated bodies spreads throughout the city, it becomes apparent that the psychopath’s ultimate target is Blaze herself. Desperate to stop the bloody rampage, the police frantically seal off the ongoing televised festivities. But the killer is quicker than they suspected – and he's also the last one anyone suspects.”
Conventional Horror like slasher features just have never been my cup of tea.
The biggest complaint I have with them is that they’re generally constructed with an easily deduced formula, one that practically requires that the characters themselves remain bland and nondescript because it’s really only the manner of their deaths that matter. Occasionally, something novel or different slips through, but all too often storytellers who dabble in this subset do so because they think they’re bringing just enough originality to the premise to elevate their project above others. That’s really not the case with director Emmett Alston’s New Year’s Evil. (To clarify, he’s also credited with the film’s original story, though he passed screenwriting duties to his writing partner, Leonard Neubauer.)
Without divulging too many spoilers for those who read here, this Evil relies on a not-so-anonymous slasher whose central motivation remains a mystery throughout much of the picture. Detectives (and smart viewers) will obviously suspect that his intent ties somehow to the film’s female lead, Diane Sullivan (Roz Kelly), and they’ll be vindicated in the final reel when the script does dish a modestly impressive twist that probably should have been reserved for an otherwise better project. It’s best to conclude that our killer has enough justification to shed as much blood as he does, and – dare I point out? – he even manages to squeeze in the possibility of a sequel, though none ever came to pass.
But as I said, what matters here are the deaths. In that respect, Evil never paid enough attention to making the body count all that momentous. As grim endings go, these are fairly benign, and I suspect that accounts for why the picture never accomplished more from the days of yore. Or is that gore?
Still, it’d be wrong for me to say the picture fails exclusively. In fact, the performers all hit their marks – some with a bit of camp, others a bit too easily – and a small pile of corpses do pile up (for those who care about those things). Production details are reasonably solid – there are a bit too many ‘mosh pit in a business suite’ style shots for my tastes, but director Alston managed to bring a hint of freshness to the work. Also, the film is paced out by some interesting rock’n’roll performances, clearly positioning the overall aesthetic in the 1980’s but with a hint of the punk and grunge that was too follow in the not-so-distant future.
So while not being all that original (crazy people are gonna go even crazier), Evil manages to dabble in areas other slasher films never quite touched. There’s an anti-establishment vibe to it that works quite well. The lovely Sullivan is trying to ‘have it all’ – a product of the 70’s Feminist Revolution – but can’t quite do that without looking the part of a sex kitten on television. And broken families of privilege will always pay the highest price before the curtain falls on their sordid interpersonal failures.
Five … four … three … two … one … Happy New Year!
New Year’s Evil (1980) was produced by The Cannon Group. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no video expert, I found the sights and sounds of this brand-new 2K Master quite good from start-to-finish. As for the special features? The slipcase is adorned with newly commissioned artwork from Vince Evans. There’s a nice 40-minute ‘making of’ documentary that isn’t in-depth by any measure but contains a collection of fond memories of cast and crew. Lastly, there’s an audio commentary with Director Alston that’s hosted by Bill Olsen; as this one goes, it’s a bit of a disappointment as Olsen keeps cracking jokes to fill the silence left by the director’s lack of any substantive responses. I shut it off after about 45 minutes as it was kinda painful listening.
(Mildly) recommended. Again, folks ‘round these parts know that I’m not all that big on what I’d call ‘conventional Horror’ (i.e. slasher films), but I’ll occasionally take one in just for giggles … and I like to keep on my toes. New Year’s Evil is imperfect in a lot of ways, but it’s also representative of how traditional picks of this type were made in the 1980’s – with an almost workmanlike commitment to formula no matter whether the studios wanted something a bit different or not. (Truth: they didn’t want anything different.) Performances are acceptable – at best, there’s no barn-burning work here – and maybe be prepared for a few unplanned laughs as well. Reasonably bloody but fairly tame overall.
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 New Year’s Evil (1980) 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
So while not being all that original (crazy people are gonna go even crazier), Evil manages to dabble in areas other slasher films never quite touched. There’s an anti-establishment vibe to it that works quite well. The lovely Sullivan is trying to ‘have it all’ – a product of the 70’s Feminist Revolution – but can’t quite do that without looking the part of a sex kitten on television. And broken families of privilege will always pay the highest price before the curtain falls on their sordid interpersonal failures.
Five … four … three … two … one … Happy New Year!
New Year’s Evil (1980) was produced by The Cannon Group. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? Though I’m no video expert, I found the sights and sounds of this brand-new 2K Master quite good from start-to-finish. As for the special features? The slipcase is adorned with newly commissioned artwork from Vince Evans. There’s a nice 40-minute ‘making of’ documentary that isn’t in-depth by any measure but contains a collection of fond memories of cast and crew. Lastly, there’s an audio commentary with Director Alston that’s hosted by Bill Olsen; as this one goes, it’s a bit of a disappointment as Olsen keeps cracking jokes to fill the silence left by the director’s lack of any substantive responses. I shut it off after about 45 minutes as it was kinda painful listening.
(Mildly) recommended. Again, folks ‘round these parts know that I’m not all that big on what I’d call ‘conventional Horror’ (i.e. slasher films), but I’ll occasionally take one in just for giggles … and I like to keep on my toes. New Year’s Evil is imperfect in a lot of ways, but it’s also representative of how traditional picks of this type were made in the 1980’s – with an almost workmanlike commitment to formula no matter whether the studios wanted something a bit different or not. (Truth: they didn’t want anything different.) Performances are acceptable – at best, there’s no barn-burning work here – and maybe be prepared for a few unplanned laughs as well. Reasonably bloody but fairly tame overall.
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 New Year’s Evil (1980) 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
For those of you who aren’t fortunate enough to subscribe to HBO Max, its SciFi/Fantasy program Raised By Wolves: Season 2 is scheduled for home video release tomorrow (04/11/2022), so I thought I’d put up a few words about it. I don’t feel the spirit to pen a full review – maybe I will at a later date – as I was a bit confused by the direction at the show when it picked up some time after Season 1.
In short … well, yeah, it was a bit confusing.
As I’ve mentioned before, I recall reading some of the reviews regarding the program’s first season, and I specifically went into it figuring I wouldn’t like it. Mostly, this was owed to the fact that so many of the reviews talked about the show’s ongoing political themes – something I really don’t care all that much for in my weekly procedurals – but when I viewed the episodes I thought they were perfectly fine. Yes, there are some political undercurrents, but the core storytelling focuses more on social and moral issues than the politics. I think some of the reviewers were quick to point out their own associations with the material; and some of those were easy to dismiss. The end result was a first season rich in ideas about how life – sentient and artificial – might have to collaborate in the future in order to reach the shared goal of surviving.
So … about Season 2?
There’s a bit of a time jump – not a huge one but still necessary to set up a slightly different set of circumstances for our leads, Mother and Father. Season 1 ends with Mother giving birth to Number 7, and a fair portion of Season 2 deals with this … erm … new life form. (I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say its QUITE the evolution.) I’ll admit to being a bit confused through the first episode back, but it all starts to clear up fairly quickly, though this might be where some fans lose a bit of respect or interest in the ongoing story.
Mother, Father, and the children are now part of a collective – one that has its own unique social structure – and viewers are back heavily ensconced in the political of this future society. An awful lot could be postulated about this world and how it reached this point, but essentially you have believers in a deity and believers in a central science at odds with one another. (I’m oversimplifying a bit solely to make the arguments relatable.) Into this mix the writers inject a fair amount of … well … I guess one might call it pseudo-science requiring some pretty astounding evolutionary leaps. Suffice it to say, I think it works fine thematically … I’m just not convinced it was all that interesting much less plausible … but I’m not a scientist.
In fact, there were other far more interesting developments in Season 2 that tickled my fancy more than the main storylines. Adversaries found themselves in agreement, and some weak alliances were formed over some very strategic reasons: think what you may, but I’ve always thought enemies having to work together truly makes for some great drama. There were also a few new synthetic characters introduced – one younger and one very much older, it would seem – that truly challenged what we’d known about artificial intelligence and the possibilities of living with them previously; and it was dynamic watching how the established players warmed to these new movers and shakers. As you can imagine, the show that flirts heavily with faith and belief didn’t shy away from new ways to question our commitment, and one prominent player may have made the biggest sacrifice yet … only we won’t know for certain until a decision is made about whether or not the show will move forward with a third season. (As of today’s date, I’m not finding any confirmation.)
Though I don’t gauge my enjoyment of any program by what audiences and critics think, I’d be curious to know in this instance, mostly because I found the show turning away from its science-side with an increasing focus on the magical and fantastical. This isn’t to say it was good or bad – if you held a gun to my head, I’d probably conclude I was as disappointed with the second season as I was intrigued by it – but I can’t imagine those drawn into what made the show bingeworthy with the first episodes being all that enamored with the second helping. Some of it was handled well, and some felt a bit clunky. Still, it all led up to a massive cliffhanger with perhaps the fate of all mankind hanging in the balance.
Who knows where all of this might lead? Or who knows if this is the last we’ll see of this universe?
Only time will tell.
-- EZ
In short … well, yeah, it was a bit confusing.
As I’ve mentioned before, I recall reading some of the reviews regarding the program’s first season, and I specifically went into it figuring I wouldn’t like it. Mostly, this was owed to the fact that so many of the reviews talked about the show’s ongoing political themes – something I really don’t care all that much for in my weekly procedurals – but when I viewed the episodes I thought they were perfectly fine. Yes, there are some political undercurrents, but the core storytelling focuses more on social and moral issues than the politics. I think some of the reviewers were quick to point out their own associations with the material; and some of those were easy to dismiss. The end result was a first season rich in ideas about how life – sentient and artificial – might have to collaborate in the future in order to reach the shared goal of surviving.
So … about Season 2?
There’s a bit of a time jump – not a huge one but still necessary to set up a slightly different set of circumstances for our leads, Mother and Father. Season 1 ends with Mother giving birth to Number 7, and a fair portion of Season 2 deals with this … erm … new life form. (I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say its QUITE the evolution.) I’ll admit to being a bit confused through the first episode back, but it all starts to clear up fairly quickly, though this might be where some fans lose a bit of respect or interest in the ongoing story.
Mother, Father, and the children are now part of a collective – one that has its own unique social structure – and viewers are back heavily ensconced in the political of this future society. An awful lot could be postulated about this world and how it reached this point, but essentially you have believers in a deity and believers in a central science at odds with one another. (I’m oversimplifying a bit solely to make the arguments relatable.) Into this mix the writers inject a fair amount of … well … I guess one might call it pseudo-science requiring some pretty astounding evolutionary leaps. Suffice it to say, I think it works fine thematically … I’m just not convinced it was all that interesting much less plausible … but I’m not a scientist.
In fact, there were other far more interesting developments in Season 2 that tickled my fancy more than the main storylines. Adversaries found themselves in agreement, and some weak alliances were formed over some very strategic reasons: think what you may, but I’ve always thought enemies having to work together truly makes for some great drama. There were also a few new synthetic characters introduced – one younger and one very much older, it would seem – that truly challenged what we’d known about artificial intelligence and the possibilities of living with them previously; and it was dynamic watching how the established players warmed to these new movers and shakers. As you can imagine, the show that flirts heavily with faith and belief didn’t shy away from new ways to question our commitment, and one prominent player may have made the biggest sacrifice yet … only we won’t know for certain until a decision is made about whether or not the show will move forward with a third season. (As of today’s date, I’m not finding any confirmation.)
Though I don’t gauge my enjoyment of any program by what audiences and critics think, I’d be curious to know in this instance, mostly because I found the show turning away from its science-side with an increasing focus on the magical and fantastical. This isn’t to say it was good or bad – if you held a gun to my head, I’d probably conclude I was as disappointed with the second season as I was intrigued by it – but I can’t imagine those drawn into what made the show bingeworthy with the first episodes being all that enamored with the second helping. Some of it was handled well, and some felt a bit clunky. Still, it all led up to a massive cliffhanger with perhaps the fate of all mankind hanging in the balance.
Who knows where all of this might lead? Or who knows if this is the last we’ll see of this universe?
Only time will tell.
-- EZ
- Published on
I forget specifically where I was -- I'm pretty certain it was at the Las Vegas Star Trek convention, maybe back in 2016 -- but someone was arguing the point that -- ahem -- some of Trek's better morality plays actually aired during the show's much maligned third season.
As I said: "ahem."
Now, I won't belabor the point as that's clearly not the reason for this particular post today. I will say that there are a few endeavors in that season that don't deserve the reputation shared with other hours. Clearly, the show was struggling to do more with less -- such can be the case in network production -- and the stories showed an awful lot of seams.
Still, I think "The Empath" holds up fairly well. It's arguably a somewhat dated adventure, but the ideas and the performances worked strong enough ... and that includes the effort put forth by Kathryn Hays. As fate would have it, this was her only true foray into the realm of Science Fiction (there are a few Fantasy roles, but it is what it is); and she definitely deserves to be remembered by Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts for her brief time in our fictional universe. She went on from there to a rather long career in daytime soaps, but we'll always have our time with her on the second planet of the star named Minara.
Word reached me via Facebook that she's passed away. Thoughts and prayers are extended to those who knew her best.
-- EZ
As I said: "ahem."
Now, I won't belabor the point as that's clearly not the reason for this particular post today. I will say that there are a few endeavors in that season that don't deserve the reputation shared with other hours. Clearly, the show was struggling to do more with less -- such can be the case in network production -- and the stories showed an awful lot of seams.
Still, I think "The Empath" holds up fairly well. It's arguably a somewhat dated adventure, but the ideas and the performances worked strong enough ... and that includes the effort put forth by Kathryn Hays. As fate would have it, this was her only true foray into the realm of Science Fiction (there are a few Fantasy roles, but it is what it is); and she definitely deserves to be remembered by Trekkies, Trekkers, and general Trek enthusiasts for her brief time in our fictional universe. She went on from there to a rather long career in daytime soaps, but we'll always have our time with her on the second planet of the star named Minara.
Word reached me via Facebook that she's passed away. Thoughts and prayers are extended to those who knew her best.
-- EZ
- Published on
Just so we’re perfectly clear: though the quote is often truncated to the bare minimum, the full saying is, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”
Now, those of you not old enough to know a bit of Hollywood history might be unaware that George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) set off a literal firestorm of space-age productions. The storyteller had discovered cinema gold, and studios around the world were only too happy to tap veins all of their own. Some of these were works already nearing completion; once the adventures in a galaxy far, far away woke audiences up to the endless possibilities out there, these imitations were ushered into postproduction and squeezed into release schedules everywhere. And, yes, there are far too many to mention, so I’ll leave it at that.
But there was a similar rush that had happened not all that long before which is often overlooked: Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) also dipped into some lucrative waters, and filmmakers were equally challenged to comb the beaches (if they had to) for similar ideas. Many of these flicks sought to capitalize on the Horror aspect of Spielberg’s chiller, and that swung the door wide for exploitation masters to do their worst … so long as it came from the water and ate people, studios were swimming with potential.
As you can imagine, there was little care (and less effort) put into recreating what made Jaws uniquely special. Studio executives saw it simply as a creature feature – albeit with beaches – so they were happy greenlighting any close facsimile that landed on their desk … and one of the earliest which actually had some potential was Ovidio G. Assonitis’ Tentacles. Even the marketing folks were aboard, designing a poster not unlike the Spielberg advert, but theirs featured a giant marauding octopus instead of the great white shark.
How’d they fare?
Well … to put it mildly … they sank.
(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 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 citation:
“A mutated giant octopus wreaks havoc on a California seaside community.”
Now, those of you not old enough to know a bit of Hollywood history might be unaware that George Lucas’ Star Wars (1977) set off a literal firestorm of space-age productions. The storyteller had discovered cinema gold, and studios around the world were only too happy to tap veins all of their own. Some of these were works already nearing completion; once the adventures in a galaxy far, far away woke audiences up to the endless possibilities out there, these imitations were ushered into postproduction and squeezed into release schedules everywhere. And, yes, there are far too many to mention, so I’ll leave it at that.
But there was a similar rush that had happened not all that long before which is often overlooked: Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975) also dipped into some lucrative waters, and filmmakers were equally challenged to comb the beaches (if they had to) for similar ideas. Many of these flicks sought to capitalize on the Horror aspect of Spielberg’s chiller, and that swung the door wide for exploitation masters to do their worst … so long as it came from the water and ate people, studios were swimming with potential.
As you can imagine, there was little care (and less effort) put into recreating what made Jaws uniquely special. Studio executives saw it simply as a creature feature – albeit with beaches – so they were happy greenlighting any close facsimile that landed on their desk … and one of the earliest which actually had some potential was Ovidio G. Assonitis’ Tentacles. Even the marketing folks were aboard, designing a poster not unlike the Spielberg advert, but theirs featured a giant marauding octopus instead of the great white shark.
How’d they fare?
Well … to put it mildly … they sank.
(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 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 citation:
“A mutated giant octopus wreaks havoc on a California seaside community.”
Growing up, monster movies were a staple in my entertainment diet, so you can understand why a little something something like Tentacles caught my attention. Sharks? Well, sure, those were cool. But octopi? Those were way cooler! They were, like, the aliens under the sea! They had these eight arms that could bend and flex and stretch; and they patrolled the ocean depths looking like total badasses no matter what they did. So to bring these creatures front-and-center in a big budget motion picture was a no-brainer!
The drawback here is that the script from Jerome Max, Tito Carpi, and Steven W. Carabatsos had no brains in it. While there’s no problem with lifting elements from the vastly superior Jaws – remember what they say about flattery and imitation – the trio left behind the most important aspect: whatever the adventure, it has to be populated by people who not only make sense but also audiences will care about … and there’s no one in Tentacles worth the time of day.
This isn’t to say that the film has no talent because that would be an incredible mistake. Somehow, producers were able to woo such household names as Henry Fonda, Shelley Winters, and John Huston to the effort. Claude Akins is no slouch, either, and he came aboard to play the town sheriff, taking on a tone not unlike the Roy Scheider character in the shark movie. While Bo Hopkins – as the hero – may not have had the cinema cache afforded to others of the mid-1970’s, he certainly was no unknown, having stolen scenes in The Wild Bunch (1969), Monte Walsh (1970), and American Graffiti (1973). But even the most gifted Thespians of the world can do very little to elevate the ‘dull and dreary’ to ‘exciting and relentless,’ and therein lies Tentacles’ biggest shortcoming – it lacks any emotional resonance.
This fish story feels like it’s been forever on autopilot.
While a few sequences at sea do create a mild bit of tension, they’re still populated by some of the screen’s blandest characters ever. Henry Fonda plays a corporate executive whose company is tied to the events that may’ve led to the monster’s mutation, and even he can’t summon a modicum of anger about the circumstances he finds himself within. (I’ve read that this was a role post-surgery, so that may account for some of his indifference.) Shelley Winters’ ‘Tillie Turner’ tries very hard to be this homespun seaside lady with a kid at home, but she delivers her dialogue with fairly stereotypical inflection that we’ve seen her use in every role before this one, robbing the lady’s emotional confrontations of any real impact. Bo Hopkins’ Will Gleason is supposed to be ‘the leading expert on ocean life,’ but at one point in the script he admits to only being in the business for a few years while spending the rest of his life … on the streets? How in the Sam Hill did he go from having nothing to being such a world-renowned expert? Is it because he can talk to whales? Or is it because that’s what the script required?
You be the judge.
Sadly, the problems with the screenplay don’t stop there.
The drawback here is that the script from Jerome Max, Tito Carpi, and Steven W. Carabatsos had no brains in it. While there’s no problem with lifting elements from the vastly superior Jaws – remember what they say about flattery and imitation – the trio left behind the most important aspect: whatever the adventure, it has to be populated by people who not only make sense but also audiences will care about … and there’s no one in Tentacles worth the time of day.
This isn’t to say that the film has no talent because that would be an incredible mistake. Somehow, producers were able to woo such household names as Henry Fonda, Shelley Winters, and John Huston to the effort. Claude Akins is no slouch, either, and he came aboard to play the town sheriff, taking on a tone not unlike the Roy Scheider character in the shark movie. While Bo Hopkins – as the hero – may not have had the cinema cache afforded to others of the mid-1970’s, he certainly was no unknown, having stolen scenes in The Wild Bunch (1969), Monte Walsh (1970), and American Graffiti (1973). But even the most gifted Thespians of the world can do very little to elevate the ‘dull and dreary’ to ‘exciting and relentless,’ and therein lies Tentacles’ biggest shortcoming – it lacks any emotional resonance.
This fish story feels like it’s been forever on autopilot.
While a few sequences at sea do create a mild bit of tension, they’re still populated by some of the screen’s blandest characters ever. Henry Fonda plays a corporate executive whose company is tied to the events that may’ve led to the monster’s mutation, and even he can’t summon a modicum of anger about the circumstances he finds himself within. (I’ve read that this was a role post-surgery, so that may account for some of his indifference.) Shelley Winters’ ‘Tillie Turner’ tries very hard to be this homespun seaside lady with a kid at home, but she delivers her dialogue with fairly stereotypical inflection that we’ve seen her use in every role before this one, robbing the lady’s emotional confrontations of any real impact. Bo Hopkins’ Will Gleason is supposed to be ‘the leading expert on ocean life,’ but at one point in the script he admits to only being in the business for a few years while spending the rest of his life … on the streets? How in the Sam Hill did he go from having nothing to being such a world-renowned expert? Is it because he can talk to whales? Or is it because that’s what the script required?
You be the judge.
Sadly, the problems with the screenplay don’t stop there.
Monster movies work because there’s rising anxieties about how these ‘regular Joes’ can stand toe-to-toe with a killer beast; however, the second half of the film essentially removes them from consideration – Huston and Winters are absent for roughly the last thirty minutes as their characters simply vanish from the screen. The narrative is turned over entirely to Hopkins as he now embarks on a quest of vengeance against the octopus. It’s now a wholly personal journey, and he’ll spend time chatting romantically with the killer whales he once trained and now needs to release to take down their shared enemy.
In the big finish, Hopkins wasn’t really all that necessary as he leaves it all in the whales’ capable hands … erm … fins.
Lastly, composer Stelvio Cipriani’s score is particularly awful. John Williams’ theme for Jaws was incredibly simple – so much so that even director Spielberg himself wasn’t reportedly convinced it would convey the depth needed when paired with visuals. Here, instead of a menacing bass chord, Cipriani chooses a light fluttering of high notes on what sounds like an electronic dulcimer … and each time it’s used I suspect audiences laughed instead of sat up and took notice. Trust me when I saw Cipriani’s work here is consistently dreadful as he punctuates a few sequences with what sounds like gameshow music.
Tentacles (1977) was produced by Esse Ci Cinematografica. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the very reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? The film looks and sounds very solid, but I noticed a few scenes wherein lips were not quite in-sync with speech. I did a bit of reading on the film’s original presentation, and it would appear that this was just a case of an inferior dubbing job and not a defect of the transfer. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then prepare for the disappointment: there’s a single radio spot advertising the picture, along with a theatrical trailer, but that’s all she wrote.
Very very very mildly recommended … and, even then, really really really only as a passing curiosity. It’s honestly hard to find much to appreciate in Tentacles. The film wastes an impressive roster of aging talent on roles that aren’t exactly well written nor all that consequential to the story as told. Given the reality of the flick’s foundation – that it was rushed both into and through production in order to seemingly capitalize on the popularity of another film (Jaws) – I’m inclined to chalk up most of the inadequacies to insufficient preparation and speedy execution. Director Assonitis delivers a few sequences worth a single viewing, but everything else in there seems ridiculously waterlogged.
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 Tentacles (1977) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
In the big finish, Hopkins wasn’t really all that necessary as he leaves it all in the whales’ capable hands … erm … fins.
Lastly, composer Stelvio Cipriani’s score is particularly awful. John Williams’ theme for Jaws was incredibly simple – so much so that even director Spielberg himself wasn’t reportedly convinced it would convey the depth needed when paired with visuals. Here, instead of a menacing bass chord, Cipriani chooses a light fluttering of high notes on what sounds like an electronic dulcimer … and each time it’s used I suspect audiences laughed instead of sat up and took notice. Trust me when I saw Cipriani’s work here is consistently dreadful as he punctuates a few sequences with what sounds like gameshow music.
Tentacles (1977) was produced by Esse Ci Cinematografica. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the very reliable Kino Lorber. As for the technical specifications? The film looks and sounds very solid, but I noticed a few scenes wherein lips were not quite in-sync with speech. I did a bit of reading on the film’s original presentation, and it would appear that this was just a case of an inferior dubbing job and not a defect of the transfer. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then prepare for the disappointment: there’s a single radio spot advertising the picture, along with a theatrical trailer, but that’s all she wrote.
Very very very mildly recommended … and, even then, really really really only as a passing curiosity. It’s honestly hard to find much to appreciate in Tentacles. The film wastes an impressive roster of aging talent on roles that aren’t exactly well written nor all that consequential to the story as told. Given the reality of the flick’s foundation – that it was rushed both into and through production in order to seemingly capitalize on the popularity of another film (Jaws) – I’m inclined to chalk up most of the inadequacies to insufficient preparation and speedy execution. Director Assonitis delivers a few sequences worth a single viewing, but everything else in there seems ridiculously waterlogged.
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 Tentacles (1977) 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