- Published on
Ever since I was a young boy, I’ve had an unexplainable love of monster movies.
Because entertainment was truly in short supply in the days of said youth, I’d have to surf all six channels on a nightly basis hoping against hope just to find something creeping and crawling on any syndicated network. (Yes, kids, I grew up at a time when choices were not point-and-click.) As a consequence, I’d sit through damn near anything titled in such a way to promise even the smallest glimpse at the bizarre, the obtuse, the obscene! And since so many of these low budget clunkers were available only in syndication, it might show up one week on Channel 6 only to show up a month later on the competing Channel 12! Yes, I’d likely watch it again – behold all of its lurid crappiness once more – and, yes, times were that desolate!
So I went into a contemporary viewing of Kenneth G. Crane’s Monster From Green Hell having seen it and knowing full well what I’d be treated to as a consequence. Mind you: it wasn’t pretty … but always remember I watch ‘em so that maybe – just maybe – you don’t have to.
Ah, the things I do for a readership …
(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 that 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:
“When scientists try to understand the effects of radiation on Earth creatures, the result brings them to an area of African known as ‘Green Hell,’ where wasps have mutated into monsters!”
There’s a bit more, but it’s all a bit exaggerated … and that’s because promoters of B-Movies like Monster From Green Hell really had to sell the sizzle since there was so little steak to these flicks of yesteryear. Surprisingly, features like this – cult that they may be – continue to resonate decades later while many dramas and comedies they shared box office clout with have mostly gone the way of the Dodo. I suspect that there are many possible explanations for that phenomenon – why some films climb to the top of the heap when more reputable fare gets forgotten – but I usually chalk it up to the fact that monsters endure, even when they’re so poorly realized.
Green Hell exists because America’s fascination with Atomic Power led to a unique subset of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror films specifically in the 1950’s that dabbled with giant-sized proportions. Sure, men and women were grown to fifty-foot behemoths, but audiences flocked to projects that saw ants, spiders, and bees elevated to superbeings even more so. 1954’s Them! (Warner Bros.) remains a personal favorite of mine to this day – its dated creature effects still look pretty good on the small screen – and Green Hell showed up a few years later, utilizing stop motion as well as practical effects to bring some damn big bees to buzzing life.
Because entertainment was truly in short supply in the days of said youth, I’d have to surf all six channels on a nightly basis hoping against hope just to find something creeping and crawling on any syndicated network. (Yes, kids, I grew up at a time when choices were not point-and-click.) As a consequence, I’d sit through damn near anything titled in such a way to promise even the smallest glimpse at the bizarre, the obtuse, the obscene! And since so many of these low budget clunkers were available only in syndication, it might show up one week on Channel 6 only to show up a month later on the competing Channel 12! Yes, I’d likely watch it again – behold all of its lurid crappiness once more – and, yes, times were that desolate!
So I went into a contemporary viewing of Kenneth G. Crane’s Monster From Green Hell having seen it and knowing full well what I’d be treated to as a consequence. Mind you: it wasn’t pretty … but always remember I watch ‘em so that maybe – just maybe – you don’t have to.
Ah, the things I do for a readership …
(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 that 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:
“When scientists try to understand the effects of radiation on Earth creatures, the result brings them to an area of African known as ‘Green Hell,’ where wasps have mutated into monsters!”
There’s a bit more, but it’s all a bit exaggerated … and that’s because promoters of B-Movies like Monster From Green Hell really had to sell the sizzle since there was so little steak to these flicks of yesteryear. Surprisingly, features like this – cult that they may be – continue to resonate decades later while many dramas and comedies they shared box office clout with have mostly gone the way of the Dodo. I suspect that there are many possible explanations for that phenomenon – why some films climb to the top of the heap when more reputable fare gets forgotten – but I usually chalk it up to the fact that monsters endure, even when they’re so poorly realized.
Green Hell exists because America’s fascination with Atomic Power led to a unique subset of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror films specifically in the 1950’s that dabbled with giant-sized proportions. Sure, men and women were grown to fifty-foot behemoths, but audiences flocked to projects that saw ants, spiders, and bees elevated to superbeings even more so. 1954’s Them! (Warner Bros.) remains a personal favorite of mine to this day – its dated creature effects still look pretty good on the small screen – and Green Hell showed up a few years later, utilizing stop motion as well as practical effects to bring some damn big bees to buzzing life.
Alas, Green Hell isn’t exactly the kind of flick worth talking about to any great lengths.
Its effects sequences – when compared to screen time given to other bugs – are surprisingly brief; add in there the fact that many of them are used and re-used on multiple occasions in the final cut only further disheartens those of us who live for monstrous moments. It’s a passable affair – at best and at worst – that really only flirts with Horror, spending far too much time with an all-too conventional trip across Africa … only to have those moments looking less and less like the African safari and more and more like California studio backlot. Furthermore, I’ve read estimates suggesting that more than half of the finished product is made up of stock footage, so there’s very little in here that feels legitimately fresh to those of us raised on old films.
Monster From Green Hell (1957) was produced by Gross-Krasne Productions. (A quick read of their IMDB.com profile looks like most of their work was in some mostly forgettable serial television programming of the era.) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by The Film Detective. As for the technical specifications? This 4K restoration looks and sounds very good (most of the time), and – as I understand it – this might very well be one of the only times since the flick’s original release that its colorized climax is available for viewing.
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’ve got the following to keep you up at night (well, besides nightmares of giant bugs, that is):
(Mildly) Recommended. As I always caution with older films – much less B-Movies of a bygone era – this is not going to be to everyone’s liking. The creature effects are dated but great, though they make such a small component of an already slim flick (71 minutes). Otherwise, the plot – after an effective and visual set-up – is a bit of a slog as our intrepid adventurers haul arse across the African subcontinent in search of the atomic-infested threat they accidentally let loose on mankind. A bit snappier dialogue would’ve made for a better pace … but at this point it is what it is.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at The Film Detective provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Monster From Green Hell 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.
Its effects sequences – when compared to screen time given to other bugs – are surprisingly brief; add in there the fact that many of them are used and re-used on multiple occasions in the final cut only further disheartens those of us who live for monstrous moments. It’s a passable affair – at best and at worst – that really only flirts with Horror, spending far too much time with an all-too conventional trip across Africa … only to have those moments looking less and less like the African safari and more and more like California studio backlot. Furthermore, I’ve read estimates suggesting that more than half of the finished product is made up of stock footage, so there’s very little in here that feels legitimately fresh to those of us raised on old films.
Monster From Green Hell (1957) was produced by Gross-Krasne Productions. (A quick read of their IMDB.com profile looks like most of their work was in some mostly forgettable serial television programming of the era.) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by The Film Detective. As for the technical specifications? This 4K restoration looks and sounds very good (most of the time), and – as I understand it – this might very well be one of the only times since the flick’s original release that its colorized climax is available for viewing.
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’ve got the following to keep you up at night (well, besides nightmares of giant bugs, that is):
- Missouri Born: The Films Of Jim Davis – it’s essentially a short documentary on the actor’s career hosted by film historian C. Courtney Joyner;
- Film Commentary by author Stephen R. Bissette – an interesting experience that’s probably much more academic than it is interesting, but Bissette recounts far more trivia regarding the cast and crew’s other projects than he does this film; and
- The Men Behind The Monsters – author Don Stradley serves up an good essay in the disc’s collector’s booklet that examines (mostly) the film’s producers and related efforts in the genre. A solid and quick read.
(Mildly) Recommended. As I always caution with older films – much less B-Movies of a bygone era – this is not going to be to everyone’s liking. The creature effects are dated but great, though they make such a small component of an already slim flick (71 minutes). Otherwise, the plot – after an effective and visual set-up – is a bit of a slog as our intrepid adventurers haul arse across the African subcontinent in search of the atomic-infested threat they accidentally let loose on mankind. A bit snappier dialogue would’ve made for a better pace … but at this point it is what it is.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at The Film Detective provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Monster From Green Hell 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
Truth be told, ghosts and Westerns are not an unheard-of combination.
In fact, one can go all the way back to the year 1919 when a 15-chapter silver screen Western serial – Lightning Bryce – tinkered with elements more than a bit spectral in nature. Granted, the otherworldly bits are secondary to the main thrust of the work – it’s essentially a race to find gold deposits – but this silent era serial also hints at the supernatural in order to propel some of its subplots forward.
Then – decades later – audiences in 1973 were treated to a Western with much deeper spiritual flair when Clint Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter allegedly came back from the beyond to wreak havoc with townsfolk who put him six feet under. A little over a decade later, Eastwood was back in the mold of an avenger gunslinger with Pale Rider: his ‘Preacher’ sought to settle a score between himself and a posse of lawmen who’d sell their services when times were tough.
One of the better releases that only flirts with the beyond came out in 2006: Seraphim Falls was written (in part) and directed by David Von Ancken and starred such marquee talent as Pierce Brosnan, Liam Neeson, and Anjelica Huston. I say that it “only flirts” because the spectral element really doesn’t emerge until the flick’s final reel when Brosnan’s ‘Gideon’ finds himself in a dire predicament requiring a decision that very well might involve the Devil himself … in the prettiest guise imaginable.
So 1987’s Ghost Riders certainly finds itself in good company … but how does it compare as a low-budget alternative to such blockbuster fare?
Well …
(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:
“1888. As the hangman’s noose tightens around his neck, Frank Clements, the most feared outlaw in the West, uses his last breath to invoke a generational curse on the town preacher and his descendants. 100 years later, Frank and his gang return from hell to seek their vengeance. Hampton, the great-grandson of the preacher, along with his friends Corey and Pam, all find themselves defenseless against these blood-thirsty phantom cowboys, who are impervious to weapons and seemingly cannot be stopped!”
Well, technically, that statement of advertising isn’t true; otherwise this film would still be going on three and one-half decades after it was originally released upon an unsuspecting audience all the way back in 1987 (per IMDB.com, following with a U.S. video release in 1988). That dastardly Frank Clements was stopped, but, yes, it took a bit of creative finagling to off the deadly specter and his gun-wielding posse in Ghost Riders.
In fact, one can go all the way back to the year 1919 when a 15-chapter silver screen Western serial – Lightning Bryce – tinkered with elements more than a bit spectral in nature. Granted, the otherworldly bits are secondary to the main thrust of the work – it’s essentially a race to find gold deposits – but this silent era serial also hints at the supernatural in order to propel some of its subplots forward.
Then – decades later – audiences in 1973 were treated to a Western with much deeper spiritual flair when Clint Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter allegedly came back from the beyond to wreak havoc with townsfolk who put him six feet under. A little over a decade later, Eastwood was back in the mold of an avenger gunslinger with Pale Rider: his ‘Preacher’ sought to settle a score between himself and a posse of lawmen who’d sell their services when times were tough.
One of the better releases that only flirts with the beyond came out in 2006: Seraphim Falls was written (in part) and directed by David Von Ancken and starred such marquee talent as Pierce Brosnan, Liam Neeson, and Anjelica Huston. I say that it “only flirts” because the spectral element really doesn’t emerge until the flick’s final reel when Brosnan’s ‘Gideon’ finds himself in a dire predicament requiring a decision that very well might involve the Devil himself … in the prettiest guise imaginable.
So 1987’s Ghost Riders certainly finds itself in good company … but how does it compare as a low-budget alternative to such blockbuster fare?
Well …
(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:
“1888. As the hangman’s noose tightens around his neck, Frank Clements, the most feared outlaw in the West, uses his last breath to invoke a generational curse on the town preacher and his descendants. 100 years later, Frank and his gang return from hell to seek their vengeance. Hampton, the great-grandson of the preacher, along with his friends Corey and Pam, all find themselves defenseless against these blood-thirsty phantom cowboys, who are impervious to weapons and seemingly cannot be stopped!”
Well, technically, that statement of advertising isn’t true; otherwise this film would still be going on three and one-half decades after it was originally released upon an unsuspecting audience all the way back in 1987 (per IMDB.com, following with a U.S. video release in 1988). That dastardly Frank Clements was stopped, but, yes, it took a bit of creative finagling to off the deadly specter and his gun-wielding posse in Ghost Riders.
Regular readers to SciFiHistory.Net know that I’ll take just about any opportunity to champion some of these lesser wares few folks have heard of. I used to say “I watch ‘em so you don’t have to,” but I realized after a time that was a disservice to both you and me as I’ll often encourage folks to watch just about anything and make up their minds for themselves. Ghost Riders is such a title; though the producers clearly didn’t have much to spend, director Alan Stewart (who only completed two pictures in his career) managed to squeeze what love, sweat, tears, and blood into this forever humble release. With a heftier budget, he may’ve been able to achieve more, but would it have been as effective? We’ll never know.
The screenplay from Clay McBride and James Desmarais certainly never strives for Academy Award gold, giving the work a decidedly small-town feel and casting the best Community Theatre can afford. Jim Peters (as ‘Hampton’) never musters the Sylvester Stallone mystique, but the audience is asked to accept him as the Dollar Store equivalent. His troubled Vietnam vet doesn’t have an axe to grind over his time in the soup, but he still likes to fly planes and shoot guns anyway. His best bud ‘Cory’ (Ricky Long) isn’t only a crack mechanic but also is the adopted son he never had. Long gets the better speeches in the script, but the actor’s bigger claim-to-fame is serving behind-the-scenes as the master electrician to the Barney the Dinosaur program. (Oh, Hollywood! What fickle fate you leave!) Lastly, a comely Cari Powell (as ‘Pam’) serves adequately as a love interest for both men, though (yuup) she’ll be expected to make a choice one way or another before the guns go silent.
Still, Ghost Riders works mostly because I’ve no doubt it was put together by folks who have a genuine love of their respective crafts. It ain’t perfect – such is the nature of low-budget productions – but it moves along nicely before the cows come home: the curse is lifted, but not without a little gunplay here and there.
Ghost Riders (1987) was produced by Alan L. Stewart Productions. (IMDB.com reports this was its sole production.) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? Well … I try not to belabor some of the finer points on sights and sounds (I’m no expert), but this one has some audio issues for sure. Some of the earlier moments have some subpar recordings; I had to turn it up to clearly hear some of the line delivery, but it isn’t as if anything is lost in translations. It’s just some bad audio. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’re in for a treat. This Blu-ray release boasts an audio commentary, two documentaries on the production, and some other little bits that make for pleasant viewing. A surprising collection, indeed.
(Mildly) Recommended. There’s low budget, and then there’s really low budget … and Ghost Riders (1987) certainly qualifies as an ultra-modest bargain basement affair. But despite all of the obvious blemishes and maybe even a few unintended laughs, it remains a reasonably well-plotted small-scale affair. Don’t look for any grand sequences – much less any organic character development – and you’re likely to muster up a little bit of fun with this forgettable 90-minute potboiler … though there’s a ghost of a chance it’ll ever mean more to you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Ghost Riders (1987) 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
The screenplay from Clay McBride and James Desmarais certainly never strives for Academy Award gold, giving the work a decidedly small-town feel and casting the best Community Theatre can afford. Jim Peters (as ‘Hampton’) never musters the Sylvester Stallone mystique, but the audience is asked to accept him as the Dollar Store equivalent. His troubled Vietnam vet doesn’t have an axe to grind over his time in the soup, but he still likes to fly planes and shoot guns anyway. His best bud ‘Cory’ (Ricky Long) isn’t only a crack mechanic but also is the adopted son he never had. Long gets the better speeches in the script, but the actor’s bigger claim-to-fame is serving behind-the-scenes as the master electrician to the Barney the Dinosaur program. (Oh, Hollywood! What fickle fate you leave!) Lastly, a comely Cari Powell (as ‘Pam’) serves adequately as a love interest for both men, though (yuup) she’ll be expected to make a choice one way or another before the guns go silent.
Still, Ghost Riders works mostly because I’ve no doubt it was put together by folks who have a genuine love of their respective crafts. It ain’t perfect – such is the nature of low-budget productions – but it moves along nicely before the cows come home: the curse is lifted, but not without a little gunplay here and there.
Ghost Riders (1987) was produced by Alan L. Stewart Productions. (IMDB.com reports this was its sole production.) DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via MVD Visual. As for the technical specifications? Well … I try not to belabor some of the finer points on sights and sounds (I’m no expert), but this one has some audio issues for sure. Some of the earlier moments have some subpar recordings; I had to turn it up to clearly hear some of the line delivery, but it isn’t as if anything is lost in translations. It’s just some bad audio. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’re in for a treat. This Blu-ray release boasts an audio commentary, two documentaries on the production, and some other little bits that make for pleasant viewing. A surprising collection, indeed.
(Mildly) Recommended. There’s low budget, and then there’s really low budget … and Ghost Riders (1987) certainly qualifies as an ultra-modest bargain basement affair. But despite all of the obvious blemishes and maybe even a few unintended laughs, it remains a reasonably well-plotted small-scale affair. Don’t look for any grand sequences – much less any organic character development – and you’re likely to muster up a little bit of fun with this forgettable 90-minute potboiler … though there’s a ghost of a chance it’ll ever mean more to you.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Ghost Riders (1987) 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
Sigh. Oh, the trials and tribulations of being a blogger in the modern era ...
I was recently asked if I had a single web page within SciFiHistory.Net where I simply listed all of the movies one would find buried across all of the Citation Pages. You understand what I mean? Do I keep, essentially, a directory of every film highlighted anywhere within my site? I explained that I didn't, mostly because that isn't what I designed the place for, but then it was suggested to me that I should do that because it would make it easier for folks to navigate to individual titles he or she wanted to investigate further.
Sigh.
Well, the problem with that is that it's no simple undertaking. To highlight the task, it would require that I go to each day of the year, copy down film titles, and then go and create a separate page just to paste those flicks to. In case you've missed it, some days have upward to twenty titles; suffice it to say, I'd be doing that for quite some time in order to make one reader happy. Sure, I want every reader to be happy with the site ... but one man has only a single life to spend, my friends. I will concede that I have started to do something a bit different that might get more work as time permits, but in the meantime I'm happy to continue my postings as is for the foreseeable future.
Again: sigh.
But all of this comes about because I was alerted to a forthcoming DVD release of a title I've only sparingly run across: Italy's attempt to cash in on the mid-1970's King Kong remake craze ... a little something something called Yeti: Giant Of The 20th Century. I've never seen this one -- I have seen a few snippets online -- but it looks downright horrible ... in that tragic kind of way. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"Professor Wassermann is asked by industry magnate Morgan Hunnicut to lead an expedition to study the giant Yeti creature found frozen in a large ice block."
Seeing how I love monster movies, and I do so love those creature features that go indescribably wrong in the production process, I'm going to see about getting my grubby mitts on a copy of this one for posterity's sake. Who knows? Maybe I'll even see if I can review it as time permits. In the meantime, I'm going to copy and paste the few particulars on its forthcoming release below ... so you smilers know what to do.
I was recently asked if I had a single web page within SciFiHistory.Net where I simply listed all of the movies one would find buried across all of the Citation Pages. You understand what I mean? Do I keep, essentially, a directory of every film highlighted anywhere within my site? I explained that I didn't, mostly because that isn't what I designed the place for, but then it was suggested to me that I should do that because it would make it easier for folks to navigate to individual titles he or she wanted to investigate further.
Sigh.
Well, the problem with that is that it's no simple undertaking. To highlight the task, it would require that I go to each day of the year, copy down film titles, and then go and create a separate page just to paste those flicks to. In case you've missed it, some days have upward to twenty titles; suffice it to say, I'd be doing that for quite some time in order to make one reader happy. Sure, I want every reader to be happy with the site ... but one man has only a single life to spend, my friends. I will concede that I have started to do something a bit different that might get more work as time permits, but in the meantime I'm happy to continue my postings as is for the foreseeable future.
Again: sigh.
But all of this comes about because I was alerted to a forthcoming DVD release of a title I've only sparingly run across: Italy's attempt to cash in on the mid-1970's King Kong remake craze ... a little something something called Yeti: Giant Of The 20th Century. I've never seen this one -- I have seen a few snippets online -- but it looks downright horrible ... in that tragic kind of way. Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"Professor Wassermann is asked by industry magnate Morgan Hunnicut to lead an expedition to study the giant Yeti creature found frozen in a large ice block."
Seeing how I love monster movies, and I do so love those creature features that go indescribably wrong in the production process, I'm going to see about getting my grubby mitts on a copy of this one for posterity's sake. Who knows? Maybe I'll even see if I can review it as time permits. In the meantime, I'm going to copy and paste the few particulars on its forthcoming release below ... so you smilers know what to do.
Code Red has detailed its upcoming Blu-ray release of Gianfranco Parolini's Yeti: Giant of the 20th Century (1977), starring Antonella Interlenghi, Tony Kendall, John Stacy, Stelio Candelli, and Loris Bazzocchi. The release will be available for purchase on May 31.
Synopsis: This 1977 Italian King Kong rip-off is non-stop fun and camp action. Starring the gorgeous Antonella Interlenghi (The Gates of Hell) as "Jane" who discovers her "Tarzan" in the form of a giant Yeti (Mimmo Crao) that is taken into captivity and put on public display. When the Yeti breaks loose, it's Godzilla-style special effects galore as he smashes through the city, crushing the bad guys and searching for his new love, Jane. From Gianfranco Parolini (Frank Kramer), the acclaimed director of Sabata, Adiós, Sabata, Return of Sabata, We Are No Angels and God's Gun! Co-starring Tony Kendall (Kiss Kiss, Kill Kill).
Special Features and Technical Specs:
- PREVIOUSLY REMASTERED FROM THE ORIGINAL ITALIAN 35MM CAMERA NEGATIVE
- Trailers
- Optional English Subtitles
- REGION-FREE
- Published on
P R O G R A M M I N G N O T E
2021's Knocking will have its streaming debut on the Arrow Player on March 11th.
Interesting in knowing more about it? All of the details can be found online right here.
Which of us at some point hasn’t felt we were losing our mind?
I don’t ask that in any way to make light of psychological or emotional problems. Suffering is very real – always has been, always will be – and I think it’s sad that there’s been stigma attached to mental issues over the years that’s kept some serious discussion out of the public square. Every now and then a good book or a groundbreaking film transcends the usual noise, and it becomes ‘en vogue’ to champion a particular cause without being quieted down by our cultural betters. Perhaps if the mainstream media were so obviously committed to pushing political ideology and, in fact, reported on real world dilemmas we’d culturally be at a different place with the topic … but it is what it is. Sadly.
2021’s Knocking could be one such film.
Director Frida Kempff’s work may not be all that ground-breaking and still the story of Molly Aronson’s breakdown and recovery could resonate minimally as a starting point for debate. The likely problem might be that the feature is heavily promoted as a Horror when, in truth, it’s not. Setting aside that genre’s tropes, nearly every other element in the film – especially actress Cecilia Milocco’s performance – could serve as a springboard to talk about the emotional challenges that go hand-in-hand with surviving life and death. Of course, the drawback might be that without the added sauce of making the picture appear as if it’s potentially something greater than it is would people come and see it?
Life is a risk. So are good stories.
(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 woman leaves a psychiatric ward after a nervous breakdown, only to start hearing mysterious knocking sounds in her apartment.”
As anyone can imagine, it’s a calculated gamble any time you employ an emotionally troubled narrator to tell a story.
Because this person has been shown to be potentially out-of-touch, the audience is put in the position of questioning the unfolding events: are we seeing them as they are or are they transpiring from a flawed recount? Are we given a clean slate to interpret or have the storytellers secretly drawn us in to the ‘otherworld’ as its being imagined by our anxious character? With such a construct, viewers are asked to suspend all disbelief and take everything Molly experiences at face value. We’re encouraged to go along for the ride and maybe even not watch too closely for detect clues that might indicate our heroine is heading for another collapse. It’s like a Disney attraction were the rides designed by Alfred Hitchcock!
Thankfully, director Kempff leaves a lot of the visual trickery alone. Oh, there are a few sequences late in the film when Molly’s increasing paranoia gets the best of her, and the audience is treated to the feature’s most obvious and suggestive camerawork. Otherwise, I found the narrative restraint refreshing as the story relied solely on Milocco’s ability to convey the subtle cracks in her worldview. The story here could’ve easily devolved into little more than a theatrical parlor trick, but instead the cast and crew delivered a mostly simmering potboiler that in some ways only tangentially dealt with our lead character’s psyche. Mercifully, it postulates the mental issues with good taste.
What it didn’t do all that well is provide closure to the rest of the threads Emma Brostrom’s adaptation of the Johan Theorin novel raised, namely some of the other particulars involving Molly’s past and present. Being unfamiliar with the source material, I’ve no way of knowing what caused our lead’s original breakdown – yes, there are some very strong hints, but there’s also a world of ambiguity – and there are even more clues that Molly may have misinformed the audience. I’ll stop short of going into any measurable detail as I never like to spoil plot elements I feel are central to enjoying the film. Suffice it to say, I think a bit more examination would’ve eliminated any doubt created as a result of filmed events … unless Kempff intended to deliberately misdirect us … in which case I’m at a loss to understand why she felt so obvious a development was necessary.
Still, I'd be a fool if I fail to praise actress Milocco's work to the extent it deserves.
While the script gives ample moments to show the woman in pursuit of her own sanity, it takes a true craftsman (or craftswoman) to deliver it with conviction, and she embraces the vivid highs and lows. Milocco takes you along this journey -- you watch as she struggles to make sense of something bordering on the insane -- and it's increasingly clear she's willing to risk it all just for a single person to agree that something's amiss -- not necessarily tragic or life-shattering but merely out-of-sorts. At the same time, the woman is obviously struggling to put her life back into some semblance of order. All of this would not have worked with a lesser talent, and the lady is definitely one to watch in the years ahead.
Knocking (2021) was produced by Lask, Sveriges Television (SVT), and the Swedish Film Institute. It begins streaming on the Arrow Channel (Player) on March 11. For those needing clarification, this is a Swedish-language Horror/Thriller with English-subtitles. As for the technical specifications? It all looks and sounds brilliant.
Recommended … but, truth be told, it’s entirely inaccurate to classify Knocking as a legitimate Horror film. While it certainly dabbles with some of the makings of a traditional Horror, it’s far more a psychological-style thrill ride than it is anything else. Still, the Horror trappings are likely the elements that’ll draw an audience to the film – not that there’s anything wrong with that – and maybe they’ll even be expecting some kind of dark turn in the last act. It does go dark, yes, though in a vastly more conventional yet no less alarming way. Excellent lead performance … though some subplots needed more screen time.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Knocking (2021) 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
What it didn’t do all that well is provide closure to the rest of the threads Emma Brostrom’s adaptation of the Johan Theorin novel raised, namely some of the other particulars involving Molly’s past and present. Being unfamiliar with the source material, I’ve no way of knowing what caused our lead’s original breakdown – yes, there are some very strong hints, but there’s also a world of ambiguity – and there are even more clues that Molly may have misinformed the audience. I’ll stop short of going into any measurable detail as I never like to spoil plot elements I feel are central to enjoying the film. Suffice it to say, I think a bit more examination would’ve eliminated any doubt created as a result of filmed events … unless Kempff intended to deliberately misdirect us … in which case I’m at a loss to understand why she felt so obvious a development was necessary.
Still, I'd be a fool if I fail to praise actress Milocco's work to the extent it deserves.
While the script gives ample moments to show the woman in pursuit of her own sanity, it takes a true craftsman (or craftswoman) to deliver it with conviction, and she embraces the vivid highs and lows. Milocco takes you along this journey -- you watch as she struggles to make sense of something bordering on the insane -- and it's increasingly clear she's willing to risk it all just for a single person to agree that something's amiss -- not necessarily tragic or life-shattering but merely out-of-sorts. At the same time, the woman is obviously struggling to put her life back into some semblance of order. All of this would not have worked with a lesser talent, and the lady is definitely one to watch in the years ahead.
Knocking (2021) was produced by Lask, Sveriges Television (SVT), and the Swedish Film Institute. It begins streaming on the Arrow Channel (Player) on March 11. For those needing clarification, this is a Swedish-language Horror/Thriller with English-subtitles. As for the technical specifications? It all looks and sounds brilliant.
Recommended … but, truth be told, it’s entirely inaccurate to classify Knocking as a legitimate Horror film. While it certainly dabbles with some of the makings of a traditional Horror, it’s far more a psychological-style thrill ride than it is anything else. Still, the Horror trappings are likely the elements that’ll draw an audience to the film – not that there’s anything wrong with that – and maybe they’ll even be expecting some kind of dark turn in the last act. It does go dark, yes, though in a vastly more conventional yet no less alarming way. Excellent lead performance … though some subplots needed more screen time.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary streaming link of Knocking (2021) 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
What will our last days look like?
It’s a subject we’ve all thought about in some fashion or other. If mankind is to reach its final destination collectively, will be go down swinging or will be sit and wait patiently for our hearts to beat one last time? I’ve no doubt poets, scholars, and other pontificators have given this plenty of face time; and while they’ve likely all served up something interesting to think about, it’s probably equally true that none of us knows with absolute certainty what that last gasp will be.
Films focusing on society’s end have presented an equal number of variations as the poets, and, yes, even comedies have gotten into the mix. 1964’s Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb showed up our planet’s descent into the nuclear nightmare by way of some oddball characters acting out their worst impulses at the worst possible moments. 1984’s Night Of The Comet delivered a couple of young lasses who make it to the Earth’s last days only to discover they’d still rather be shopping. 2004’s Shaun Of The Dead capitalized on the hot craze of the 2000’s (zombies) by pairing up its jokes around showing not exactly mankind’s finest making it to that last stand and still managing to get the job done right.
While mixing up the apocalypse with laughs isn’t all that new, 2021’s Silent Night does try to give it a fresh spin by essentially serving up an ensemble of characters more likely to talk one another to death than anything else. It’s a holiday dinner party where the guests are gathered, memories are shared, gifts are exchanged, and – ahem – pills will be taken so that everyone can descend into the big sleep before the Greta Thunberg-imagined end times finally arrives and Mother Earth cleanses itself of the ultimate parasite: man himself.
Pass the salt, please.
(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:
“Nell and Simon have invited their closest friends to join their family for Christmas dinner at their idyllic home in the English countryside. As the group comes together, it feels like old times – but behind all of the laughter and merriment, something is not quite right. The world outside is facing impending doom, and no amount of gifts, games or Prosecco can make mankind’s imminent destruction go away. Surviving the holidays just got a lot more complicated.”
I don’t want to make too much of a good laugh, but the truth is there aren’t all that many in here. Writer/director Camille Griffin seems to have crafted this chatty tale as if the high point of English society will be remaining civilized when civilization collapses, and, thus, she structures her devilish reveals around the holiday season … that time of year most of us celebrate as ‘the birth of man.’ So if you find that funny, then you’re in on the joke!
It’s a subject we’ve all thought about in some fashion or other. If mankind is to reach its final destination collectively, will be go down swinging or will be sit and wait patiently for our hearts to beat one last time? I’ve no doubt poets, scholars, and other pontificators have given this plenty of face time; and while they’ve likely all served up something interesting to think about, it’s probably equally true that none of us knows with absolute certainty what that last gasp will be.
Films focusing on society’s end have presented an equal number of variations as the poets, and, yes, even comedies have gotten into the mix. 1964’s Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb showed up our planet’s descent into the nuclear nightmare by way of some oddball characters acting out their worst impulses at the worst possible moments. 1984’s Night Of The Comet delivered a couple of young lasses who make it to the Earth’s last days only to discover they’d still rather be shopping. 2004’s Shaun Of The Dead capitalized on the hot craze of the 2000’s (zombies) by pairing up its jokes around showing not exactly mankind’s finest making it to that last stand and still managing to get the job done right.
While mixing up the apocalypse with laughs isn’t all that new, 2021’s Silent Night does try to give it a fresh spin by essentially serving up an ensemble of characters more likely to talk one another to death than anything else. It’s a holiday dinner party where the guests are gathered, memories are shared, gifts are exchanged, and – ahem – pills will be taken so that everyone can descend into the big sleep before the Greta Thunberg-imagined end times finally arrives and Mother Earth cleanses itself of the ultimate parasite: man himself.
Pass the salt, please.
(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:
“Nell and Simon have invited their closest friends to join their family for Christmas dinner at their idyllic home in the English countryside. As the group comes together, it feels like old times – but behind all of the laughter and merriment, something is not quite right. The world outside is facing impending doom, and no amount of gifts, games or Prosecco can make mankind’s imminent destruction go away. Surviving the holidays just got a lot more complicated.”
I don’t want to make too much of a good laugh, but the truth is there aren’t all that many in here. Writer/director Camille Griffin seems to have crafted this chatty tale as if the high point of English society will be remaining civilized when civilization collapses, and, thus, she structures her devilish reveals around the holiday season … that time of year most of us celebrate as ‘the birth of man.’ So if you find that funny, then you’re in on the joke!
Sadly, most of Silent Night’s performances – and there are a few good ones in here – are wasted on a film that feels lost in maintaining the same social structures Griffin seems to be mocking here. Matthew Goode is particularly impressive as ‘Simon’ – the story’s dutiful father and husband – who, even in the face of impending doom, begrudgingly concedes to getting the equal number of ice cubes for his feuding twin sons’ sodas just right. Incessant narcissist Sandra (played by the fetching Annabelle Willis) can’t help but raid his daughter’s trust fund for a pair of high-end shoes during society’s collapse and will stop at nothing to show them off to anyone who’ll notice her last days on Earth. And young Art (an impressive breakout performance by Roman Griffin Davis) persists on forever being the tween, living out his last moments – if that’s what they’ll be – questioning authority right up until his last breath … if it truly will be his last breath.
In many ways, Griffin’s feature feels like it wants to be the absolute cinematic antithesis to another English comedy – Love Actually (2003) – which also explored the mindset of different people, traditions, and conflicts during the silly season. Both films make good use of character to sustain, say, the slimmest of unifying threads; but where Love Actually actually achieves more because its characters will presumably be rewarded for growing Silent Night offers little to no prospect for redemption (again, to a degree, but I won’t spoil it). So while the desired results were likely achieved is that really the message we want to leave as a silver screen legacy? That being: live it up while you can because you’ll be dead soon?
Methinks we know that already.
Therein lies my biggest issue with Night: it really brings nothing new to the discussion about our inevitable last minutes. While it may benefit from some interesting diversions, a few good laughs, and a couple of solid players, it’s mired in pathos to the point that even the smallest demonstrations of humanity end up feeling hollow when they’re meant to uplift.
And that’s no way to spend the holidays.
Silent Night (2021) was produced by Maven Screen Media and Marv Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? C’mon, man: this is the 21st century. It all looks and sounds very, very good. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then all you really have to get excited about here are a few deleted/extended scenes (one was funny and surprisingly cut) and some alternate endings that do give the chosen one a bit of additional context. I wish they had gone in one of these other directions as it wouldn’t have felt so ambiguous. But who am I?
Well … okay, I’m willing to recommend Silent Night for your viewing, but I’m gonna be as blunt about the experience as I can. While occasionally funny and sparingly insightful about the human condition called life, the film is unreservedly dour in its estimation about who we are, how we behave, and what we’ll become in our last moments (to a degree). You may disagree with some of its narrative posturing, but the true upside is that it may just get folks talking about the elephant in the room – mankind’s inevitable demise, I guess – and can that ever be a bad thing?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Silent Night (2021) 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.
In many ways, Griffin’s feature feels like it wants to be the absolute cinematic antithesis to another English comedy – Love Actually (2003) – which also explored the mindset of different people, traditions, and conflicts during the silly season. Both films make good use of character to sustain, say, the slimmest of unifying threads; but where Love Actually actually achieves more because its characters will presumably be rewarded for growing Silent Night offers little to no prospect for redemption (again, to a degree, but I won’t spoil it). So while the desired results were likely achieved is that really the message we want to leave as a silver screen legacy? That being: live it up while you can because you’ll be dead soon?
Methinks we know that already.
Therein lies my biggest issue with Night: it really brings nothing new to the discussion about our inevitable last minutes. While it may benefit from some interesting diversions, a few good laughs, and a couple of solid players, it’s mired in pathos to the point that even the smallest demonstrations of humanity end up feeling hollow when they’re meant to uplift.
And that’s no way to spend the holidays.
Silent Night (2021) was produced by Maven Screen Media and Marv Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable RLJE Films. As for the technical specifications? C’mon, man: this is the 21st century. It all looks and sounds very, very good. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then all you really have to get excited about here are a few deleted/extended scenes (one was funny and surprisingly cut) and some alternate endings that do give the chosen one a bit of additional context. I wish they had gone in one of these other directions as it wouldn’t have felt so ambiguous. But who am I?
Well … okay, I’m willing to recommend Silent Night for your viewing, but I’m gonna be as blunt about the experience as I can. While occasionally funny and sparingly insightful about the human condition called life, the film is unreservedly dour in its estimation about who we are, how we behave, and what we’ll become in our last moments (to a degree). You may disagree with some of its narrative posturing, but the true upside is that it may just get folks talking about the elephant in the room – mankind’s inevitable demise, I guess – and can that ever be a bad thing?
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Silent Night (2021) 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’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I read my first Batman comic book in 1971, and I’ve loved the character ever since.
I continued reading off and on over the next two decades plus, but I gave up regular reading probably in the late 1990’s / early 2000’s because it just got too damn expensive. Thankfully, prices have kinda/sorta leveled off; while that may’ve stemmed the exodus of readers from the comic book industry, I can’t imagine that business surviving with its current model for another century. Like all things, it’ll need to adapt in order to survive – much like the Batman has had to do himself as the dangers of modern villainy practically require reinvention from time-to-time – or it’ll go the way of the Dodo, as they say.
So – as you can guess – I’m always thrilled when there’s a new Batman movie in the mix. In all honesty, Warner Bros. and DC have done a respectable job trying to adapt the character for the modern era. While I haven’t been wowed with anything since the days of Batman: The Animated Series, I give them praise for going back to the well, keeping the franchise churning out feature after feature, and giving fans a little something something worth talking about.
Like so many, I met the news of casting – ahem – Robert Pattinson with a wealth of concern. I don’t get all that excited about blurbs like that to begin with – I’ve always been more of a story junkie, meaning even a bad actor can achieve good results with a solid script and excellent production efforts – but I’ll agree with most who thought it was a curious development. Writer/director Matt Reeves assurances – along with hints that he wanted to explore the world’s greatest detective early in his career – may’ve lessened the concern somewhat … but now that the finished product is here I guess there’s more to discuss.
Right out of the gate, critics have been praising The Batman as – ahem – one of the best comic book adaptations ever; and – like many of you – I don’t put a lot of stakes in sound bytes like that. (They’re meaningless, to be blunt.) Besides, a reviewer’s job is to get his or her words noticed anyway, so throwing out something so polarizing yet contextually bland is an easy attempt to corner the market. I’ve always found it kinda/sorta hard to compare adaptations one-to-one because the stories tend to be predicated on such differing backstories that they deserve more individual focus anyway, but to each his own.
I continued reading off and on over the next two decades plus, but I gave up regular reading probably in the late 1990’s / early 2000’s because it just got too damn expensive. Thankfully, prices have kinda/sorta leveled off; while that may’ve stemmed the exodus of readers from the comic book industry, I can’t imagine that business surviving with its current model for another century. Like all things, it’ll need to adapt in order to survive – much like the Batman has had to do himself as the dangers of modern villainy practically require reinvention from time-to-time – or it’ll go the way of the Dodo, as they say.
So – as you can guess – I’m always thrilled when there’s a new Batman movie in the mix. In all honesty, Warner Bros. and DC have done a respectable job trying to adapt the character for the modern era. While I haven’t been wowed with anything since the days of Batman: The Animated Series, I give them praise for going back to the well, keeping the franchise churning out feature after feature, and giving fans a little something something worth talking about.
Like so many, I met the news of casting – ahem – Robert Pattinson with a wealth of concern. I don’t get all that excited about blurbs like that to begin with – I’ve always been more of a story junkie, meaning even a bad actor can achieve good results with a solid script and excellent production efforts – but I’ll agree with most who thought it was a curious development. Writer/director Matt Reeves assurances – along with hints that he wanted to explore the world’s greatest detective early in his career – may’ve lessened the concern somewhat … but now that the finished product is here I guess there’s more to discuss.
Right out of the gate, critics have been praising The Batman as – ahem – one of the best comic book adaptations ever; and – like many of you – I don’t put a lot of stakes in sound bytes like that. (They’re meaningless, to be blunt.) Besides, a reviewer’s job is to get his or her words noticed anyway, so throwing out something so polarizing yet contextually bland is an easy attempt to corner the market. I’ve always found it kinda/sorta hard to compare adaptations one-to-one because the stories tend to be predicated on such differing backstories that they deserve more individual focus anyway, but to each his own.
So far as The Batman goes, I’ve no problem admitting that I’m disappointed in the final cut. (Whuuuut? I know, I know. Everyone else is loving it, how could I not?) Reeves and company got an awful lot right; while I’m willing to praise those elements, I can’t help but admit that the entire film just had no lack of urgency (so far as I could see), and that three-hour run-time just made for quite the effort on my part to stay focused. Others might argue that’s MY problem – as they had no qualms with it – and that’s fine: I’ll do the best to explain my opinion, leaving you to champion your own.
About twenty minutes in, I was astounded by how well Reeves hit The Batman out of the park. It was a brilliant adaptation that stunningly preserved the feel of late 1970’s / early 1980’s Batman comic book storytelling – let’s say, before Frank Miller showed up on the scene and kinda/sorta changed the dynamic. In the books, practically EVERY Batman mystery starts and ends with the Dark Knight’s observations on the world-at-large. Reeves captured this pitch perfectly with crafting some excellent narration for Pattinson; as the lead, he assuredly sets things in motion by giving the audience that unique bird’s eye view as well as hinting at the shape of things to come.
Also, the opening clarifies the long-term psychology of exactly how Bruce Wayne conceived his time as the Batman would work: clearly, the vigilante couldn’t be everywhere in Gotham City at once, and it was his quintessentially unpredictability that made him powerful as a deterrent to crime. Thieves and cutthroats never knew which shadows he was hiding in; and it was this element of surprise that made them think twice. Reeves’ opening is a veritable dance sequence of crimes-in-progress; and he cleverly stages them in such a way as to suggest these baddies are ‘thinking twice’ about what they’re doing … before he settles in on Batman’s introduction.
And, yes, it’s classic cinema delivered exactly as it should be.
Another element that Reeves clearly put some thought and effort into was the relationship between Batman and James Gordon. While other attempts have varied from circumstantial (the Burton flicks) to pivotal (the Nolan ones), this longtime Bat reader was never quite happy with it until now: The Batman finally shows the collaborative spirit as it’s (mostly) existed in the comic books, with our vigilante requiring as much support as he could get from the city’s representative, and Gordon’s career largely being marginalized because he invests so much faith in someone operating outside the system. It’s always been a dance – one fraught with danger on both sides of the equation – and The Batman crystallizes that dynamic the way it’s long been portrayed. These two men trust one another – sometimes begrudgingly – and they’ll go to any lengths to support the other if and when it suits their shared goals.
About twenty minutes in, I was astounded by how well Reeves hit The Batman out of the park. It was a brilliant adaptation that stunningly preserved the feel of late 1970’s / early 1980’s Batman comic book storytelling – let’s say, before Frank Miller showed up on the scene and kinda/sorta changed the dynamic. In the books, practically EVERY Batman mystery starts and ends with the Dark Knight’s observations on the world-at-large. Reeves captured this pitch perfectly with crafting some excellent narration for Pattinson; as the lead, he assuredly sets things in motion by giving the audience that unique bird’s eye view as well as hinting at the shape of things to come.
Also, the opening clarifies the long-term psychology of exactly how Bruce Wayne conceived his time as the Batman would work: clearly, the vigilante couldn’t be everywhere in Gotham City at once, and it was his quintessentially unpredictability that made him powerful as a deterrent to crime. Thieves and cutthroats never knew which shadows he was hiding in; and it was this element of surprise that made them think twice. Reeves’ opening is a veritable dance sequence of crimes-in-progress; and he cleverly stages them in such a way as to suggest these baddies are ‘thinking twice’ about what they’re doing … before he settles in on Batman’s introduction.
And, yes, it’s classic cinema delivered exactly as it should be.
Another element that Reeves clearly put some thought and effort into was the relationship between Batman and James Gordon. While other attempts have varied from circumstantial (the Burton flicks) to pivotal (the Nolan ones), this longtime Bat reader was never quite happy with it until now: The Batman finally shows the collaborative spirit as it’s (mostly) existed in the comic books, with our vigilante requiring as much support as he could get from the city’s representative, and Gordon’s career largely being marginalized because he invests so much faith in someone operating outside the system. It’s always been a dance – one fraught with danger on both sides of the equation – and The Batman crystallizes that dynamic the way it’s long been portrayed. These two men trust one another – sometimes begrudgingly – and they’ll go to any lengths to support the other if and when it suits their shared goals.
Critics who applauded the Nolan entries into the wider Batfilm mythology often praised the filmmaker’s focus on ‘realism,’ that being the director tried to position the character and his rogues’ gallery as close to the real-world as he could; and I’ve been trashed online for suggesting that was a silly assertion. Tying the Bat to legitimate technology may’ve given him the appearance of being contemporary, but the plausibility stopped there. He’s always been a fictional creation, as have been his adversaries. He and these people are as real as Peter Pan … and Peter’s not real, folks.
But kudos to Reeves for going a step further in trying to give the universe an even closer association to reality: his take on The Riddler has the criminal taking to the internet (in TikTok fashion, no less) to both assert his dominance and build a following (I won’t spoil it as it plays heavily into the film’s climax). Paul Dano’s interpretation of the popular character was a bit undercooked by my estimation – a bit too nebulous, as was his big plan to flood the city – but it definitely felt more grounded into modern times than did anything I can recall of the Nolanverse.
Also, I think the director deserves more than a bit of credit for ignoring the obvious tendency that has plagued so many of the DC films: he specifically ignored any impulse to tinker with the traditional origin story. If at this point in film history the audience doesn’t know who Batman is and/or where he comes from, then all of the previous flicks have really been for naught. Leaving out the visual fodder that typically accompanies these DC incarnations gave The Batman breathing room for a bit more characterization and a bit less posturing that really offers little new to a brand-new film. It’s what Reeves did with this spare room I take issue with … so let’s get to that, shall we?
Mysteries work when there’s a logical progress. The detective explores the whodunit typically from an unbiased point-of-view, grounds himself in all of the particulars, and then sets out to solve this grand puzzle. Generally – though not exclusively – the villain is exposed in the last act, with our Sherlock Holmes left only to recount how and why it all fell apart and even a bit of when he started to see through the seams.
With The Batman, there’s certainly a central puzzle – who’s killing the political bigwigs of Gotham City – but, alas, it ends up getting shrouded in a side story involving Catwoman – aka Selina Kyle – that didn’t even need to be Selina Kyle. But because that’s how Reeves wrote it (with Peter Craig), the door was opened to bloat the film with a (sorry, folks) completely unnecessary side story involving one of the Bat’s romantic secondary players. While I’ve no problem with romance, per se, it typically doesn’t play large in the world of the comic books – especially the Dark Knight’s – and that’s because there just ain’t a lotta love in Gotham City. It’s a cesspool – also very well rendered here – where love is a distraction that’ll get you killed. As such, I think the best stories over the years involving the caped crusader don’t involve love.
But kudos to Reeves for going a step further in trying to give the universe an even closer association to reality: his take on The Riddler has the criminal taking to the internet (in TikTok fashion, no less) to both assert his dominance and build a following (I won’t spoil it as it plays heavily into the film’s climax). Paul Dano’s interpretation of the popular character was a bit undercooked by my estimation – a bit too nebulous, as was his big plan to flood the city – but it definitely felt more grounded into modern times than did anything I can recall of the Nolanverse.
Also, I think the director deserves more than a bit of credit for ignoring the obvious tendency that has plagued so many of the DC films: he specifically ignored any impulse to tinker with the traditional origin story. If at this point in film history the audience doesn’t know who Batman is and/or where he comes from, then all of the previous flicks have really been for naught. Leaving out the visual fodder that typically accompanies these DC incarnations gave The Batman breathing room for a bit more characterization and a bit less posturing that really offers little new to a brand-new film. It’s what Reeves did with this spare room I take issue with … so let’s get to that, shall we?
Mysteries work when there’s a logical progress. The detective explores the whodunit typically from an unbiased point-of-view, grounds himself in all of the particulars, and then sets out to solve this grand puzzle. Generally – though not exclusively – the villain is exposed in the last act, with our Sherlock Holmes left only to recount how and why it all fell apart and even a bit of when he started to see through the seams.
With The Batman, there’s certainly a central puzzle – who’s killing the political bigwigs of Gotham City – but, alas, it ends up getting shrouded in a side story involving Catwoman – aka Selina Kyle – that didn’t even need to be Selina Kyle. But because that’s how Reeves wrote it (with Peter Craig), the door was opened to bloat the film with a (sorry, folks) completely unnecessary side story involving one of the Bat’s romantic secondary players. While I’ve no problem with romance, per se, it typically doesn’t play large in the world of the comic books – especially the Dark Knight’s – and that’s because there just ain’t a lotta love in Gotham City. It’s a cesspool – also very well rendered here – where love is a distraction that’ll get you killed. As such, I think the best stories over the years involving the caped crusader don’t involve love.
Giving into cinema influences like “you gotta have a love interest in order to get the fairer sex into the audience” added weight to The Batman it really didn’t need. Or – if it did – it certainly didn’t need to be Selina Kyle because very, very, very, very little of what her a bankable character didn’t play into this story as told. As a result, I kept asking, “Why is Catwoman here … other than the fact that that’s how it was written and apparently Reeves wanted to have Batman kiss someone?” Rather than feel organic to the plot, it felt like a screenwriter’s invention, and I couldn’t shake my issues with it. In other words, any other woman – not even a villain – could’ve easily been plugged into that role, and the Catwoman wouldn’t have been missed.
I realize that in and of itself may be controversial, but I stand by it as my two cents on how the character was wasted in this space. No offense to the actress. It just didn’t work for me.
Quite possibly, removing Catwoman from the picture would’ve aided my other major issue with the film: it was, simply, too long for too little story.
Yes, the better Bat stories over the decades have involved crime. After all, that’s the Batman’s day job: solving crimes. Even Pattinson is on record (sadly enough) in saying he never knew that the Bats is known as the world’s greatest detective (gasp!), but there it is. Pulling on some of the characters from the greater Gotham City mythology worked extraordinarily well when put to use in Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm (1993), an animated incarnation that similarly saw the caped crusader coming to terms with the city’s criminal past but balancing out mankind’s need for a love interest with a (somewhat) all-new character. I bring this up solely to demonstrate that as similar goals were accomplished nearly three decades ago that The Batman isn’t as fresh and innovative as some would have you believe … and maybe it’s even been done better well before.
To be fair, I could go on. Alfred (played by the great Andy Serkis) is utterly wasted here; in fact, he’s in so little of the film one might wonder whether or not Reeves knew how central the character is to Bat-mythology. The film is understandably draped in layers of darkness, but there a few scenes that could’ve benefited from having a little more light shone on the players. And don’t get me started how having the Batmobile being little more than a souped-up street racer is a stupid idea that needed a makeover it never got. Suffice it to say, I was underwhelmed by this three-hour cut, though I will say that somewhere there’s likely a two-hour cut (maybe two-and-a-quarter) that might be sheer, unbridled brilliance … if it ever sees the light of day.
Still, I need to add one thing for clarity’s sake: I didn’t dislike The Batman. I just wasn’t won over by it. The character – as I’ve explained – has long been in my blood, and I’ll happily take it to my grave with me when I go. Maybe I’ll even ask the wifey to make sure I’m wearing something to commemorate my love of the cowl in my final repose. Chiefly, the film’s pacing needed a lot of work, not its darkness. Pointing out what didn’t quite tickle my fancy is merely my way of demonstrating how deeply all of this touched me, even the bits that missed.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I realize that in and of itself may be controversial, but I stand by it as my two cents on how the character was wasted in this space. No offense to the actress. It just didn’t work for me.
Quite possibly, removing Catwoman from the picture would’ve aided my other major issue with the film: it was, simply, too long for too little story.
Yes, the better Bat stories over the decades have involved crime. After all, that’s the Batman’s day job: solving crimes. Even Pattinson is on record (sadly enough) in saying he never knew that the Bats is known as the world’s greatest detective (gasp!), but there it is. Pulling on some of the characters from the greater Gotham City mythology worked extraordinarily well when put to use in Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm (1993), an animated incarnation that similarly saw the caped crusader coming to terms with the city’s criminal past but balancing out mankind’s need for a love interest with a (somewhat) all-new character. I bring this up solely to demonstrate that as similar goals were accomplished nearly three decades ago that The Batman isn’t as fresh and innovative as some would have you believe … and maybe it’s even been done better well before.
To be fair, I could go on. Alfred (played by the great Andy Serkis) is utterly wasted here; in fact, he’s in so little of the film one might wonder whether or not Reeves knew how central the character is to Bat-mythology. The film is understandably draped in layers of darkness, but there a few scenes that could’ve benefited from having a little more light shone on the players. And don’t get me started how having the Batmobile being little more than a souped-up street racer is a stupid idea that needed a makeover it never got. Suffice it to say, I was underwhelmed by this three-hour cut, though I will say that somewhere there’s likely a two-hour cut (maybe two-and-a-quarter) that might be sheer, unbridled brilliance … if it ever sees the light of day.
Still, I need to add one thing for clarity’s sake: I didn’t dislike The Batman. I just wasn’t won over by it. The character – as I’ve explained – has long been in my blood, and I’ll happily take it to my grave with me when I go. Maybe I’ll even ask the wifey to make sure I’m wearing something to commemorate my love of the cowl in my final repose. Chiefly, the film’s pacing needed a lot of work, not its darkness. Pointing out what didn’t quite tickle my fancy is merely my way of demonstrating how deeply all of this touched me, even the bits that missed.
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Generally speaking, I don't cover 'serial killer' horror on SciFiHistory.Net because I find so much of it way too conventional for my tastes.
That said, there are a few films that -- from time-to-time -- I've found of interest enough to give them a bit of face time. Those that are particularly groundbreaking can be fun to delve into. Those that might have a mystical, paranormal, or even spiritual angle can also catch my interest. But just shedding blood for the sake of shedding blood gets a bit tiresome, don't you think? I've never understood the motivation for many of those thrillers, but -- as I always caution -- to each his own.
In any event, I have received word regarding a comic spin on the ol' serial killer flick: Vicious Fun looks to have played out to some modest acclaim on the film festival circuit, so it's only natural that it would finally settle down right at home ... on home video. It's slated for release on demand, Blu-ray, and DVD this April 5th.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Joel, a caustic 1980s film critic for a national horror magazine, finds himself unwittingly trapped in a self-help group for serial killers. With no other choice, Joel attempts to blend in or risk becoming the next victim."
As I said, I don't normally shuck for these all-too-conventional films, but this one looks to have a nice combination of blood and charm.
I'll do the usual copy-and-paste of the promotional materials below. Trailer is there as well. You folks know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
That said, there are a few films that -- from time-to-time -- I've found of interest enough to give them a bit of face time. Those that are particularly groundbreaking can be fun to delve into. Those that might have a mystical, paranormal, or even spiritual angle can also catch my interest. But just shedding blood for the sake of shedding blood gets a bit tiresome, don't you think? I've never understood the motivation for many of those thrillers, but -- as I always caution -- to each his own.
In any event, I have received word regarding a comic spin on the ol' serial killer flick: Vicious Fun looks to have played out to some modest acclaim on the film festival circuit, so it's only natural that it would finally settle down right at home ... on home video. It's slated for release on demand, Blu-ray, and DVD this April 5th.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"Joel, a caustic 1980s film critic for a national horror magazine, finds himself unwittingly trapped in a self-help group for serial killers. With no other choice, Joel attempts to blend in or risk becoming the next victim."
As I said, I don't normally shuck for these all-too-conventional films, but this one looks to have a nice combination of blood and charm.
I'll do the usual copy-and-paste of the promotional materials below. Trailer is there as well. You folks know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
RLJE FILMS PRESENTS
VICIOUS FUN
Available on VOD, Digital HD, DVD and Blu-ray April 5, 2022
“entrails are spilled, skulls are crushed…viciously, dangerously good”
– Dread Central
LOS ANGELES, (March 3, 2022) – RLJE Films, a business unit of AMC Networks, has picked up select rights to the horror film VICIOUS FUN from Shudder, AMC Networks’ premium streaming service for horror, thriller and the supernatural. RLJE Films will release VICIOUS FUN on VOD, Digital HD, DVD and Blu-ray on April 5, 2022.
Directed by Cody Calahan (“Antisocial”, The Oak Room), and written by James Villeneuve (The Ticket), VICIOUS FUN stars Evan Marsh (Shazam!), Amber Goldfarb (“Sex/Life”), Ari Millen (“Orphan Black”), Julian Richings (Man of Steel), Robert Maillet (Sherlock Holmes) and David Koechner (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy). The DVD will be available for an SRP of $27.97 and the Blu-ray will be available for an SRP of $28.96.
In VICIOUS FUN, Joel is a caustic film critic for a national horror magazine who unwittingly finds himself trapped in a self-help group for serial killers. With no other choice, he attempts to blend in with his homicidal surroundings or risk becoming the next victim. “Bloody, heartfelt, and hilarious, VICIOUS FUN is one of the best horror comedies in years” (Dread Central).
Bonus features on the DVD and Blu-ray include:
● Filmmaker Commentary
● Deleted Scenes & Alternate Takes
● Blooper Reel
● From Script to Screen
● Behind-the-Scenes Photo Gallery
● Trailer
ABOUT RLJE FILMS
RLJE Films’ recent and upcoming features include David Oyelowo’s directorial debut The Water Man; the intense No Man of God starring Elijah Wood and Luke Kirby from director Amber Sealey; Sion Sono’s 2021 Sundance Film Festival premiere Prisoners of the Ghostland starring Nicolas Cage and Sofia Boutella; and the apocalyptic holiday dramedy from writer/director Camille Griffin, Silent Night, starring Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode and Roman Griffin Davis. us.rljentertainment.com.
ABOUT SHUDDER
AMC Networks’ Shudder is a premium streaming video service, super-serving members with the best selection in genre entertainment, covering horror, thrillers and the supernatural. Shudder’s expanding library of film, TV series, and originals is available on most streaming devices in the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. To experience Shudder commitment-free for 7 days, visit www.shudder.com.
ABOUT AMC NETWORKS
AMC Networks is a global entertainment company known for its popular and critically-acclaimed content. Its portfolio of brands includes AMC, BBC AMERICA (operated through a joint venture with BBC Studios), IFC, SundanceTV, WE tv, IFC Films, and a number of fast-growing streaming services, including the AMC+ premium streaming bundle, Acorn TV, Shudder, Sundance Now and ALLBLK. AMC Studios, the Company’s in-house studio, production and distribution operation, is behind award-winning owned series and franchises, including The Walking Dead, the highest-rated series in cable history. The Company also operates AMC Networks International, its international programming business, and 25/7 Media, its production services business.
Directed by Cody Calahan (“Antisocial”, The Oak Room), and written by James Villeneuve (The Ticket), VICIOUS FUN stars Evan Marsh (Shazam!), Amber Goldfarb (“Sex/Life”), Ari Millen (“Orphan Black”), Julian Richings (Man of Steel), Robert Maillet (Sherlock Holmes) and David Koechner (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy). The DVD will be available for an SRP of $27.97 and the Blu-ray will be available for an SRP of $28.96.
In VICIOUS FUN, Joel is a caustic film critic for a national horror magazine who unwittingly finds himself trapped in a self-help group for serial killers. With no other choice, he attempts to blend in with his homicidal surroundings or risk becoming the next victim. “Bloody, heartfelt, and hilarious, VICIOUS FUN is one of the best horror comedies in years” (Dread Central).
Bonus features on the DVD and Blu-ray include:
● Filmmaker Commentary
● Deleted Scenes & Alternate Takes
● Blooper Reel
● From Script to Screen
● Behind-the-Scenes Photo Gallery
● Trailer
ABOUT RLJE FILMS
RLJE Films’ recent and upcoming features include David Oyelowo’s directorial debut The Water Man; the intense No Man of God starring Elijah Wood and Luke Kirby from director Amber Sealey; Sion Sono’s 2021 Sundance Film Festival premiere Prisoners of the Ghostland starring Nicolas Cage and Sofia Boutella; and the apocalyptic holiday dramedy from writer/director Camille Griffin, Silent Night, starring Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode and Roman Griffin Davis. us.rljentertainment.com.
ABOUT SHUDDER
AMC Networks’ Shudder is a premium streaming video service, super-serving members with the best selection in genre entertainment, covering horror, thrillers and the supernatural. Shudder’s expanding library of film, TV series, and originals is available on most streaming devices in the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. To experience Shudder commitment-free for 7 days, visit www.shudder.com.
ABOUT AMC NETWORKS
AMC Networks is a global entertainment company known for its popular and critically-acclaimed content. Its portfolio of brands includes AMC, BBC AMERICA (operated through a joint venture with BBC Studios), IFC, SundanceTV, WE tv, IFC Films, and a number of fast-growing streaming services, including the AMC+ premium streaming bundle, Acorn TV, Shudder, Sundance Now and ALLBLK. AMC Studios, the Company’s in-house studio, production and distribution operation, is behind award-winning owned series and franchises, including The Walking Dead, the highest-rated series in cable history. The Company also operates AMC Networks International, its international programming business, and 25/7 Media, its production services business.
- Published on
Ah, yes, yes, yes ...
I don't know about you, but I grew up in the great American Midwest. And, to be frank, the midwest is populated with an awful lot of little tourist-type traps -- the kind of places that are great destinations in the spring and summer months but are definitely all-boarded-up come winter. While many of these towns still operate in the colder months (and lodging can be available damn near dirt cheap), there's very little to do there ... which naturally makes it the perfect place for a good horror picture.
Someone has finally figured that out -- it would seem -- with 2021's Offseason, a grim little haunt that springs from the mind of Mickey Keating. Checking out his resume on IMDB.com, it definitely would appear that he's experienced with some dark turns, so maybe this one will perform better than its IMDB.com rating currently (in the mid 5's). I rarely make that much of scores before a film is available to the general public as critics do tend to be a bit harsh on horror titles; audiences -- when treated right -- tend to lap 'em up.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"After receiving a mysterious letter, a woman travels to a desolate island town and soon becomes trapped in a nightmare."
I don't have any promotional materials as I learned of this one from a competiting website, so I can't tell you much about it. The trailer does look interesting -- as I said, having some experience with such stops probably causes this one to register with me a bit more than most -- and I encourage interested parties to look into it. Offseason will be available in theaters and on demand this March 11th.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I don't know about you, but I grew up in the great American Midwest. And, to be frank, the midwest is populated with an awful lot of little tourist-type traps -- the kind of places that are great destinations in the spring and summer months but are definitely all-boarded-up come winter. While many of these towns still operate in the colder months (and lodging can be available damn near dirt cheap), there's very little to do there ... which naturally makes it the perfect place for a good horror picture.
Someone has finally figured that out -- it would seem -- with 2021's Offseason, a grim little haunt that springs from the mind of Mickey Keating. Checking out his resume on IMDB.com, it definitely would appear that he's experienced with some dark turns, so maybe this one will perform better than its IMDB.com rating currently (in the mid 5's). I rarely make that much of scores before a film is available to the general public as critics do tend to be a bit harsh on horror titles; audiences -- when treated right -- tend to lap 'em up.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"After receiving a mysterious letter, a woman travels to a desolate island town and soon becomes trapped in a nightmare."
I don't have any promotional materials as I learned of this one from a competiting website, so I can't tell you much about it. The trailer does look interesting -- as I said, having some experience with such stops probably causes this one to register with me a bit more than most -- and I encourage interested parties to look into it. Offseason will be available in theaters and on demand this March 11th.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
At its best, Horror capitalizes on make frights up-close-and-personal.
There have been a slate of real in-your-face type of haunts delivered in the last few years that have accomplished great things by setting their stories in or around the home. I'm not talking about Freddy Krueger invading your dreams; no, I'm meaning the film's villain quite literally walks in your front door and destroys life as you knew it. While some of them have offered up bad guys looking like they could be any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Zach, others have toyed more with the psychology of terror and covered their mugs with skulls, masks, and the like.
Barbarians look to be more of the same but with a modestly humourous twist. The film appears to have scored moderate-to-better-than-average at a few festival airings; and it's how set for full consumption this upcoming April 1st, a prankster of a release date if ever there were.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A dinner party in a country house that sees four friends come together for a birthday celebration. But as the night progresses secrets emerge and unsettling events begin to unfold around them."
The coming attraction definitely hints at more conventional conflict as well. Who knows how all of that might play out? Dare I suggest that there might await some dark turns for the regular folks as well? Only time will tell.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
There have been a slate of real in-your-face type of haunts delivered in the last few years that have accomplished great things by setting their stories in or around the home. I'm not talking about Freddy Krueger invading your dreams; no, I'm meaning the film's villain quite literally walks in your front door and destroys life as you knew it. While some of them have offered up bad guys looking like they could be any Tom, Dick, Harry, or Zach, others have toyed more with the psychology of terror and covered their mugs with skulls, masks, and the like.
Barbarians look to be more of the same but with a modestly humourous twist. The film appears to have scored moderate-to-better-than-average at a few festival airings; and it's how set for full consumption this upcoming April 1st, a prankster of a release date if ever there were.
Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:
"A dinner party in a country house that sees four friends come together for a birthday celebration. But as the night progresses secrets emerge and unsettling events begin to unfold around them."
The coming attraction definitely hints at more conventional conflict as well. Who knows how all of that might play out? Dare I suggest that there might await some dark turns for the regular folks as well? Only time will tell.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I've never been a fan of episodic sitcoms, but I do recall the very lovely Farrah Forke being a bit of a sensation when she roared onto the small screen in the fondly remembered Wings. Thankfully, this talented Thespian ventured outside that world so that I get the chance to feature her in our shared space, though I always hate to do so under these tragic circumstances.
According to IMDB.com, Forke enjoyed her professional debut in the SciFi/Horror titled Brain Twisters (1991). Though I've done a bit of searching, I haven't found much information regarding the project; I don't remember it, and I'm inclined to suspect that this may've been one of those direct-to-video releases of a certain era. A few years later, she turned up in yet one more kinda/sorta interpretation of Jules Verne's Journey To The Center Of The Earth (1993) for Columbia Pictures Television. In 1994, Science Fiction came a'callin', and Forke enjoyed a meaty role in the telefilm Bionic Ever After?, essentially a rekindling affair for the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman. In that same year, she was fortunate enough to secure a recurring guest role aboard Lois & Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman; and she made four appearances to the highly-rated program. Also as IMDB.com reports, her last reported gig was in 2005, voicing the character of 'Big Barda' for an episode of Justice League Unlimited -- a role she has previously voiced in a two-part installment of Batman Beyond.
Alas, she's left our world. I haven't seen any particular mention of the cause of death in the excerpts I've read, but I do see that the family is asking for donations to the American Cancer Society, so I'm suspecting we may all know the guilty culprit. Prayers and salutations go out to her family and friends.
-- EZ
According to IMDB.com, Forke enjoyed her professional debut in the SciFi/Horror titled Brain Twisters (1991). Though I've done a bit of searching, I haven't found much information regarding the project; I don't remember it, and I'm inclined to suspect that this may've been one of those direct-to-video releases of a certain era. A few years later, she turned up in yet one more kinda/sorta interpretation of Jules Verne's Journey To The Center Of The Earth (1993) for Columbia Pictures Television. In 1994, Science Fiction came a'callin', and Forke enjoyed a meaty role in the telefilm Bionic Ever After?, essentially a rekindling affair for the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman. In that same year, she was fortunate enough to secure a recurring guest role aboard Lois & Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman; and she made four appearances to the highly-rated program. Also as IMDB.com reports, her last reported gig was in 2005, voicing the character of 'Big Barda' for an episode of Justice League Unlimited -- a role she has previously voiced in a two-part installment of Batman Beyond.
Alas, she's left our world. I haven't seen any particular mention of the cause of death in the excerpts I've read, but I do see that the family is asking for donations to the American Cancer Society, so I'm suspecting we may all know the guilty culprit. Prayers and salutations go out to her family and friends.
-- EZ