- Published on
Well, well, well ...
It's been said that "you can't keep a good woman down," and I think in today's age of gender conscious language we'll modify that to be "you can't keep a good person down!"
Our faithful internet steward Claire is up to the usual shenanigans again, and this time she's sat down with author David T. Bosquez. Bosquez is not only a published poet but also he's served his country with time in the U.S. Army. Though his writing has largely been something of a hobby in the past, he's turned his eye toward making it profitable in the clear and present future (if there is such a thing).
Regarding his writing, Bosquez says, "There is no special technique or schedule in my repertoire. I just make sure I am writing something everyday. I keep a journal or notebook of some kind and a pen with me at all times. I take notes about things that pop into my head, scribble lines and poetry, sketch. My notebook is probably about as chaotic as my work desk, and that works for me."
Claire's piece is live over on her website, which SciFiHistory.Net readers can access via the link right here. Other interested links are provided below.
Claire On Twitter
Claire's Website
David T. Bosquez On Twitter
David's "A Call From The Gods: Poetry To Deity" on Amazon.com
It's important to note that we at SciFiHistory.Net stand with Claire: it's incredible important to recognize budding talent from everywhere around the world! Today's voices deserve an audience, and that's why we're sharing them via these SciFi ShoutOuts. While some of their works might not fall cleanly within the realm of Science Fiction and Fantasy, we're big supporters of creativity ... and we encourage our readers to spend a few minutes with these newly discovered talents.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
It's been said that "you can't keep a good woman down," and I think in today's age of gender conscious language we'll modify that to be "you can't keep a good person down!"
Our faithful internet steward Claire is up to the usual shenanigans again, and this time she's sat down with author David T. Bosquez. Bosquez is not only a published poet but also he's served his country with time in the U.S. Army. Though his writing has largely been something of a hobby in the past, he's turned his eye toward making it profitable in the clear and present future (if there is such a thing).
Regarding his writing, Bosquez says, "There is no special technique or schedule in my repertoire. I just make sure I am writing something everyday. I keep a journal or notebook of some kind and a pen with me at all times. I take notes about things that pop into my head, scribble lines and poetry, sketch. My notebook is probably about as chaotic as my work desk, and that works for me."
Claire's piece is live over on her website, which SciFiHistory.Net readers can access via the link right here. Other interested links are provided below.
Claire On Twitter
Claire's Website
David T. Bosquez On Twitter
David's "A Call From The Gods: Poetry To Deity" on Amazon.com
It's important to note that we at SciFiHistory.Net stand with Claire: it's incredible important to recognize budding talent from everywhere around the world! Today's voices deserve an audience, and that's why we're sharing them via these SciFi ShoutOuts. While some of their works might not fall cleanly within the realm of Science Fiction and Fantasy, we're big supporters of creativity ... and we encourage our readers to spend a few minutes with these newly discovered talents.
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Gotta be honest, peeps: 1988's Alien Nation was not a flick I was all that fond of when I first say it on home video back in the day. I hate to say it, but I think I saw it as a little bit lazy.
I thought the pairing of James Caan and Mandy Patinkin was great. I thought the two played very well off one another in the script from the great Rockne S. O'Bannon. They had some reliable banter for the 'two fish out of water' mash-up, and I think these two acting greats (each in their own separate ways as well as careers) knew precisely what moments to 'hit' in the quest to bring this somewhat curious oddity to life the way they did for 20th Century Fox.
It's just that ... argh ... I think I expected more than a somewhat routine police procedural.
Alien Nation came about at a time when many in the industry were attempting to force the formula buddy picture into every single mold imaginable; and I think I kinda/sorta rebelled against it for that reason. If I remember my impression from back then, then I'd have to say that there just wasn't enough of what I thought was truly "Science Fiction" to satiate my appetite. The motion picture went small when I was thinking 'go big,' so I mostly tuned it out.
A few years back, I rediscovered it with a whole new Blu-ray release; and I remember loving it. Granted, I was older and much wiser -- haha -- and my old eyes actually took to it nicely. I saw the actors as having the same chemistry I remembered from a few decades before, but now I was totally in sync with what I think director Graham Baker tried to bring to the silver screen from O'Bannon's script.
And, frankly, I'm thrilled that I did rediscover it because it actually put me on a bit of a quest to seek out the single-season television series, which I found pretty interesting in its own way, too. Alas, I haven't been able to see the telefilms that I've been told resolves some of the threads left dangling when the weekly show was canceled (curse the televisio gods!), but I'm glad to know that there's still something to be said for second chances.
So happy thirty-third birthday to this little gem! If you haven't seen it, then do so at your earliest convenience!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
I thought the pairing of James Caan and Mandy Patinkin was great. I thought the two played very well off one another in the script from the great Rockne S. O'Bannon. They had some reliable banter for the 'two fish out of water' mash-up, and I think these two acting greats (each in their own separate ways as well as careers) knew precisely what moments to 'hit' in the quest to bring this somewhat curious oddity to life the way they did for 20th Century Fox.
It's just that ... argh ... I think I expected more than a somewhat routine police procedural.
Alien Nation came about at a time when many in the industry were attempting to force the formula buddy picture into every single mold imaginable; and I think I kinda/sorta rebelled against it for that reason. If I remember my impression from back then, then I'd have to say that there just wasn't enough of what I thought was truly "Science Fiction" to satiate my appetite. The motion picture went small when I was thinking 'go big,' so I mostly tuned it out.
A few years back, I rediscovered it with a whole new Blu-ray release; and I remember loving it. Granted, I was older and much wiser -- haha -- and my old eyes actually took to it nicely. I saw the actors as having the same chemistry I remembered from a few decades before, but now I was totally in sync with what I think director Graham Baker tried to bring to the silver screen from O'Bannon's script.
And, frankly, I'm thrilled that I did rediscover it because it actually put me on a bit of a quest to seek out the single-season television series, which I found pretty interesting in its own way, too. Alas, I haven't been able to see the telefilms that I've been told resolves some of the threads left dangling when the weekly show was canceled (curse the televisio gods!), but I'm glad to know that there's still something to be said for second chances.
So happy thirty-third birthday to this little gem! If you haven't seen it, then do so at your earliest convenience!
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
I say this with honesty and humility: one of the greatest joys as editor of SciFiHistory.Net is getting the chance to meet, know, and collaborate with the growing number of movers and shakers across the wide, wide Information Superhighway. There's a lot of traffic out there, so it's necessary to sometimes enjoy a rest stop, smell the flowers, and recharge.
What better way to do that than to meet a peer?
Or maybe even pass the time with a good book?
Think what you will about the internet, but I've found it a bottomless reserve of talented and selfless people who seek to do 'good deeds' in their travels ... and these are the folks I give SciFi ShoutOuts.
A few days back, I stumbled across Claire the Space Princess on the ol' Twittersphere where she was putting out feelers for Science Fiction and Fantasy authors wanting to get interviewed for publication on her own blog. Being a budding author as well as a blogger myself, I recognized exactly what she was up to, trying to not only aid others in building an audience but also nurturing her very own talent for reporting. I immediately jumped aboard the Claire-Train and encouraged her to let me know as these interviews go live so that I could do my part in pointing others her way.
Today's release is an interview with Fantasy author Marcus Lee whose Kings & Daemons is available for purchase on Amazon.com. It's the first book in a series -- The Gifted and The Cursed -- and readers are encouraged to check them out at your earliest convenience.
Links
Twitter: Claire the Space Princess
Twitter: author Marcus Lee
Marcus Lee interview
Marcus Lee's website
Lecari.Co.UK: Claire's blog
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
What better way to do that than to meet a peer?
Or maybe even pass the time with a good book?
Think what you will about the internet, but I've found it a bottomless reserve of talented and selfless people who seek to do 'good deeds' in their travels ... and these are the folks I give SciFi ShoutOuts.
A few days back, I stumbled across Claire the Space Princess on the ol' Twittersphere where she was putting out feelers for Science Fiction and Fantasy authors wanting to get interviewed for publication on her own blog. Being a budding author as well as a blogger myself, I recognized exactly what she was up to, trying to not only aid others in building an audience but also nurturing her very own talent for reporting. I immediately jumped aboard the Claire-Train and encouraged her to let me know as these interviews go live so that I could do my part in pointing others her way.
Today's release is an interview with Fantasy author Marcus Lee whose Kings & Daemons is available for purchase on Amazon.com. It's the first book in a series -- The Gifted and The Cursed -- and readers are encouraged to check them out at your earliest convenience.
Links
Twitter: Claire the Space Princess
Twitter: author Marcus Lee
Marcus Lee interview
Marcus Lee's website
Lecari.Co.UK: Claire's blog
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
Ah, another Tuesday, and another round of new home video releases!
I try not to make too much of these promotional bits, but I think it’s part of a public service ‘round here to pump up my readers with a bit of consumer opportunities. We like Science Fiction and Fantasy; we promote Science Fiction and Fantasy; and we purchase Science Fiction and Fantasy items. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there are far worse things in life to be addicted to.
In any event, I’ve scanned the releases slated for today – October 5th – and it’s kinda/sorta light on genre entries. (For the uninformed, I tend to check out Blu-ray.com once a week mostly for upcoming titles but every now and then read a review or two.) Immediately, the LeBron James box office disaster – the sequel to Space Jam titled Space Jam: A New Legacy – hits the shelves today, and I suppose that’s the big name.
Any others worth a mention?
Well, there’s the Arrow Video release of David Lynch’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s Dune (1984). It’s billed as a 4K Ultra Blu-ray set with a bunch of features, but I’m not seeing it listed on Amazon.com. I believe I read that there were some issues with the pressing previously – I want to say that this one has been scheduled and delayed more than once, but I could be confusing it with something else. Personally, I never much cared for this one: outside of some winning visuals, it really bogs down in the storytelling department.
Otherwise, I do see a Blu-ray release for the 2002 remake of H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine, this one starring Guy Pearce. That’s another one that disappointed me. Don’t remember much of it, to be honest, and that’s rarely a good sign. I think I do recall the funny Orlando Jones as a computer interface as well as Jeremy Irons as the lead baddie, but otherwise that one just didn’t leave an impact on me.
Furthermore, I do see a new Blu-ray pressing from Well Go USA – an outfit I used to have a lot of respect for but not so much anymore (long story, won’t trouble you with specifics) – of the Horror staples Phantasm I and Phantasm II. Nothing wrong with picking that up if you’re in the market for a solid double dipping.
Also, Paramount+’s recent Stephen King adaptation of The Stand is available for purchase today. I’ve been a huge fan of the novel since I read it back in high school in the 1980’s. Great epic storytelling. I enjoyed the 90’s miniseries adaptation as well, though I know my opinion on that is in the minority. Sure, it could’ve been bigger and bolder, but it was nice to see someone take a swing at the material, especially given how dark it is. I believe I caught an airing of this version’s first episode on some freebie channel: it looked alright, but it was only a single episode. Hard to make more of it than that.
Lastly, I’m giving a plug to a Blu-ray pressing of 2011’s The Awakening. I had the good fortune of seeing this one thanks to the Cohen Media Group, and I even penned a review you can check out right here. Though I’m no huge fan of traditional ghost stories, this one has two good leads, but they’re paired with a story that tries too hard to have a twist ending. Sadly, the twist didn’t quite work for me, but it’s a good enough attempt that I’d recommend it chiefly for fans of ghost stories.
As is always good advice: let the buyer beware.
-- EZ
I try not to make too much of these promotional bits, but I think it’s part of a public service ‘round here to pump up my readers with a bit of consumer opportunities. We like Science Fiction and Fantasy; we promote Science Fiction and Fantasy; and we purchase Science Fiction and Fantasy items. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there are far worse things in life to be addicted to.
In any event, I’ve scanned the releases slated for today – October 5th – and it’s kinda/sorta light on genre entries. (For the uninformed, I tend to check out Blu-ray.com once a week mostly for upcoming titles but every now and then read a review or two.) Immediately, the LeBron James box office disaster – the sequel to Space Jam titled Space Jam: A New Legacy – hits the shelves today, and I suppose that’s the big name.
Any others worth a mention?
Well, there’s the Arrow Video release of David Lynch’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s Dune (1984). It’s billed as a 4K Ultra Blu-ray set with a bunch of features, but I’m not seeing it listed on Amazon.com. I believe I read that there were some issues with the pressing previously – I want to say that this one has been scheduled and delayed more than once, but I could be confusing it with something else. Personally, I never much cared for this one: outside of some winning visuals, it really bogs down in the storytelling department.
Otherwise, I do see a Blu-ray release for the 2002 remake of H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine, this one starring Guy Pearce. That’s another one that disappointed me. Don’t remember much of it, to be honest, and that’s rarely a good sign. I think I do recall the funny Orlando Jones as a computer interface as well as Jeremy Irons as the lead baddie, but otherwise that one just didn’t leave an impact on me.
Furthermore, I do see a new Blu-ray pressing from Well Go USA – an outfit I used to have a lot of respect for but not so much anymore (long story, won’t trouble you with specifics) – of the Horror staples Phantasm I and Phantasm II. Nothing wrong with picking that up if you’re in the market for a solid double dipping.
Also, Paramount+’s recent Stephen King adaptation of The Stand is available for purchase today. I’ve been a huge fan of the novel since I read it back in high school in the 1980’s. Great epic storytelling. I enjoyed the 90’s miniseries adaptation as well, though I know my opinion on that is in the minority. Sure, it could’ve been bigger and bolder, but it was nice to see someone take a swing at the material, especially given how dark it is. I believe I caught an airing of this version’s first episode on some freebie channel: it looked alright, but it was only a single episode. Hard to make more of it than that.
Lastly, I’m giving a plug to a Blu-ray pressing of 2011’s The Awakening. I had the good fortune of seeing this one thanks to the Cohen Media Group, and I even penned a review you can check out right here. Though I’m no huge fan of traditional ghost stories, this one has two good leads, but they’re paired with a story that tries too hard to have a twist ending. Sadly, the twist didn’t quite work for me, but it’s a good enough attempt that I’d recommend it chiefly for fans of ghost stories.
As is always good advice: let the buyer beware.
-- EZ
- Published on
I’ve written so many reviews in my – yowza!!! – four decades of writing about film (in school and beyond) that I’m not often stumped over having something to say about a certain picture … but The Awakening (2011) gave me pause. Generally speaking, I can find a jumping off point that allows me to put together a reasonably clear stream of thought on what I found good, bad, or ugly; yet this one? This one had me perplexed.
Without giving too much away in my review’s preamble, I’ll say this: it’s a good film – very well performed – very wonderfully photographed – very solidly constructed. It’s occasionally dark. It’s sporadically moody. It does a good job of creating the atmosphere required for a good ghost story. But dare I suggest that there was something … missing?
In fact, I’ll go one step further: I love the picture’s two leads. (You’ll know who they are in a moment.) I think they’re perfectly cast, and I think they do fabulous work together in what otherwise might’ve been a theatrical blunder. Their chemistry lifts the film in its quieter moments – even sustains it through some of its curious shenanigans – and I can’t imagine two other people having filled the shoes of these two characters. They own them, and that’s its greatest strength.
Still … yes, something’s amiss in The Awakening.
I think I’ve put my finger on what didn’t work for me, and I can’t help but wonder if others felt the same way as this is one ghost flick I’ve (surprisingly) heard nothing about even ten years after its original theatrical release. Though I’m glad I discovered it, I’d probably stop short of giving it a full ‘must see’ recommendation. It’s likely best seen by only the most ardent fans of pure ghost stories, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
It may be a ‘rude awakening.’
(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 encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaing:
"They say the boy was scared to death. When the death of a child at a boarding school is blamed on a ghost, hoax exposer Florence Cathcart is certain that science and reason can explain it. But the truth she discovers is more terrifying than she could ever imagine, and soon the ghost hunter becomes the hunted."
The short skinny is that The Awakening is one of those rare releases I’d say I honestly neither liked nor disliked it. It just is what it is, though I suspect others might see it’s kinda/sorta twist ending as a bit too pre-planned and pre-packaged to be all that interesting. Director Nick Murphy collaborated with screenwriter Stephen Volk on the script that unveils its secrets very intentionally largely because if you knew what was going on a second earlier then likely none of it would work … and certainly little of it would shock.
If that sounds a bit disappointed, then I suppose I am.
The film opens with a fabulous period piece: several strangers in Victorian England have been brought together to experience a séance. One of the guests in attendance is secretly famed debunker Florence Cathcart (played winningly by Rebecca Hall), and before you can say “boo” she’s performed her civic duty, exposed the frauds for who they are, and handed them over to some detectives in wait. She’s a smart and capable lead – an 18th century Fox Mulder and Dana Scully rolled into one – and it looks like she’s set the stage for a brilliant X-files tale.
Soon thereafter, Cathcart is visited by Robert Mallory (Dominic West), an instructor for a school for boys in nearby Cumbria. As fate would have it, the place appears to have developed a bit of a ghost problem, and would the lady be interested in debunking it so that all involved can get on with the business of educating the children? Eventually Cathcart agrees, and she rather easily proves that a recent death is likely owed to a prank gone awry rather than a legitimate spirit.
However, at this point Murphy’s film takes an obviously premeditated turn, one that nevertheless forces our heroine to reexamine her conclusions. It’s a development difficult to discuss as a reviewer because to do so entirely spoils the ending (and I won’t do that). Suffice it to say, not everything is as has been presented – much like the parlor trickery of the film’s set-up – and the second half descends into such narrative trickery that it spoils an otherwise good film.
If you have to play parlor tricks to keep your story moving, then they’d best be some pretty damn convincing parlor tricks … but such is not the case here. There certainly is an awakening to The Awakening, but it’s one that viewers have no way to guess at because they’re not given all the facts. As a consequence, that twist ending? Well, it smacks less of an honest story and feels more like a dirty trick.
The Awakening (2011) is produced by StudioCanal and BBC Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated through Cohen Media Group. As for the technical specifications? This all looks and sounds quite good. As for the special features? The disc boasts a handful of deleted scenes with some commentary by director Nick Murphy (a nice touch as he explains why he deemed them unnecessary for the final edit along with some making-of bits that are well done. It’s a nice package: even though it’s no director’s commentary, there’s enough material here from Murphy that one gets a very good sense of what he would’ve likely said on one.
Mildly recommended. Ghost stories can be a tough sell. They’re an even tougher sale when certain elements of a particular story are deliberately withheld or obfuscated in order to keep the film’s “surprise” truly a revelation. The Awakening – while studiously performed – feels a bit forced by way of some screenwriting trickery that felt too contrived at times. A compelling and interesting first half gives way to a somewhat muddled affair, one more concerned with keeping its secrets than in sharing any truly otherworldly chills.
Disclaimer: in the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cohen Media Group provided me with a Blu-ray of The Awakening (2011) 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
Without giving too much away in my review’s preamble, I’ll say this: it’s a good film – very well performed – very wonderfully photographed – very solidly constructed. It’s occasionally dark. It’s sporadically moody. It does a good job of creating the atmosphere required for a good ghost story. But dare I suggest that there was something … missing?
In fact, I’ll go one step further: I love the picture’s two leads. (You’ll know who they are in a moment.) I think they’re perfectly cast, and I think they do fabulous work together in what otherwise might’ve been a theatrical blunder. Their chemistry lifts the film in its quieter moments – even sustains it through some of its curious shenanigans – and I can’t imagine two other people having filled the shoes of these two characters. They own them, and that’s its greatest strength.
Still … yes, something’s amiss in The Awakening.
I think I’ve put my finger on what didn’t work for me, and I can’t help but wonder if others felt the same way as this is one ghost flick I’ve (surprisingly) heard nothing about even ten years after its original theatrical release. Though I’m glad I discovered it, I’d probably stop short of giving it a full ‘must see’ recommendation. It’s likely best seen by only the most ardent fans of pure ghost stories, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
It may be a ‘rude awakening.’
(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 encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaing:
"They say the boy was scared to death. When the death of a child at a boarding school is blamed on a ghost, hoax exposer Florence Cathcart is certain that science and reason can explain it. But the truth she discovers is more terrifying than she could ever imagine, and soon the ghost hunter becomes the hunted."
The short skinny is that The Awakening is one of those rare releases I’d say I honestly neither liked nor disliked it. It just is what it is, though I suspect others might see it’s kinda/sorta twist ending as a bit too pre-planned and pre-packaged to be all that interesting. Director Nick Murphy collaborated with screenwriter Stephen Volk on the script that unveils its secrets very intentionally largely because if you knew what was going on a second earlier then likely none of it would work … and certainly little of it would shock.
If that sounds a bit disappointed, then I suppose I am.
The film opens with a fabulous period piece: several strangers in Victorian England have been brought together to experience a séance. One of the guests in attendance is secretly famed debunker Florence Cathcart (played winningly by Rebecca Hall), and before you can say “boo” she’s performed her civic duty, exposed the frauds for who they are, and handed them over to some detectives in wait. She’s a smart and capable lead – an 18th century Fox Mulder and Dana Scully rolled into one – and it looks like she’s set the stage for a brilliant X-files tale.
Soon thereafter, Cathcart is visited by Robert Mallory (Dominic West), an instructor for a school for boys in nearby Cumbria. As fate would have it, the place appears to have developed a bit of a ghost problem, and would the lady be interested in debunking it so that all involved can get on with the business of educating the children? Eventually Cathcart agrees, and she rather easily proves that a recent death is likely owed to a prank gone awry rather than a legitimate spirit.
However, at this point Murphy’s film takes an obviously premeditated turn, one that nevertheless forces our heroine to reexamine her conclusions. It’s a development difficult to discuss as a reviewer because to do so entirely spoils the ending (and I won’t do that). Suffice it to say, not everything is as has been presented – much like the parlor trickery of the film’s set-up – and the second half descends into such narrative trickery that it spoils an otherwise good film.
If you have to play parlor tricks to keep your story moving, then they’d best be some pretty damn convincing parlor tricks … but such is not the case here. There certainly is an awakening to The Awakening, but it’s one that viewers have no way to guess at because they’re not given all the facts. As a consequence, that twist ending? Well, it smacks less of an honest story and feels more like a dirty trick.
The Awakening (2011) is produced by StudioCanal and BBC Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated through Cohen Media Group. As for the technical specifications? This all looks and sounds quite good. As for the special features? The disc boasts a handful of deleted scenes with some commentary by director Nick Murphy (a nice touch as he explains why he deemed them unnecessary for the final edit along with some making-of bits that are well done. It’s a nice package: even though it’s no director’s commentary, there’s enough material here from Murphy that one gets a very good sense of what he would’ve likely said on one.
Mildly recommended. Ghost stories can be a tough sell. They’re an even tougher sale when certain elements of a particular story are deliberately withheld or obfuscated in order to keep the film’s “surprise” truly a revelation. The Awakening – while studiously performed – feels a bit forced by way of some screenwriting trickery that felt too contrived at times. A compelling and interesting first half gives way to a somewhat muddled affair, one more concerned with keeping its secrets than in sharing any truly otherworldly chills.
Disclaimer: in the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cohen Media Group provided me with a Blu-ray of The Awakening (2011) 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
Believe it or not, 1984’s Children Of The Corn has steadily grown over the years from a cult property into its own little cottage industry.
I have vague recollections of originally seeing this one on the silver screen when it was first released in the U.S. Growing up in a small Midwestern town during the 1980’s, all most of us had for entertainment options was the corner cinema; so we and my buddies spent many an afternoon or evening with our butts in the seats watching anything that came our way in small town, America. I don’t recall that we were particularly enamored with it – townies don’t often take well to the heartland being so openly scorned in movies – but I do remember thinking it had a few good points, too, most of them owed to the imagination of Stephen King, the author whose short story served as the film’s foundation.
Today, what I was completely aware of was how far Children has come as a franchise. Having worked in retail a few years as well as following entertainment news reasonably closely, I was aware that the film inspired a sequel or two: lo and behold, I’m gobsmacked to learn that there have been (at least) six sequels along with a few other flicks which serve as remakes or what I’d call ‘spin-offs’ from the source. Wowza. That I did not know. As is the case when horror films spawn follow-ups, I suspect (from reading) that these vary in quality and may even divert heavily from established canon; but that’s still a powerhouse potential behind what me and my mates found as merely passable celluloid fare.
I bring all of this up because just this week the kind folks at Arrow Video (aka Arrow Films) sent me a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of the original release, and I wanted to share my thoughts on it and maybe highlight a little something for readers to watch for should they inevitably pick this one up for purchase. I see it’s available on Amazon.com right here.
In the meantime, let’s get into the thicket …
I have vague recollections of originally seeing this one on the silver screen when it was first released in the U.S. Growing up in a small Midwestern town during the 1980’s, all most of us had for entertainment options was the corner cinema; so we and my buddies spent many an afternoon or evening with our butts in the seats watching anything that came our way in small town, America. I don’t recall that we were particularly enamored with it – townies don’t often take well to the heartland being so openly scorned in movies – but I do remember thinking it had a few good points, too, most of them owed to the imagination of Stephen King, the author whose short story served as the film’s foundation.
Today, what I was completely aware of was how far Children has come as a franchise. Having worked in retail a few years as well as following entertainment news reasonably closely, I was aware that the film inspired a sequel or two: lo and behold, I’m gobsmacked to learn that there have been (at least) six sequels along with a few other flicks which serve as remakes or what I’d call ‘spin-offs’ from the source. Wowza. That I did not know. As is the case when horror films spawn follow-ups, I suspect (from reading) that these vary in quality and may even divert heavily from established canon; but that’s still a powerhouse potential behind what me and my mates found as merely passable celluloid fare.
I bring all of this up because just this week the kind folks at Arrow Video (aka Arrow Films) sent me a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of the original release, and I wanted to share my thoughts on it and maybe highlight a little something for readers to watch for should they inevitably pick this one up for purchase. I see it’s available on Amazon.com right here.
In the meantime, let’s get into the thicket …
(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 my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton star as a young couple who find themselves lost on the backroads of Nebraska, eventually winding up in the seemingly deserted town of Gatlin. But the town is far from empty. As the couple soon discover, it is inhabited by a twisted cult of murderous children, thirty for another blood sacrifice …”
Right out of the gate, let me qualify something as it relates to Horror releases and why I do cover them on SciFiHistory.Net: in short, many of these are not strictly Horror films. In fact, I could make a strong argument for why a release like Children Of The Corn (1984) leans closer to traditional Fantasy while incorporating Horror elements instead of vice-versa (which is how most people classify the film).
For starters, there’s an attempt at world-building within the King story. These kids aren’t homicidal murderers, per se: though they use a fair amount of farm implements to carry out their celebrated reign of terror, there’s a psychology and a madness behind their collective motivation. Rather than killing blindly, they do so in order to maintain the relationship with their god-being. They perform ritual sacrifices (on their own) for the purpose of pleasing he who walks behind the corn, knowing only them that they will be rewarded for their offerings with food and protection. Rather than be pawns with an axe to grind (pun intended), they’ve built their own twisted culture requiring faith and a subservience to above. Horror films traditionally have some dogma, but Children takes it many steps further in establishing a culture.
Second, there’s far more than just simple bloodlettings in Gatlin, the nicest little town in Nebraska. While all of it appears to be tied to the central villain (something hidden within the corn), screenwriter George Goldsmith never quite clarifies everything. Where did this otherworldly power come from? We see early in the film that’s it’s guiding Gatlin’s youth – as evidence by the opening slaughter within the town diner – but we’re given very little else to go on. Is it from space? Did it rise up from Hell? Or is it little more than the delusions of an emerging sociopath?
In some sequences, the corn itself as portrayed as being alive – almost sentient – in the way it manipulates our main characters – Bert and Vicky (Horton and Hamilton, respectively) – and this is used to principally establish the overall mystique of the setting. But there’s another creature who apparently lives beneath the corn; though we never see it, we are treated to sequences wherein the ground is disturbed in much the way director Ron Underwood so masterfully conveyed his “Graboids” in the 1990 Horror/Comedy Tremors. Still later, there’s an evil mist which devours the children’s sacrificial victims, and in the big climax we’re treated to a mounting red wall of living supernatural energy which appears to ultimately ‘personify’ the central force of evil. Clearly, one might not be too far off the mark in classifying Children more as a traditional monster movie as opposed to mainstream Horror.
Sometimes the inherent nebulousness of a script gets in my way of enjoying it as much as I should; and that’s largely the case here. I prefer my baddies definitively presented. I want to know what or who it is the protagonists are facing, and director Fritz Kiersch’s debut feature widely misses that mark. While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the psychological fear that serves as Children’s pronounced undercurrent (these circumstances could happen anywhere that a small town remains cut-off and isolated from the outside world), I think it’s dangerous to hold back clear answers on monster specifics as that tends to push the audiences a bit too far into that old “suspension of disbelief” concept. They’re willing to “suspend” if promised or potential answers are forthcoming; when they receive few or none, then they’re likely to leave the theatres a bit jaundiced by the whole affair.
So … with all of that out of the way, how does Children Of The Corn work as a film?
Well …
Again, I’m forced to fall back on my personal background.
From the product packaging:
“Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton star as a young couple who find themselves lost on the backroads of Nebraska, eventually winding up in the seemingly deserted town of Gatlin. But the town is far from empty. As the couple soon discover, it is inhabited by a twisted cult of murderous children, thirty for another blood sacrifice …”
Right out of the gate, let me qualify something as it relates to Horror releases and why I do cover them on SciFiHistory.Net: in short, many of these are not strictly Horror films. In fact, I could make a strong argument for why a release like Children Of The Corn (1984) leans closer to traditional Fantasy while incorporating Horror elements instead of vice-versa (which is how most people classify the film).
For starters, there’s an attempt at world-building within the King story. These kids aren’t homicidal murderers, per se: though they use a fair amount of farm implements to carry out their celebrated reign of terror, there’s a psychology and a madness behind their collective motivation. Rather than killing blindly, they do so in order to maintain the relationship with their god-being. They perform ritual sacrifices (on their own) for the purpose of pleasing he who walks behind the corn, knowing only them that they will be rewarded for their offerings with food and protection. Rather than be pawns with an axe to grind (pun intended), they’ve built their own twisted culture requiring faith and a subservience to above. Horror films traditionally have some dogma, but Children takes it many steps further in establishing a culture.
Second, there’s far more than just simple bloodlettings in Gatlin, the nicest little town in Nebraska. While all of it appears to be tied to the central villain (something hidden within the corn), screenwriter George Goldsmith never quite clarifies everything. Where did this otherworldly power come from? We see early in the film that’s it’s guiding Gatlin’s youth – as evidence by the opening slaughter within the town diner – but we’re given very little else to go on. Is it from space? Did it rise up from Hell? Or is it little more than the delusions of an emerging sociopath?
In some sequences, the corn itself as portrayed as being alive – almost sentient – in the way it manipulates our main characters – Bert and Vicky (Horton and Hamilton, respectively) – and this is used to principally establish the overall mystique of the setting. But there’s another creature who apparently lives beneath the corn; though we never see it, we are treated to sequences wherein the ground is disturbed in much the way director Ron Underwood so masterfully conveyed his “Graboids” in the 1990 Horror/Comedy Tremors. Still later, there’s an evil mist which devours the children’s sacrificial victims, and in the big climax we’re treated to a mounting red wall of living supernatural energy which appears to ultimately ‘personify’ the central force of evil. Clearly, one might not be too far off the mark in classifying Children more as a traditional monster movie as opposed to mainstream Horror.
Sometimes the inherent nebulousness of a script gets in my way of enjoying it as much as I should; and that’s largely the case here. I prefer my baddies definitively presented. I want to know what or who it is the protagonists are facing, and director Fritz Kiersch’s debut feature widely misses that mark. While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the psychological fear that serves as Children’s pronounced undercurrent (these circumstances could happen anywhere that a small town remains cut-off and isolated from the outside world), I think it’s dangerous to hold back clear answers on monster specifics as that tends to push the audiences a bit too far into that old “suspension of disbelief” concept. They’re willing to “suspend” if promised or potential answers are forthcoming; when they receive few or none, then they’re likely to leave the theatres a bit jaundiced by the whole affair.
So … with all of that out of the way, how does Children Of The Corn work as a film?
Well …
Again, I’m forced to fall back on my personal background.
Having grown up in the Midwest and (yes!) having endured the experience of being truly lost in a cornfield, I really only find Children effective in conveying the sheer terror of its central fright. In fact, I’d argue its single strongest sequence is when our two heroes, Vicky and Bert, are quite literally captured within the corn, driving through an increasingly narrow makeshift road where the stalks are reaching higher and higher above their car as they lumber onward trying to find safety. Though one is ‘out in the open,’ being outmatched by Mother Nature itself can be a truly claustrophobic experience. You’re utterly surrounded. You’ve no possible way to know where to go. You’ll likely never feel smaller or more inconsequential in your life!
Kiersch’s direction works well in this sequence, and I wish to God (or to ‘He Who Walks Behind The Rows’) that he had found more time for this effect in the feature. Instead, I thought the rest of the flick reduced corn to little more than set dressing, and there’s just no amount of nuance that can elevate mere props to the point of terror-inducing baubles of the supernatural. They’re great for atmosphere, true, which the film does to affable measures with the stalks, the ears, and even some terrific children’s artwork; but they’re not gonna inspire legitimate Horror. Instead, they give you something to think about – to ponder over – but to elicit pure fright? Meh. Only powerful, indisputable, and definable images do that on film.
As for the actors?
The talent is all good. Horton makes the most of his leading man role. Hamilton succumbs a bit too easily to the ‘damsel-in-distress’ mode here – the hallmark of an undercooked script with little depth to plumb – but she certainly conveys the confusion, angst, and distress required for the part. What truly fuels the film’s narrative – what gives Children its greatest narrative punch – is the work of (surprise surprise!) relative newcomers Courtney Gains (as the villainous Malachai) and John Franklin (the town’s humanly-flawed spiritual leader): their creative tête-à-tête is the stuff of classical drama, the kind wherein power gets so obviously misunderstood in such a way that it dooms us all. The fact that they’re visually mismatched – Franklin is short and Gains practically towers over his eventual Biblical adversary – only further strengthens the beats as laid out by the script and cleverly punctuated on film by the director. And, yes, the film could’ve been strengthened by more of them and less of the imprecise demons.
I’d be remiss in my duties if I didn’t say something about Children’s preoccupation with religion.
Though I’ve never met Stephen King, I’ve read enough of his works as well as articles about him to believe he has personal criticisms of faith, a sentiment that gets reflected in much of what he writes. (His 1978 epic The Stand really brings it front-and-center in a way unlike other works muster.) At some points in Children, either King or director Kiersch or screenwriter Goldsmith seem to be railing against the practice of faith, a curious type of collectivism if there ever were. While I think it’s always easy to throw barbs at the purest of the Bible-thumpers, much of what appears here is extreme – almost to the point of outright caricature – and I end up finding it repetitive after the first swipe. When you’re too obvious about that which you may despise, you run the risk about becoming your own unintentional villain. Let your work speak for itself: when you have to almost insert your own beliefs to serve a plot point, haven’t you become the Bible thumper?
Just food for thought. Consider it manna from the Heavens if you prefer.
Kiersch’s direction works well in this sequence, and I wish to God (or to ‘He Who Walks Behind The Rows’) that he had found more time for this effect in the feature. Instead, I thought the rest of the flick reduced corn to little more than set dressing, and there’s just no amount of nuance that can elevate mere props to the point of terror-inducing baubles of the supernatural. They’re great for atmosphere, true, which the film does to affable measures with the stalks, the ears, and even some terrific children’s artwork; but they’re not gonna inspire legitimate Horror. Instead, they give you something to think about – to ponder over – but to elicit pure fright? Meh. Only powerful, indisputable, and definable images do that on film.
As for the actors?
The talent is all good. Horton makes the most of his leading man role. Hamilton succumbs a bit too easily to the ‘damsel-in-distress’ mode here – the hallmark of an undercooked script with little depth to plumb – but she certainly conveys the confusion, angst, and distress required for the part. What truly fuels the film’s narrative – what gives Children its greatest narrative punch – is the work of (surprise surprise!) relative newcomers Courtney Gains (as the villainous Malachai) and John Franklin (the town’s humanly-flawed spiritual leader): their creative tête-à-tête is the stuff of classical drama, the kind wherein power gets so obviously misunderstood in such a way that it dooms us all. The fact that they’re visually mismatched – Franklin is short and Gains practically towers over his eventual Biblical adversary – only further strengthens the beats as laid out by the script and cleverly punctuated on film by the director. And, yes, the film could’ve been strengthened by more of them and less of the imprecise demons.
I’d be remiss in my duties if I didn’t say something about Children’s preoccupation with religion.
Though I’ve never met Stephen King, I’ve read enough of his works as well as articles about him to believe he has personal criticisms of faith, a sentiment that gets reflected in much of what he writes. (His 1978 epic The Stand really brings it front-and-center in a way unlike other works muster.) At some points in Children, either King or director Kiersch or screenwriter Goldsmith seem to be railing against the practice of faith, a curious type of collectivism if there ever were. While I think it’s always easy to throw barbs at the purest of the Bible-thumpers, much of what appears here is extreme – almost to the point of outright caricature – and I end up finding it repetitive after the first swipe. When you’re too obvious about that which you may despise, you run the risk about becoming your own unintentional villain. Let your work speak for itself: when you have to almost insert your own beliefs to serve a plot point, haven’t you become the Bible thumper?
Just food for thought. Consider it manna from the Heavens if you prefer.
Children Of The Corn (1984) is produced by Hal Roach Studios and New World Pictures. Distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the reliable Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? This 4K UltraHD Blu-ray looks and sounds so damn good that I’d caution (as I sometimes do) to stop looking at the imperfection of grains and whatnot in favor of just enjoying the film. It is what it is. As for the special features? Wow. As usual, Arrow never disappoints, dishing up multiple commentaries (I’m probably going to pen a separate article on those), some making-of shorts, a feature about a deleted sequence, and even a short film adaptation (Disciples Of The Corn) of the King story that’s an incredible find, indeed. You can’t go wrong with this set.
RECOMMENDED. While imperfect in ways that many smaller features are, Children Of The Corn works as a serviceable adaptation from the early works of author Stephen King. While the total package may not rise to the level of other adaptations, there are still solid reasons to explore this one, including two good performances by newcomers Gains and Franklin. The modestly budgeted monster movie (yes, I said it, and I stand by it) manages to detassel your reservations from reality, but it really needed a bit more pollination was it to stand the true test of time as other fright features have. A cult classic, you say? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray screener of Children Of The Corn by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RECOMMENDED. While imperfect in ways that many smaller features are, Children Of The Corn works as a serviceable adaptation from the early works of author Stephen King. While the total package may not rise to the level of other adaptations, there are still solid reasons to explore this one, including two good performances by newcomers Gains and Franklin. The modestly budgeted monster movie (yes, I said it, and I stand by it) manages to detassel your reservations from reality, but it really needed a bit more pollination was it to stand the true test of time as other fright features have. A cult classic, you say? There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray screener of Children Of The Corn 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
Some films age well while others suffer.
It’s true to suggest that a film may eventually find itself held in higher esteem through the passage of time. For reasons I’ve never quite understood, it took 1941’s Citizen Kane a decade or two to be fully realized as the brilliant flick it remains today. (Sorry, kids: I know it isn’t SciFi, but it’s still one big damn masterpiece.) Though I can fully grasp why it wasn’t seen by as large an audience as possible upon its initial release, that doesn’t quite explain how it took our betters the better part of two decades to appreciate how groundbreaking a feature it truly was. The film never changed … but miraculously our collective opinion of it did.
By contrast, films typically christened as ‘cult’ features right out of the gate largely continue to be just that even with the passing of years. (For those unaware, traditionally cult films – even upon their release – appear to be producing to appeal to a very specific and smaller audience than mainstream; as the film ages, it’s still largely found to inspire a small group as new viewers discover it generationally.) Though aspects of the cult flick might give one the impression that it’s meant to be embraced by the greater public-at-large, the finished product has a way of chiseling down the focus to the point wherein vastly fewer folks appreciate the message or appreciate the story’s charm. Here, the passage of time usually means that the film will be unlikely to find break-out success ever but instead will be a source of affection for those who find it, accept it for what it is, and celebrate whatever uniqueness they find between the opening and closing credits.
I’d argue that’s been the fate of Ridley Scott’s interesting Legend from 1985: cult status.
While it’s devastating box office underscores how few folks partook of the feature when it was first in theatres, there’s still no denying the film’s footprint, which quite possibly paved the way for the more popular cinematic Fantasies that followed in its wake even one or two decades later. (Here’s looking at you, The Lord Of The Rings.) Though it’s an uneven if not problematic experience – one that quite probably put a crimp in the careers of those involved making it possible – there’s still no denying Legend’s cinematic brilliance, a reality even more pronounced with my seeing it for the first time in after 36 years.
So Legend has and hasn’t aged well, particularly, but that doesn’t make its shortcomings any less pronounced. Warts and all, it deserves to be seen.
It’s true to suggest that a film may eventually find itself held in higher esteem through the passage of time. For reasons I’ve never quite understood, it took 1941’s Citizen Kane a decade or two to be fully realized as the brilliant flick it remains today. (Sorry, kids: I know it isn’t SciFi, but it’s still one big damn masterpiece.) Though I can fully grasp why it wasn’t seen by as large an audience as possible upon its initial release, that doesn’t quite explain how it took our betters the better part of two decades to appreciate how groundbreaking a feature it truly was. The film never changed … but miraculously our collective opinion of it did.
By contrast, films typically christened as ‘cult’ features right out of the gate largely continue to be just that even with the passing of years. (For those unaware, traditionally cult films – even upon their release – appear to be producing to appeal to a very specific and smaller audience than mainstream; as the film ages, it’s still largely found to inspire a small group as new viewers discover it generationally.) Though aspects of the cult flick might give one the impression that it’s meant to be embraced by the greater public-at-large, the finished product has a way of chiseling down the focus to the point wherein vastly fewer folks appreciate the message or appreciate the story’s charm. Here, the passage of time usually means that the film will be unlikely to find break-out success ever but instead will be a source of affection for those who find it, accept it for what it is, and celebrate whatever uniqueness they find between the opening and closing credits.
I’d argue that’s been the fate of Ridley Scott’s interesting Legend from 1985: cult status.
While it’s devastating box office underscores how few folks partook of the feature when it was first in theatres, there’s still no denying the film’s footprint, which quite possibly paved the way for the more popular cinematic Fantasies that followed in its wake even one or two decades later. (Here’s looking at you, The Lord Of The Rings.) Though it’s an uneven if not problematic experience – one that quite probably put a crimp in the careers of those involved making it possible – there’s still no denying Legend’s cinematic brilliance, a reality even more pronounced with my seeing it for the first time in after 36 years.
So Legend has and hasn’t aged well, particularly, but that doesn’t make its shortcomings any less pronounced. Warts and all, it deserves to be seen.
(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,’ read on …)
From the product packaging: “In an idyllic, sun-dappled forest, the pure-hearted Jack takes his true love Princess Lil to see a pair of unicorns frolicking at the forest’s edge. Little do they know, however, that the Lord of Darkness has dispatched his minions to capture the unicorns and sever their horns so that he may plunge the world into everlasting night. After Lili and the unicorns are taken prisoner, Jack must team with a group of forest creatures and descend into Darkness’ subterranean lair to face off against the devilish creature before it is too late.”
I’ve always found any discussion surrounding Ridley Scott’s Legend a bit troublesome, mostly because the film has nearly everything in it that I tend to love but somehow the completed version is something I don’t. An otherworldly setting? Check. An impressive cast? Check. A compelling adventure set in the land of mystery, mayhem, and magic? Meh.
Now, let me express right up front that I think much of my woe involving the otherwise memorable film centers around Scott’s choice of Tom Cruise to play the heroic Jack.
Indeed, Cruise is interesting as ‘Jack,’ but because the cut of the U.S. theatrical release was so poorly constructed the resulting story really gave his forest ‘being’ (for lack of a better descriptor) so little motivation. Is he human? Is he … some kind of tree urchin? An imp? A spirit? Well, we never know. (We’re certainly never told.) And in a world populated by non-human beings, that matters.
Yes, Jack felt responsible for Darkness’ rise given that he decided to show the unicorns to Lili – the true guilty culprit here for her daring to touch the untouchable creatures – but there just wasn’t enough dialogue or explanation for this viewer to accept Jack’s life-changing choice. Clearly, he stands for peace and tranquility, not conflict or derring-do, but somehow Jack masterfully develops fighting skills and a warrior’s intellect in the course of what appears to be a single day. (As someone who has shot a bow-and-arrow, let me assure you that it cannot be mastered in a single day.) In his own words, Jack’s never held a weapon in his hand, and yet he learns how to best those who have (sword, shield, bow) in a record amount of time. Unbelievable.
Dare I suggest that Jack might very well be the silver screen’s ultimate Mary Sue?
From the product packaging: “In an idyllic, sun-dappled forest, the pure-hearted Jack takes his true love Princess Lil to see a pair of unicorns frolicking at the forest’s edge. Little do they know, however, that the Lord of Darkness has dispatched his minions to capture the unicorns and sever their horns so that he may plunge the world into everlasting night. After Lili and the unicorns are taken prisoner, Jack must team with a group of forest creatures and descend into Darkness’ subterranean lair to face off against the devilish creature before it is too late.”
I’ve always found any discussion surrounding Ridley Scott’s Legend a bit troublesome, mostly because the film has nearly everything in it that I tend to love but somehow the completed version is something I don’t. An otherworldly setting? Check. An impressive cast? Check. A compelling adventure set in the land of mystery, mayhem, and magic? Meh.
Now, let me express right up front that I think much of my woe involving the otherwise memorable film centers around Scott’s choice of Tom Cruise to play the heroic Jack.
Indeed, Cruise is interesting as ‘Jack,’ but because the cut of the U.S. theatrical release was so poorly constructed the resulting story really gave his forest ‘being’ (for lack of a better descriptor) so little motivation. Is he human? Is he … some kind of tree urchin? An imp? A spirit? Well, we never know. (We’re certainly never told.) And in a world populated by non-human beings, that matters.
Yes, Jack felt responsible for Darkness’ rise given that he decided to show the unicorns to Lili – the true guilty culprit here for her daring to touch the untouchable creatures – but there just wasn’t enough dialogue or explanation for this viewer to accept Jack’s life-changing choice. Clearly, he stands for peace and tranquility, not conflict or derring-do, but somehow Jack masterfully develops fighting skills and a warrior’s intellect in the course of what appears to be a single day. (As someone who has shot a bow-and-arrow, let me assure you that it cannot be mastered in a single day.) In his own words, Jack’s never held a weapon in his hand, and yet he learns how to best those who have (sword, shield, bow) in a record amount of time. Unbelievable.
Dare I suggest that Jack might very well be the silver screen’s ultimate Mary Sue?
If I set aside my reservations about embracing Cruise in such a role, then one might think I’d have more praise for Scott’s singular foray into true fairy tale Fantasy … but yet what remains of Legend still falls equally short of legendary status.
Mia Sara is, well, good in the role of the princess: while she definitely looks the part, it’s hard for me to distinguish exactly what age she’s representing here. Though a first glance might peg her to be in her teens, her dialogue alternates between a sing-song pre-teen and the blissfully unaware child. Certainly, she’s meant to be of an age where she comprehends how influential her feminine wiles make her (we see her repeatedly exploiting them at every turn); but even that perspective kinda/sorta pushes her toward the lower end of that age bracket as opposed to that of a royal youth. Aren’t ‘our betters’ told to respect the power they have over the regular folks in whatever era is represented? Or is all of her naivety really just a character flaw for a young woman transitioning into adulthood, leaving what the audience is left to experience being her maturation process?
If that’s the case, then why are we never assured she’s learned her lesson at the end? Instead, she’s rewarded. With everlasting love.
Sadly, William Hjortsberg never defines much of Lili or any of the other characters in his script. Though each may be given what a viewer could accept as a ‘great scene,’ I’d still argue that these moments should be additive (instead of singular) – building upon one another – in such a way so that the audience sees them blossoming into the heroic battalion celebrated in the film’s final battle. Instead, the moments are largely wasted as either distracting vignettes that serve little development or – even worse – merely comic relief.
As an example, Brown Tom (played by Cork Hubbert) endures a near-death experience when apparently shot in the head (with an arrow). As the scene plays out, he’s clearly down for the count, leaving the villainous forces full access to capturing not only the remaining unicorn as well as the princess. What we learn later is that he wasn’t shot in the head – in fact, he wasn’t wounded in the slightest – yet still chose to play dead while the bad guys did their worst. Never is his pantomime explained or given any greater context other than being entirely self-serving. What did he learn from it? How does this advance the character? And does he seek to redeem himself from taking a siesta while others are captured because of his negligence? Alas … nothing. With no other context given, how are we not to assume he’s an out-and-out coward who’ll abandon the mission if he can save himself?
This lack of development plagues every character here, even the incredible Tim Curry who puts up an undeniably masterful performance as Darkness himself. Clearly, he’s meant to be the embodiment of evil in all of this fantastical world; as such, you would think that Hjortsberg’s script would have the character constantly trying to one-up his own evil machinations. This is true for the most part, but at one point in the story Darkness professes his love for Lili. Instead of explaining how this could be within the realm of possibility for someone as lecherous, Hjortberg and Scott’s film merely lets the moment go to waste and hang in the air like some twisted bitter irony. Love? How can evil truly love anything other than evil? Lili challenges it, certifying it as completely out of character, so why leave it unexplained? Are we meant to make more of it, or does it demonstrate that pure, unrepentant evil isn’t entirely possible? We never know.
Putting a bit more thought into it, perhaps the storytellers here were offering up an allegory on temptation.
Clearly, Jack is tempted by his feelings for Lili so strongly that he not only risks his life to regain her ring (as a contest for marriage) but also to hazard showing her the world’s only remaining magical unicorns, seemingly the very source for balance in this universe. While he never lays out the dangers for doing either, it’s clear that Jack has a minor change of heart once his world is plunged in the dark. Instead of confronting Lili, he’s instead sent on a quest to put things right. Lili is constantly using her innocence to get her way throughout the film; her relationships – if not her entire existence -- are all founded on seduction – either seducing with her looks or seducing with his charm – and is never really forced to pay the price for wielding such a weapon on others. Darkness is tempted by power. The forest creatures – while said to be pure – don’t escape this narrative fray as even Oona wishes to tempt Jack into a relationship, and she’s even willing to trick him by taking on Lili’s appearance. Undoubtedly, there is temptation at every turn!
But, in the end, what are we to make of all this temptation?
Well, I’ve the temptation to point out that very little is learned that’ll served this world the way it should. Jack is rewarded with Lili’s love; Lili is rewarded with Jack’s heart; Oona is forgiven; and Darkness is even deconstructed into a constellation which – by all indications – could return for a sequel (if we’re to believe the film’s final scene). What’s to stop all of this from happening all over again?
That would be the film’s box office take, which remains abysmal.
Mia Sara is, well, good in the role of the princess: while she definitely looks the part, it’s hard for me to distinguish exactly what age she’s representing here. Though a first glance might peg her to be in her teens, her dialogue alternates between a sing-song pre-teen and the blissfully unaware child. Certainly, she’s meant to be of an age where she comprehends how influential her feminine wiles make her (we see her repeatedly exploiting them at every turn); but even that perspective kinda/sorta pushes her toward the lower end of that age bracket as opposed to that of a royal youth. Aren’t ‘our betters’ told to respect the power they have over the regular folks in whatever era is represented? Or is all of her naivety really just a character flaw for a young woman transitioning into adulthood, leaving what the audience is left to experience being her maturation process?
If that’s the case, then why are we never assured she’s learned her lesson at the end? Instead, she’s rewarded. With everlasting love.
Sadly, William Hjortsberg never defines much of Lili or any of the other characters in his script. Though each may be given what a viewer could accept as a ‘great scene,’ I’d still argue that these moments should be additive (instead of singular) – building upon one another – in such a way so that the audience sees them blossoming into the heroic battalion celebrated in the film’s final battle. Instead, the moments are largely wasted as either distracting vignettes that serve little development or – even worse – merely comic relief.
As an example, Brown Tom (played by Cork Hubbert) endures a near-death experience when apparently shot in the head (with an arrow). As the scene plays out, he’s clearly down for the count, leaving the villainous forces full access to capturing not only the remaining unicorn as well as the princess. What we learn later is that he wasn’t shot in the head – in fact, he wasn’t wounded in the slightest – yet still chose to play dead while the bad guys did their worst. Never is his pantomime explained or given any greater context other than being entirely self-serving. What did he learn from it? How does this advance the character? And does he seek to redeem himself from taking a siesta while others are captured because of his negligence? Alas … nothing. With no other context given, how are we not to assume he’s an out-and-out coward who’ll abandon the mission if he can save himself?
This lack of development plagues every character here, even the incredible Tim Curry who puts up an undeniably masterful performance as Darkness himself. Clearly, he’s meant to be the embodiment of evil in all of this fantastical world; as such, you would think that Hjortsberg’s script would have the character constantly trying to one-up his own evil machinations. This is true for the most part, but at one point in the story Darkness professes his love for Lili. Instead of explaining how this could be within the realm of possibility for someone as lecherous, Hjortberg and Scott’s film merely lets the moment go to waste and hang in the air like some twisted bitter irony. Love? How can evil truly love anything other than evil? Lili challenges it, certifying it as completely out of character, so why leave it unexplained? Are we meant to make more of it, or does it demonstrate that pure, unrepentant evil isn’t entirely possible? We never know.
Putting a bit more thought into it, perhaps the storytellers here were offering up an allegory on temptation.
Clearly, Jack is tempted by his feelings for Lili so strongly that he not only risks his life to regain her ring (as a contest for marriage) but also to hazard showing her the world’s only remaining magical unicorns, seemingly the very source for balance in this universe. While he never lays out the dangers for doing either, it’s clear that Jack has a minor change of heart once his world is plunged in the dark. Instead of confronting Lili, he’s instead sent on a quest to put things right. Lili is constantly using her innocence to get her way throughout the film; her relationships – if not her entire existence -- are all founded on seduction – either seducing with her looks or seducing with his charm – and is never really forced to pay the price for wielding such a weapon on others. Darkness is tempted by power. The forest creatures – while said to be pure – don’t escape this narrative fray as even Oona wishes to tempt Jack into a relationship, and she’s even willing to trick him by taking on Lili’s appearance. Undoubtedly, there is temptation at every turn!
But, in the end, what are we to make of all this temptation?
Well, I’ve the temptation to point out that very little is learned that’ll served this world the way it should. Jack is rewarded with Lili’s love; Lili is rewarded with Jack’s heart; Oona is forgiven; and Darkness is even deconstructed into a constellation which – by all indications – could return for a sequel (if we’re to believe the film’s final scene). What’s to stop all of this from happening all over again?
That would be the film’s box office take, which remains abysmal.
Legend (1985) is produced by Legend Production Company and Embassy International Pictures. DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by Arrow Video. As for the technical specifications? These Arrow packages are downright celebratory: very, very few outlets offer up the incredible high-quality package of sights and sounds like they do, and it’s no wonder why they’re pretty much cornered the market with releases meant for fans of the films they distribute. As for the special features? It’s an incredible, incredible assortment of behind-the-scenes features, photos, and commentaries that will no doubt delight anyone who dips his toes into the realm of cinema. (Also, look for more specifics on each individual review I pen for the different cuts available on the release.)
Recommended. Honestly, U.S. theatrical cut of Ridley Scott’s Legend is a travesty when one comes to realize that it’s one of the shortest versions available: harkening back to my experience with it in theatres, I remember being more confused by some of its narrative than is ever a good thing, and all these years later I’d still argue that Tom Cruise just wasn’t right for the role. Is it worth seeing? Oh, without a doubt, as this one was definitely produced near the height of the director’s creativity streak; and I challenge anyone to find as many compelling and artistic visuals from any other director of this era. While the film was a box office failure, it no doubt influenced many, many other storytellers to venture into Fantasy. It’s cult status remains firm to this day. But, if you can, seek out the longer edits for a vastly more coherent encounter.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray copy of Legend (1985) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Recommended. Honestly, U.S. theatrical cut of Ridley Scott’s Legend is a travesty when one comes to realize that it’s one of the shortest versions available: harkening back to my experience with it in theatres, I remember being more confused by some of its narrative than is ever a good thing, and all these years later I’d still argue that Tom Cruise just wasn’t right for the role. Is it worth seeing? Oh, without a doubt, as this one was definitely produced near the height of the director’s creativity streak; and I challenge anyone to find as many compelling and artistic visuals from any other director of this era. While the film was a box office failure, it no doubt influenced many, many other storytellers to venture into Fantasy. It’s cult status remains firm to this day. But, if you can, seek out the longer edits for a vastly more coherent encounter.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray copy of Legend (1985) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
The works of Stephen King have been a curious fascination for Hollywood since the author truly ‘broke through’ commercially in the mid-1970’s. Though I could be wrong, I believe his first novel adapted for television was Salem’s Lot, which followed three years after Carrie (1976) established his unique look on our world could be brought to the silver screen. Since then, it’s been one after the other: some have amped up the Horror and Fantasy while others delivered a bit more dramatic nuance as some of entertainment’s best Thespians joined in to deliver the chills and spills.
Still, you could probably count on one hand the number of adaptations that came out in the 1980’s that were actually effective motion pictures, and I do say this with nothing but respect to all involved in crafting them for the screen. Horror was transitioning in the 80’s: as the industry just began tinkering with the technological advances pushing Science Fiction’s special effects forward, and I dare say some of these early experiences were less-than-spectacular. Frankly, the cost for using these effects was very high in their infancy; and Horror had truly built much of its reputation on being a low-cost-high-return prospect for film investors, so it stands to reason that incorporating more visually credible scares would be met with much skepticism. When practical effects worked, why risk a still-being-proven CGI visual treat that could run over budget? It just made little sense.
And that’s where a flick like Children Of The Corn (1984) enters the mix.
Serving as director Fritz Keirsch’s first big screen film, Children looks like a something springing from a largely untested director. I remember seeing it in theatres, and I remember thinking that it was visually flat with very, very little depth. As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I had seen more than my fair share of cornfields: sometimes these expansive fields of healthy, green stalks could stretch on for miles and miles, making their endless existence an easy target for Horror and Suspense writers. Instead of focusing on their breadth, Children treated corn more like props, with little to no true focus on the dizzying disorientation anyone might experience by simply being dropped in the middle of one with no idea of knowing where to go or how to get out. Trust me when I say it can be intoxicatingly frightening, and that alone is a reality that could’ve better serve the film.
But I digress: this isn’t a review, per se, but one will definitely be forthcoming as the folks at Arrow Video provided me with a screener Blu-ray release for Children Of The Corn that I’ll be happily going through this week. All I wanted to do now was bring my readers aware that the flick is available for purchase this week up on Amazon.com. Fans should pick one up at their convenience. In the meantime, I’ll put the relevant product information below as provided by the folks at Blu-ray.com.
-- EZ
Still, you could probably count on one hand the number of adaptations that came out in the 1980’s that were actually effective motion pictures, and I do say this with nothing but respect to all involved in crafting them for the screen. Horror was transitioning in the 80’s: as the industry just began tinkering with the technological advances pushing Science Fiction’s special effects forward, and I dare say some of these early experiences were less-than-spectacular. Frankly, the cost for using these effects was very high in their infancy; and Horror had truly built much of its reputation on being a low-cost-high-return prospect for film investors, so it stands to reason that incorporating more visually credible scares would be met with much skepticism. When practical effects worked, why risk a still-being-proven CGI visual treat that could run over budget? It just made little sense.
And that’s where a flick like Children Of The Corn (1984) enters the mix.
Serving as director Fritz Keirsch’s first big screen film, Children looks like a something springing from a largely untested director. I remember seeing it in theatres, and I remember thinking that it was visually flat with very, very little depth. As someone who grew up in the Midwest, I had seen more than my fair share of cornfields: sometimes these expansive fields of healthy, green stalks could stretch on for miles and miles, making their endless existence an easy target for Horror and Suspense writers. Instead of focusing on their breadth, Children treated corn more like props, with little to no true focus on the dizzying disorientation anyone might experience by simply being dropped in the middle of one with no idea of knowing where to go or how to get out. Trust me when I say it can be intoxicatingly frightening, and that alone is a reality that could’ve better serve the film.
But I digress: this isn’t a review, per se, but one will definitely be forthcoming as the folks at Arrow Video provided me with a screener Blu-ray release for Children Of The Corn that I’ll be happily going through this week. All I wanted to do now was bring my readers aware that the flick is available for purchase this week up on Amazon.com. Fans should pick one up at their convenience. In the meantime, I’ll put the relevant product information below as provided by the folks at Blu-ray.com.
-- EZ
From the mind of celebrated horror author Stephen King, the man behind such classic terror tales as The Shining, Carrie, and It, comes one of his most chilling offerings yet.
Linda Hamilton (The Terminator) and Peter Horton (Thirtysomething) star as a young couple who find themselves lost on the backroads of Nebraska, eventually winding up in the seemingly deserted town of Gatlin. But the town is far from empty. As the couple soon discover, it is inhabited by a twisted cult of murderous children, thirsty for another blood sacrifice…
Available for the first time ever in Ultra High Definition, Arrow Video is proud to present a brand new 4K restoration of the film that launched one of the most enduring horror franchises of all time. Children of the Corn… they're an adult nightmare!
Special Features and Technical Specs:
Linda Hamilton (The Terminator) and Peter Horton (Thirtysomething) star as a young couple who find themselves lost on the backroads of Nebraska, eventually winding up in the seemingly deserted town of Gatlin. But the town is far from empty. As the couple soon discover, it is inhabited by a twisted cult of murderous children, thirsty for another blood sacrifice…
Available for the first time ever in Ultra High Definition, Arrow Video is proud to present a brand new 4K restoration of the film that launched one of the most enduring horror franchises of all time. Children of the Corn… they're an adult nightmare!
Special Features and Technical Specs:
- Brand new 4K restoration from the original camera negative by Arrow Films
- 4K Blu-ray presentation in Dolby Vision (HDR10 compatible)
- Original lossless stereo and 5.1 Audio Options
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Audio commentary with horror journalist Justin Beahm and Children of the Corn historian John Sullivan
- Audio commentary with director Fritz Kiersch, producer Terrence Kirby and actors John Franklin and Courtney Gains
- Harvesting Horror: The Making of Children of the Corn, retrospective piece featuring interviews with director Fritz Kiersch and actors John Franklin and Courtney Gains
- It Was the Eighties! an interview with actress Linda Hamilton
- Return to Gatlin, featurette revisiting the film's original Iowa shooting locations
- Stephen King on a Shoestring, an interview with producer Donald Borchers
- Welcome to Gatlin: The Sights and Sounds of Children of the Corn, an interview with production designer Craig Stearns and composer Jonathan Elias
- Cut from the Cornfield, an interview with the actor who played "The Blue Man" in the fabled excised sequence
- Theatrical Trailer
- Disciples of the Crow, a 1983 short film adaptation of Stephen King's short story
- Published on
My, my, my ...
Back in 1985, I was one of the brave souls who took in Ridley Scott's curious Legend while it was experiencing its original run at the U.S. box office. Because I'm a diehard lover of most things genre, I do remember the experience ... and I remember finding it a bit uneven. Essentially, what I recall of my issues with it were two-fold: first, it wasn't all that definitive on what it wanted to be (Fantasy, fairy tale, something else); and, second, Tom Cruise just wasn't right for the part. Like Scott's other films, it's loaded with incredible visuals; it just felt like an uneven meal that didn't quite sit the way his other works had to date.
Still, the film built more of a cult following than it did anything else (in my opinion). Boasting an incredible performance by Tim Curry (who's really only in the second half of the flick), Legend barely earned back its $25 million budget (with combined U.S. and global box office), and it pretty much disappeared quickly. While some have suggested the film was an early blow the Tom Cruise's silver screen clout, I'd argue that the actor was really just getting started in his career: 1983's Risky Business pretty much put him on-the-map, but it wasn't until the summer of 1986 when Top Gun had the blossoming talent had an ego writing checks that his body couldn't cash.
I've read that others (in academia and film history) blame the film's dismal showing to its handling at the studio. The U.S. release was rumored to be a crude hatchet job of what Scott intended for his audiences, and perhaps there's some truth to that as may be better understood by consumers as Arrow Video has released just today an incredible, incredible Blu-ray collection. As a member of the media, I've been forwarded a copy (thanks to all involved in making this possible), so I'll be spending much of my free time this week watching and penning some reviews/articles on my observations.
But do you really want to know what's available in this package? I'm copying and pasting the info from the reliable Blu-ray.Com just to make you aware. Enjoy!
-- EZ
Back in 1985, I was one of the brave souls who took in Ridley Scott's curious Legend while it was experiencing its original run at the U.S. box office. Because I'm a diehard lover of most things genre, I do remember the experience ... and I remember finding it a bit uneven. Essentially, what I recall of my issues with it were two-fold: first, it wasn't all that definitive on what it wanted to be (Fantasy, fairy tale, something else); and, second, Tom Cruise just wasn't right for the part. Like Scott's other films, it's loaded with incredible visuals; it just felt like an uneven meal that didn't quite sit the way his other works had to date.
Still, the film built more of a cult following than it did anything else (in my opinion). Boasting an incredible performance by Tim Curry (who's really only in the second half of the flick), Legend barely earned back its $25 million budget (with combined U.S. and global box office), and it pretty much disappeared quickly. While some have suggested the film was an early blow the Tom Cruise's silver screen clout, I'd argue that the actor was really just getting started in his career: 1983's Risky Business pretty much put him on-the-map, but it wasn't until the summer of 1986 when Top Gun had the blossoming talent had an ego writing checks that his body couldn't cash.
I've read that others (in academia and film history) blame the film's dismal showing to its handling at the studio. The U.S. release was rumored to be a crude hatchet job of what Scott intended for his audiences, and perhaps there's some truth to that as may be better understood by consumers as Arrow Video has released just today an incredible, incredible Blu-ray collection. As a member of the media, I've been forwarded a copy (thanks to all involved in making this possible), so I'll be spending much of my free time this week watching and penning some reviews/articles on my observations.
But do you really want to know what's available in this package? I'm copying and pasting the info from the reliable Blu-ray.Com just to make you aware. Enjoy!
-- EZ
After changing the face of science fiction cinema forever with Alien and Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott turned his visionary eye to the fantasy genre, teaming with writer William Hjortsberg (Angel Heart) to create a breathtaking cinematic fairytale with one of the screen's most astonishingly rendered depictions of Evil.
In an idyllic, sun-dappled forest, the pure-hearted Jack (Tom Cruise) takes his true love Princess Lili (Mia Sara) to see a pair of unicorns frolicking at the forest's edge. Little do they know that the Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry, in a remarkable make-up designed by The Thing's Rob Bottin) has dispatched his minions to capture the unicorns and sever their horns so that he may plunge the world into everlasting night. After Lili and the unicorns are taken prisoner, Jack must team with a group of forest creatures and descend into Darkness' subterranean lair to face off against the devilish creature before it is too late.
Despite a troubled production in which the elaborate full-size forest set was accidentally incinerated and a lengthy post-production that resulted in multiple versions of the film (with competing music scores by Jerry Goldsmith and Tangerine Dream), Legend has since been restored to Scott's original cut and embraced by generations of film fans eager to see a master director's unique vision of a world beyond our imagination.
Special Features and Technical Specs:
DISC ONE: US THEATRICAL CUT
In an idyllic, sun-dappled forest, the pure-hearted Jack (Tom Cruise) takes his true love Princess Lili (Mia Sara) to see a pair of unicorns frolicking at the forest's edge. Little do they know that the Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry, in a remarkable make-up designed by The Thing's Rob Bottin) has dispatched his minions to capture the unicorns and sever their horns so that he may plunge the world into everlasting night. After Lili and the unicorns are taken prisoner, Jack must team with a group of forest creatures and descend into Darkness' subterranean lair to face off against the devilish creature before it is too late.
Despite a troubled production in which the elaborate full-size forest set was accidentally incinerated and a lengthy post-production that resulted in multiple versions of the film (with competing music scores by Jerry Goldsmith and Tangerine Dream), Legend has since been restored to Scott's original cut and embraced by generations of film fans eager to see a master director's unique vision of a world beyond our imagination.
Special Features and Technical Specs:
DISC ONE: US THEATRICAL CUT
- New 2K restoration of the US Theatrical Cut from original materials including a 4K scan of the original negative
- New commentary by Paul M. Sammon author of Ridley Scott: The Making of His Movies
- 2002 Reconstructed isolated score by Tangerine Dream
- Isolated music and effects track
- A Fairytale in Pinewood, new featurette interviewing grip David Cadwalladr, costume designer Charles Knode, co-star Annabelle Lanyon, camera operator Peter MacDonald, set decorator Ann Mollo and draftsman John Ralph
- Incarnations of a Legend, comparison featurette written and narrated by critic Travis Crawford
- The Directors: Ridley Scott, 2003 documentary where the director discusses his career, including Legend
- "Is Your Love Strong Enough?" music video by Bryan Ferry
- Commentary by Ridley Scott
- Creating A Myth: Memories of Legend, a 2002 documentary with interviews with Ridley Scott, William Hjortsberg, Mia Sara, Tim Curry, Rob Bottin and others
- Original promotional featurette
- Alternate 'Four Goblins' opening and 'The Fairie Dance' deleted scene
- Storyboard galleries for three deleted scenes
- Two drafts of William Hjortsberg's screenplay
- Alternate footage from the overseas release plus textless footage
- Trailers and TV spots
- Still galleries
- Illustrated perfect-bound book with new writing by Nicholas Clement and Kat Ellinger and archive materials including production notes and a 2002 interview with Charles de Lauzirika about the restoration of the Director's Cut
- Large double-sided poster with newly commissioned artwork by Neil Davies and original theatrical artwork by John Alvin
- Glossy full-color portraits of the cast photographed by Annie Leibovitz
- Six double-sided postcard-sized lobby card reproductions
- Reversible sleeve featuring newly commissioned artwork by Neil Davies and original theatrical artwork by John Alvin
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing on both cuts
- Published on
Oh, dear Lord, say it isn't so?
The dreaded reboot wheel has taken another spin, it would seem, and the news is out from TV Line earlier today that no less than Michael J. Straczynski himself has been commissioned to prepare a full reboot of his own Babylon 5 for The CW.
Ahem.
Hey, look. I bear absolutely no ill will toward Babylon 5 at all. I've mentioned in this space before that it was a show that I just didn't quite 'get' when it aired in its original rotation on the Boob Tube. Once all of it came out on home video, I did try to get through it ... but failed. Since I had the disks, I even gave it a second try about a year later; alas, it just didn't take. In fact, it wasn't until the late Jerry Doyle challenged me (somewhat) via a Twitter post to give it a try for the full run that I finally got through all of it. Though I've never watched the standalone telefilms from that universe, I conceded that what I did enjoy was good, not nearly as great (for me) as those who'd championed its wares online for so long.
I think my central issue with it is that for an obvious Science Fiction show far too much of the dialogue felt like it was pure Fantasy. Many of these characters were given speeches and snippets which sounded like they'd be more at home in the worlds of The Lord Of The Rings or even Game Of Thrones. They spoke far too theatrically for my tastes, so I had some reservations about investing in their separate journeys. Again, sometimes truly liking a show is a matter of personal taste, and while I loved the overall arc of the show I just didn't care as much for the characters as I needed for all of it to resonate.
Now, I'd never argue that the show shouldn't be seen or enjoyed. That's just not my thing. Long-time readers here know that I'm all for more SciFi and Fantasy as opposed to less. Straczynski's plotting was pretty epic, and his definitely had a very gifted cast with which to weave his delicate webs. But, at the end of the day, my single journey through his franchise -- despite it taking a few attempts -- will likely be enough for this lifetime.
Though I'm typically not a fan of full reboots (I do prefer continuations or spin-off incarnations as opposed to simply starting everything all over), I may be more inclined to give this one a look if and when it finally makes it onto television. Clearly, Babylon 5 is a property that a studio could exploit the Hades out of; and I'm glad that this is happening with Straczynski's involvement as opposed to an all-new creative crew. It's his baby; if he wants to give it a fresh spin for a new generation of wokeness, then hats off to him for persevering. He'll definitely have an audience.
I'll keep my eyes peeled for updates, and share 'em if I see any.
-- EZ
The dreaded reboot wheel has taken another spin, it would seem, and the news is out from TV Line earlier today that no less than Michael J. Straczynski himself has been commissioned to prepare a full reboot of his own Babylon 5 for The CW.
Ahem.
Hey, look. I bear absolutely no ill will toward Babylon 5 at all. I've mentioned in this space before that it was a show that I just didn't quite 'get' when it aired in its original rotation on the Boob Tube. Once all of it came out on home video, I did try to get through it ... but failed. Since I had the disks, I even gave it a second try about a year later; alas, it just didn't take. In fact, it wasn't until the late Jerry Doyle challenged me (somewhat) via a Twitter post to give it a try for the full run that I finally got through all of it. Though I've never watched the standalone telefilms from that universe, I conceded that what I did enjoy was good, not nearly as great (for me) as those who'd championed its wares online for so long.
I think my central issue with it is that for an obvious Science Fiction show far too much of the dialogue felt like it was pure Fantasy. Many of these characters were given speeches and snippets which sounded like they'd be more at home in the worlds of The Lord Of The Rings or even Game Of Thrones. They spoke far too theatrically for my tastes, so I had some reservations about investing in their separate journeys. Again, sometimes truly liking a show is a matter of personal taste, and while I loved the overall arc of the show I just didn't care as much for the characters as I needed for all of it to resonate.
Now, I'd never argue that the show shouldn't be seen or enjoyed. That's just not my thing. Long-time readers here know that I'm all for more SciFi and Fantasy as opposed to less. Straczynski's plotting was pretty epic, and his definitely had a very gifted cast with which to weave his delicate webs. But, at the end of the day, my single journey through his franchise -- despite it taking a few attempts -- will likely be enough for this lifetime.
Though I'm typically not a fan of full reboots (I do prefer continuations or spin-off incarnations as opposed to simply starting everything all over), I may be more inclined to give this one a look if and when it finally makes it onto television. Clearly, Babylon 5 is a property that a studio could exploit the Hades out of; and I'm glad that this is happening with Straczynski's involvement as opposed to an all-new creative crew. It's his baby; if he wants to give it a fresh spin for a new generation of wokeness, then hats off to him for persevering. He'll definitely have an audience.
I'll keep my eyes peeled for updates, and share 'em if I see any.
-- EZ