- Published on
press release
A nightmarish futuristic fantasy
about the controlling power of big corporations
and an innocent cop who stumbles on the truth
IT'S THE YEAR 2022... PEOPLE ARE STILL THE SAME. THEY'LL DO ANYTHING TO GET WHAT THEY NEED. AND THEY NEED SOYLENT GREEN.
Across a forty-year career, Richard Fleischer directed classic movies in almost every decade he was working: from the epic swashbuckling of The Vikings, to the psychological chills of 10 Rillington Place... and, of course, Soylent Green: a dystopian science-fiction thriller with a venomous sting in its tail. In a frighteningly prescient world of overpopulation and ecological collapse, resources are scarce. While the elite live in spacious, walled-off communities eating natural food and drinking clean water, the masses live in squalor, collecting water from communal taps and eating highly processed food wafers made by the Soylent Corporation. Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow are a staple, but now there's a tastier and more nutritious option: Soylent Green.
When a member of the Soylent Corporation's board is murdered, Detective Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston, Ben Hur) is called in to investigate. His search for answers will lead to a shocking discovery. The final entry in a trilogy of dystopian sci-fi classics starring Charlton Heston - following Planet of the Apes and The Omega Man - Soylent Green is a devastating vision of humanity on the brink, once seen, never forgotten.
Across a forty-year career, Richard Fleischer directed classic movies in almost every decade he was working: from the epic swashbuckling of The Vikings, to the psychological chills of 10 Rillington Place... and, of course, Soylent Green: a dystopian science-fiction thriller with a venomous sting in its tail. In a frighteningly prescient world of overpopulation and ecological collapse, resources are scarce. While the elite live in spacious, walled-off communities eating natural food and drinking clean water, the masses live in squalor, collecting water from communal taps and eating highly processed food wafers made by the Soylent Corporation. Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow are a staple, but now there's a tastier and more nutritious option: Soylent Green.
When a member of the Soylent Corporation's board is murdered, Detective Robert Thorn (Charlton Heston, Ben Hur) is called in to investigate. His search for answers will lead to a shocking discovery. The final entry in a trilogy of dystopian sci-fi classics starring Charlton Heston - following Planet of the Apes and The Omega Man - Soylent Green is a devastating vision of humanity on the brink, once seen, never forgotten.
Bonus Materials
"The grittiness of early-70s cinema works well for this fatalistic tale."
—Matt Brunson, Film Frenzy
"Where so many science fiction visions of the era have dated, this gritty creation of a depressed (and depressing) future recycling the junk of the past, and where assisted suicide has become simply another social option, looks all the more real."
—Sean Axmaker, Stream on Demand
"Its greatest attribute is not that it accurately anticipated many things about humanity's future. 'Soylent Green' stands the test of time because it does these things while slamming you right where real anxiety festers and brews . . . in your guts."
—Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com
- LIMITED EDITION CONTENTS
- Brand new 4K restoration from the original 35mm camera negative by Arrow Films
- High Definition (1080p) Blu-ray presentation
- Original lossless mono audio
- Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
- Archive audio commentary with director Richard Fleischer and star Leigh Taylor-Young
- Brand new audio commentary with film historian Michael Brooke and author Johnny Mains
- Charlton Heston at the BFI, an archive on-stage interview with the star of Soylent Green
- Richard Fleisher at the BFl, an archive onstage interview with the director of Soylent Green
- A Look at the World of Soylent Green, a vintage featurette
- MGM's Tribute to Edward G. Robinson's 101st Film, a vintage featurette
- Theatrical trailer
- Image galleries
- Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Nathanael Marsh
- Collectors' booklet featuring new writing by Frank Collins and Alexandra Heller-Nicholas
"The grittiness of early-70s cinema works well for this fatalistic tale."
—Matt Brunson, Film Frenzy
"Where so many science fiction visions of the era have dated, this gritty creation of a depressed (and depressing) future recycling the junk of the past, and where assisted suicide has become simply another social option, looks all the more real."
—Sean Axmaker, Stream on Demand
"Its greatest attribute is not that it accurately anticipated many things about humanity's future. 'Soylent Green' stands the test of time because it does these things while slamming you right where real anxiety festers and brews . . . in your guts."
—Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com
- Published on
in memoriam
Ahhh ... there's another name from long ago that forces a quick walk down Memory Lane ...
Back in the days of my youth, I was required to write a termpaper for a kinda/sorta college prep class (they weren't called that so much back then); and the instructor -- a bit of an oddball but good-natured to say the least -- required his students to actually focus our reports on something that was near and dear to us. Being a bit of a film junkie even at the ripe young age, I didn't exactly have a great deal of resources available to me in a small town to research and discuss anything, say, Hollywood-specific; and, yet, I did have a stack of well-read Starlog magazines and also just about any like-minded knockoffs that hit the bookstore shelves. For those of you who've never had the good fortune, Starlog was a genre magazine that did interviews with all the movers and shakers in Science Fiction and Fantasy back then; and I'd already dog-earred a few features about Special Effects that I'd read over and over and over again. So ... my high school college prep termpaper was going to be about the revolution of Special Effects.
Well, arguably, Brian Johnson's name was one of the big ones from the late 1970's and early 1980's that I knew. Fortunately, he was mentioned enough -- alongside John Dykstra for his ground-breaking techniques with the original Star Wars from 1977 and the model-making portfolio of Derek Meddings -- so I had a few individuals I could do a bit more research about in order to flesh out my ideas. Again, it wasn't as if any of us had anything like the Internet back then, readers; so research into something that hadn't been given a great deal of reportage meant that I had to look more into what these pioneers said in interviews in order to even have a foothold with which to begin. But the A grade I ultimately received for my effort was owed to the work of names like that of Brian Johnson, so I'm forever thankful these technicians weren't afraid to speak up when given the chance.
Over the years, I followed his work -- along with so many others -- because even back then it was easy to see that Special Effects weren't so much a new phenomenon as they were something that would always be evolving. As the technology and capabilities grew (and continue to grow), all of us fans really owe a debt of thanks to folks like Brian Johnson. These craftsmen and women were tasked with making the impossible possible; and the flicks they made back then can still stand side-by-side with what's being accomplished today.
Alas, no one gets out alive; and I saw the posting on the Information Superhighway regarding the man's passing.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Brian Johnson.
May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
Back in the days of my youth, I was required to write a termpaper for a kinda/sorta college prep class (they weren't called that so much back then); and the instructor -- a bit of an oddball but good-natured to say the least -- required his students to actually focus our reports on something that was near and dear to us. Being a bit of a film junkie even at the ripe young age, I didn't exactly have a great deal of resources available to me in a small town to research and discuss anything, say, Hollywood-specific; and, yet, I did have a stack of well-read Starlog magazines and also just about any like-minded knockoffs that hit the bookstore shelves. For those of you who've never had the good fortune, Starlog was a genre magazine that did interviews with all the movers and shakers in Science Fiction and Fantasy back then; and I'd already dog-earred a few features about Special Effects that I'd read over and over and over again. So ... my high school college prep termpaper was going to be about the revolution of Special Effects.
Well, arguably, Brian Johnson's name was one of the big ones from the late 1970's and early 1980's that I knew. Fortunately, he was mentioned enough -- alongside John Dykstra for his ground-breaking techniques with the original Star Wars from 1977 and the model-making portfolio of Derek Meddings -- so I had a few individuals I could do a bit more research about in order to flesh out my ideas. Again, it wasn't as if any of us had anything like the Internet back then, readers; so research into something that hadn't been given a great deal of reportage meant that I had to look more into what these pioneers said in interviews in order to even have a foothold with which to begin. But the A grade I ultimately received for my effort was owed to the work of names like that of Brian Johnson, so I'm forever thankful these technicians weren't afraid to speak up when given the chance.
Over the years, I followed his work -- along with so many others -- because even back then it was easy to see that Special Effects weren't so much a new phenomenon as they were something that would always be evolving. As the technology and capabilities grew (and continue to grow), all of us fans really owe a debt of thanks to folks like Brian Johnson. These craftsmen and women were tasked with making the impossible possible; and the flicks they made back then can still stand side-by-side with what's being accomplished today.
Alas, no one gets out alive; and I saw the posting on the Information Superhighway regarding the man's passing.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Brian Johnson.
May he rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a family matriarch falls seriously ill, relatives gather and discover their shared ancestral ties bind them in unexpected ways.”
Succinctly, 2026’s The Voices Of Our Mother is the kind of film that superficially might seem a bit more transcendental than it is.
Written by, directed by, and starring Mark O’Brien, the picture explores the lowest of lows when it comes to family relationships: four siblings – twins William (played by O’Brien) and Therese (Carolina Bartcazk) along with Martin Alex Ozerov-Meyer) and Annika (Georgina Reilly) – are called back home after the death of their grandmother Johanna (Anna Ferguson) leaves their seriously incapacitated mother Harriet (Sheila McCarthy) requiring some assistance. Haunted by the fractured relationship with an abusive father (never seen), the children as adults have all gone their separate ways but now must regroup as a unit to see their mother’s affairs are properly tended to; but their bitter resentments and shared secrets all turn out to be actually owed to the fact that Mommie Dearest was – decades before – infected by some intangible spirit when grandma kinda/sorta welched on an agreement with Satan himself. Now, they’ve no choices but to face their demons (snicker snicker) as mom begins vacillating wildly between dementia, catatonia, and possession.
Where the script earns a bit of praise is that O’Brien not only employs the GirlBoss mentality by presenting the meek little Annika with the opportunity to save life as we know it but also embodies the central baddie in an equally meek but vulnerable elderly woman, Harriet. Though the older woman sometimes speaks in a threatening voice which sounds more masculine than feminine, there’s never any attempt to visual escape the reality: by all appearances, Harriet to too old, too confused, and too frail to manifest the level of threat that McCarthy manages to present here. In rather stereotypical fashion, the males are mostly feckless – the entertainment industry continues to take stands against masculinity of any type, and the trend in Horror pretty much follows suit – but it is … well … kinda cool to see even Father Roslovic (Shawn Doyle) reduced to taking a pull or two on a silver flask to fortify his spiritual courage for what’s likely coming next. Clearing the way for the two timid representatives of the fairer sex makes Voices seem equally feminist and (closeted) chauvinist at the same time; so here’s to levelling the playing field in unexpected ways.
However, the narrative still never quite found what footing it wanted to come down on with issues of faith and family. It’s Father Roslovic who finally puts together enough of the pieces to argue that – ahem – love triumphs faith, meaning only one who truly loved Harriet can put the unmitigated beast back in its proverbial cage. Then, what act is necessary to force the demon back into the shadows of the old woman’s mind? Well, that would be … a prayer. Prayers – for those of you unaware – are intended to be representations of faith. Even Google.com clarifies them as demonstrations of religious observances; but O’Brien’s script rather conveniently omits such claptrap by underscoring, basically, “love is all you need.” Erm … didn’t each of these characters already go on record saying that they couldn’t and wouldn’t love their mother for her unwillingness to defend them against dear old dad? So … how is this inconsistency shored up, exactly?
It isn’t; and it’s this wide-open-space many might see as an inconvenient plot hole needing to be filled with something for Voices to make any narrative sense in the final reel. If all that’s required is the saying of a prayer – but not the spiritual intent and/or meaning – then why must it be said by someone who loved the possessed? Does the prayer symbolize anything other than love? If so, then doesn’t it stand to reason that anyone could’ve recited it, even perhaps someone who was just casually fond of the woman? How can the entity distinguish between the prayer and the love? There’s no explanation – and, mind you, Voices is full to the brim with exposition far too often – so more was needed in order to support this conclusion.
Ultimately, Voices kinda/sorta succumbs to its own central construct: when no one in the ensemble is a hero, then the audience likely won’t attach much value to anything virtuously done to ‘save the day’ nor invest in whether or not anyone survives. When even a nun seems to embrace her own flaws instead of achieving a sanctified life, then what are we – the desperate, sinful, and unanointed – going to show for yourselves when we’re tasked to step up and do right by our fellow man? Crises of faith are certainly no strange thing when it comes to theatrical storytelling – indeed, Hollywood loves it when believers are served tragedies ultimately of their own making – but how are we to resolve these matters of the heart without someone who has lived a life showing us the way forward? It’s all just too damn muddled here, and audiences deserve better.
The Voices Of Our Mother (2026) was produced by Vortex Productions. According to the film’s advance publicity materials, Voices will be streaming on Shudder on June 19th, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are mostly very good: I had some difficulty hearing what was being said during a few of the monstrously-augmented bits, and a few of the special effects sequences in the finale were a bit – ahem – undercooked. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed the film via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
2026’s The Voices Of Our Mother had some strong potential: while many might feel a bit cheated over the way O’Brien’s script squanders an otherwise adept possession story in favor of (instead) a rather dark family melodrama, the end result is that the only elements that truly work thematically and cinematically are the Horror bits. (It really doesn’t get spooky until the midpoint, another indication that not all is at it seems.) Given that this family dynamic is top-heavy with evildoers and the real villainous culprit is rather advanced in age, the storyteller switches to some visual trickery in order to deliver a no-holds-barred finale, all of which is a bit murkily rendered with some rather obvious special effects work. Though I didn’t dislike what was delivered, it nonetheless felt a bit contrived if not downright forgettable because – in somewhat predictable fashion – everyone had to be a ‘bad guy’ until they weren’t.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to The Voices Of Our Mother (2026) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“When a family matriarch falls seriously ill, relatives gather and discover their shared ancestral ties bind them in unexpected ways.”
Succinctly, 2026’s The Voices Of Our Mother is the kind of film that superficially might seem a bit more transcendental than it is.
Written by, directed by, and starring Mark O’Brien, the picture explores the lowest of lows when it comes to family relationships: four siblings – twins William (played by O’Brien) and Therese (Carolina Bartcazk) along with Martin Alex Ozerov-Meyer) and Annika (Georgina Reilly) – are called back home after the death of their grandmother Johanna (Anna Ferguson) leaves their seriously incapacitated mother Harriet (Sheila McCarthy) requiring some assistance. Haunted by the fractured relationship with an abusive father (never seen), the children as adults have all gone their separate ways but now must regroup as a unit to see their mother’s affairs are properly tended to; but their bitter resentments and shared secrets all turn out to be actually owed to the fact that Mommie Dearest was – decades before – infected by some intangible spirit when grandma kinda/sorta welched on an agreement with Satan himself. Now, they’ve no choices but to face their demons (snicker snicker) as mom begins vacillating wildly between dementia, catatonia, and possession.
Where the script earns a bit of praise is that O’Brien not only employs the GirlBoss mentality by presenting the meek little Annika with the opportunity to save life as we know it but also embodies the central baddie in an equally meek but vulnerable elderly woman, Harriet. Though the older woman sometimes speaks in a threatening voice which sounds more masculine than feminine, there’s never any attempt to visual escape the reality: by all appearances, Harriet to too old, too confused, and too frail to manifest the level of threat that McCarthy manages to present here. In rather stereotypical fashion, the males are mostly feckless – the entertainment industry continues to take stands against masculinity of any type, and the trend in Horror pretty much follows suit – but it is … well … kinda cool to see even Father Roslovic (Shawn Doyle) reduced to taking a pull or two on a silver flask to fortify his spiritual courage for what’s likely coming next. Clearing the way for the two timid representatives of the fairer sex makes Voices seem equally feminist and (closeted) chauvinist at the same time; so here’s to levelling the playing field in unexpected ways.
However, the narrative still never quite found what footing it wanted to come down on with issues of faith and family. It’s Father Roslovic who finally puts together enough of the pieces to argue that – ahem – love triumphs faith, meaning only one who truly loved Harriet can put the unmitigated beast back in its proverbial cage. Then, what act is necessary to force the demon back into the shadows of the old woman’s mind? Well, that would be … a prayer. Prayers – for those of you unaware – are intended to be representations of faith. Even Google.com clarifies them as demonstrations of religious observances; but O’Brien’s script rather conveniently omits such claptrap by underscoring, basically, “love is all you need.” Erm … didn’t each of these characters already go on record saying that they couldn’t and wouldn’t love their mother for her unwillingness to defend them against dear old dad? So … how is this inconsistency shored up, exactly?
It isn’t; and it’s this wide-open-space many might see as an inconvenient plot hole needing to be filled with something for Voices to make any narrative sense in the final reel. If all that’s required is the saying of a prayer – but not the spiritual intent and/or meaning – then why must it be said by someone who loved the possessed? Does the prayer symbolize anything other than love? If so, then doesn’t it stand to reason that anyone could’ve recited it, even perhaps someone who was just casually fond of the woman? How can the entity distinguish between the prayer and the love? There’s no explanation – and, mind you, Voices is full to the brim with exposition far too often – so more was needed in order to support this conclusion.
Ultimately, Voices kinda/sorta succumbs to its own central construct: when no one in the ensemble is a hero, then the audience likely won’t attach much value to anything virtuously done to ‘save the day’ nor invest in whether or not anyone survives. When even a nun seems to embrace her own flaws instead of achieving a sanctified life, then what are we – the desperate, sinful, and unanointed – going to show for yourselves when we’re tasked to step up and do right by our fellow man? Crises of faith are certainly no strange thing when it comes to theatrical storytelling – indeed, Hollywood loves it when believers are served tragedies ultimately of their own making – but how are we to resolve these matters of the heart without someone who has lived a life showing us the way forward? It’s all just too damn muddled here, and audiences deserve better.
The Voices Of Our Mother (2026) was produced by Vortex Productions. According to the film’s advance publicity materials, Voices will be streaming on Shudder on June 19th, 2026. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are mostly very good: I had some difficulty hearing what was being said during a few of the monstrously-augmented bits, and a few of the special effects sequences in the finale were a bit – ahem – undercooked. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed the film via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
2026’s The Voices Of Our Mother had some strong potential: while many might feel a bit cheated over the way O’Brien’s script squanders an otherwise adept possession story in favor of (instead) a rather dark family melodrama, the end result is that the only elements that truly work thematically and cinematically are the Horror bits. (It really doesn’t get spooky until the midpoint, another indication that not all is at it seems.) Given that this family dynamic is top-heavy with evildoers and the real villainous culprit is rather advanced in age, the storyteller switches to some visual trickery in order to deliver a no-holds-barred finale, all of which is a bit murkily rendered with some rather obvious special effects work. Though I didn’t dislike what was delivered, it nonetheless felt a bit contrived if not downright forgettable because – in somewhat predictable fashion – everyone had to be a ‘bad guy’ until they weren’t.
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to The Voices Of Our Mother (2026) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
so many movies ... so little time ...
On March 3rd back in 2024 (in the United Kingdom), audiences in attendance of the Romford Horror Festival were treated to the big screen debut of The Slave And The Sorcerer. Written (in part) and directed by Lawrie Brewster, the Fantasy film starred Chris Black, Megan Tremethick, Briony Monroe, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Slave Tyrol leads a quest to rescue Princess Meyra from evil wizard Akaris' fortress. Facing ancient creatures and tests, he must slay a dragon to save the princess and realm from darkness."
For the record:
To the film's credit, The Slave And The Sorcerer earned a bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Slave Tyrol leads a quest to rescue Princess Meyra from evil wizard Akaris' fortress. Facing ancient creatures and tests, he must slay a dragon to save the princess and realm from darkness."
For the record:
To the film's credit, The Slave And The Sorcerer earned a bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
From Google.com:
The Slave and the Sorcerer (2024) is a gory, practical-effects-filled fantasy film directed by Lawrie Brewster. It acts as an intentional throwback to the low-budget, cheesy "sword and sorcery" exploitation films of the 1980s (such as Deathstalker and The Sword and the Sorcerer). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Plot Summary
When the evil wizard Akaris abducts Princess Meyra, the king is forced to recruit a diverse band of heroes to brave a labyrinth of doom and rescue her. The team, along with a muscle-bound slave named Tyrol, must navigate treacherous traps, ancient creatures, and testing puzzles to thwart the sorcerer's dark plans and defeat a dragon. [5, 6, 7]
Key Details
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smFMcDDVzHs
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_CBKEuJ1g
[3] https://www.hexstudios.shop/product-page/the-slave-and-the-sorcerer
[4] https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64473538/
[5] https://www.patreon.com/posts/chapter-1-of-and-118542718
[6] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26245454/
[7] https://filmthreat.com/reviews/the-slave-and-the-sorcerer-fantasy-sword-and-sorcery-review/
[8] https://www.nerdly.co.uk/2024/03/06/horrhiffic-2024-the-slave-and-the-sorcerer-review/
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1hiw5op/the_best_osr_film_ive_ever_seen/
The Slave and the Sorcerer (2024) is a gory, practical-effects-filled fantasy film directed by Lawrie Brewster. It acts as an intentional throwback to the low-budget, cheesy "sword and sorcery" exploitation films of the 1980s (such as Deathstalker and The Sword and the Sorcerer). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Plot Summary
When the evil wizard Akaris abducts Princess Meyra, the king is forced to recruit a diverse band of heroes to brave a labyrinth of doom and rescue her. The team, along with a muscle-bound slave named Tyrol, must navigate treacherous traps, ancient creatures, and testing puzzles to thwart the sorcerer's dark plans and defeat a dragon. [5, 6, 7]
Key Details
- Director: Lawrie Brewster
- Cast: Chris Black (as Tyrol the Slave), Megan Tremethick (as Nemain the sorceress), and Jonathan Hansler (as the evil wizard Akaris).
- Vibe: Highly camp, self-aware, and playful. The movie embraces 80s tropes like bad wigs, baby oil, over-the-top practical gore, and creature suits.
- Reception: It was the Best Fantasy Film winner at the 2024 Romford Horror Festival. Critics describe it as a fun, old-school dungeon-crawler brought to life. [3, 9]
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smFMcDDVzHs
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_CBKEuJ1g
[3] https://www.hexstudios.shop/product-page/the-slave-and-the-sorcerer
[4] https://www.imdb.com/news/ni64473538/
[5] https://www.patreon.com/posts/chapter-1-of-and-118542718
[6] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26245454/
[7] https://filmthreat.com/reviews/the-slave-and-the-sorcerer-fantasy-sword-and-sorcery-review/
[8] https://www.nerdly.co.uk/2024/03/06/horrhiffic-2024-the-slave-and-the-sorcerer-review/
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1hiw5op/the_best_osr_film_ive_ever_seen/
- Published on
site update
so many movies ... so little time ...
On October 25th back in 2013 (in the United Kingdom), audiences in attendance of the Bram Stoker International Film Festival were treated to the theatrical premiere of Lord Of Tears. Directed by Lawrie Brewster from a story by Sarah Daly, the film starred David Schofield, Alexandra Hulme, Euan Douglas, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When a school teacher is plagued by recurring nightmares of a mysterious entity, he travels to his childhood home because he suspects a link to a dark incident in his past."
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When a school teacher is plagued by recurring nightmares of a mysterious entity, he travels to his childhood home because he suspects a link to a dark incident in his past."
-- EZ
From Google.com:
Lord of Tears (also known as The Owlman) is a 2013 Scottish supernatural horror film directed by Lawrie Brewster. It follows a schoolteacher plagued by recurring nightmares of an owl-headed entity who returns to his childhood home in the Scottish Highlands, only to uncover the disturbing truth behind his visions. [1, 2]
Plot Overview
James Findlay (played by Euan Douglas) is haunted by unsettling dreams of a mysterious entity. Following the death of his estranged mother, he inherits her remote family estate in the Highlands, alongside a cryptic warning to never return there. Ignoring this plea, James travels to the isolated manor to piece together fragments of his childhood trauma. There, he begins experiencing terrifying run-ins with a tall, ominous, owl-headed figure (often referred to as the Owl Man) while also striking up a fleeting, romantic relationship with a carefree woman who lives on the property. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]
The Owl Man
A central feature of the film is the Owl Man. Wearing a bird skull and a worn, Victorian-style suit, the entity resembles a classic Celtic pagan deity. The creators intended for the film to establish a new, independent mythological creature, much in the same vein as the urban legend of Slender Man. The practical creature design and unsettling, statue-like presence of the monster earned it a cult following. [2, 4, 5, 7, 8]
Style and Tone
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2367066/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Tears
[3] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_tears
[4] https://warped-perspective.com/2013/10/film-review-lord-of-tears-2013/
[5] https://horrornews.net/79093/film-review-lord-tears-2013/
[6] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/LordOfTears
[7] https://fitzofhorror.com/2018/01/15/lord-of-tears-2013-a-beautifully-haunting-gothic-horror-tale-fitz-of-horror/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Pq9zpwPb8
[9] https://medium.com/@horrormoviemama/lord-of-tears-2013-9fb29d0ccfe5
Lord of Tears (also known as The Owlman) is a 2013 Scottish supernatural horror film directed by Lawrie Brewster. It follows a schoolteacher plagued by recurring nightmares of an owl-headed entity who returns to his childhood home in the Scottish Highlands, only to uncover the disturbing truth behind his visions. [1, 2]
Plot Overview
James Findlay (played by Euan Douglas) is haunted by unsettling dreams of a mysterious entity. Following the death of his estranged mother, he inherits her remote family estate in the Highlands, alongside a cryptic warning to never return there. Ignoring this plea, James travels to the isolated manor to piece together fragments of his childhood trauma. There, he begins experiencing terrifying run-ins with a tall, ominous, owl-headed figure (often referred to as the Owl Man) while also striking up a fleeting, romantic relationship with a carefree woman who lives on the property. [1, 3, 4, 5, 6]
The Owl Man
A central feature of the film is the Owl Man. Wearing a bird skull and a worn, Victorian-style suit, the entity resembles a classic Celtic pagan deity. The creators intended for the film to establish a new, independent mythological creature, much in the same vein as the urban legend of Slender Man. The practical creature design and unsettling, statue-like presence of the monster earned it a cult following. [2, 4, 5, 7, 8]
Style and Tone
- Arthouse & Gothic Horror: The film relies on heavy symbolism, moody atmosphere, and psychological dread rather than traditional jump scares.
- Cinematography: It beautifully captures the misty, desolate landscape of the Scottish moors as a stark contrast to the dark, feverish hallucinations of the protagonist.
- Crowdfunded: Originally financed via a Kickstarter Campaign , the movie is an independent indie feature that makes the most of its limited cast and budget. [2, 5, 7, 9]
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2367066/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Tears
[3] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_tears
[4] https://warped-perspective.com/2013/10/film-review-lord-of-tears-2013/
[5] https://horrornews.net/79093/film-review-lord-tears-2013/
[6] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/LordOfTears
[7] https://fitzofhorror.com/2018/01/15/lord-of-tears-2013-a-beautifully-haunting-gothic-horror-tale-fitz-of-horror/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Pq9zpwPb8
[9] https://medium.com/@horrormoviemama/lord-of-tears-2013-9fb29d0ccfe5
- Published on
in memoriam
Funny story here. Well ... at least I think it's a bit funny.
I tend to 'raz' actors and actresses every now and then not because I'm prone to pick on others but because -- it's been my experience -- that they do live in a bit of a bubble. This isn't to suggest that they're less informed (necessarily) than any of us; but it is meant to clarify that ... well ... there are times they might miss the forest for the trees. Any of us can do this, and I find it refreshing when one of our 'cultural betters' kinda/sorta "misses the boat," if you know what I mean.
A few years back, I had done one of my usual Twitter/X birthday shout-outs to a rather prominent actor who -- interestingly enough -- actually took the time to read both my post as well as what little blurb I'd written about him on SciFiHistory.Net. (Miracles can happen, am I right?) Anyway, I had listed the fellow's expansive resume -- seriously, the guy has been around the block -- and he obviously noted each and every genre citation I listed under his bio. Well ... he actually reached out to me -- in a good-natured swipe -- because I'd listed his appearance in TV's long-running ALF franchise. Apparently, this confused him greatly because his position was that he couldn't -- for the life of him -- understand how a website dedicated to Science Fiction and Fantasy would recognize a guest spot aboard a show like ALF.
Now, this is where it gets a little confusing. We did a few back-and-forth Tweets as I was trying to understand his position. Basically, what it came down to was that it was his opinion that ALF was nothing more than a kid's show featuring a comical puppet. At this point, I stated that ALF was an alien, to which he kinda/sorta pushed back a bit, implying that that wasn't the case, that he was just some Earth creature who lived in a sitcom existence. So ... when I explained that the character's name LITERALLY stood for Alien Life Form -- A.L.F. -- he was a bit flummoxed, apparently not understanding that he had made an appearance on a television program about an alien living amongst us.
I wish I'd brought all of this up under better circumstances; but the truth of the matter is that I saw the news this morning regarding the passing of actress Anne Schedeen, one of the regulars aboard ALF. This lovely lady also enjoyed guest spots aboard such other genre entries as The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Embryo (1976), Exo-Man (1977), Project UFO, and The Incredible Hulk.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Anne Schedeen.
May she rest in peace ...
-- EZ
I tend to 'raz' actors and actresses every now and then not because I'm prone to pick on others but because -- it's been my experience -- that they do live in a bit of a bubble. This isn't to suggest that they're less informed (necessarily) than any of us; but it is meant to clarify that ... well ... there are times they might miss the forest for the trees. Any of us can do this, and I find it refreshing when one of our 'cultural betters' kinda/sorta "misses the boat," if you know what I mean.
A few years back, I had done one of my usual Twitter/X birthday shout-outs to a rather prominent actor who -- interestingly enough -- actually took the time to read both my post as well as what little blurb I'd written about him on SciFiHistory.Net. (Miracles can happen, am I right?) Anyway, I had listed the fellow's expansive resume -- seriously, the guy has been around the block -- and he obviously noted each and every genre citation I listed under his bio. Well ... he actually reached out to me -- in a good-natured swipe -- because I'd listed his appearance in TV's long-running ALF franchise. Apparently, this confused him greatly because his position was that he couldn't -- for the life of him -- understand how a website dedicated to Science Fiction and Fantasy would recognize a guest spot aboard a show like ALF.
Now, this is where it gets a little confusing. We did a few back-and-forth Tweets as I was trying to understand his position. Basically, what it came down to was that it was his opinion that ALF was nothing more than a kid's show featuring a comical puppet. At this point, I stated that ALF was an alien, to which he kinda/sorta pushed back a bit, implying that that wasn't the case, that he was just some Earth creature who lived in a sitcom existence. So ... when I explained that the character's name LITERALLY stood for Alien Life Form -- A.L.F. -- he was a bit flummoxed, apparently not understanding that he had made an appearance on a television program about an alien living amongst us.
I wish I'd brought all of this up under better circumstances; but the truth of the matter is that I saw the news this morning regarding the passing of actress Anne Schedeen, one of the regulars aboard ALF. This lovely lady also enjoyed guest spots aboard such other genre entries as The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Embryo (1976), Exo-Man (1977), Project UFO, and The Incredible Hulk.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Anne Schedeen.
May she rest in peace ...
-- EZ
- Published on
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“At the behest of Mexican revolutionaries, a mercenary enlists an acrobat, a strongman, a dynamiter and a swordsman to help him rob an army train carrying $500,000 in gold.”
Now, with that kind of synopsis, one might go into The 5-Man Army expecting a bit more of these characters, am I right?
Hear me out.
Essentially, the premise gives away the Golden Goose here by making it perfectly clear that – instead of a conventional Western – audiences are promised something a bit extra. You don’t draw together a small band of ‘specialists’ of this type without having some very, very, very specific requirements for their particular sets of skills; and that’s where you’d be disappointed with the outcome. Although one could easily see the need for a strongman in any conceivable plot and perhaps even a dynamiter, how specifically are an acrobat and a Samurai swordsman going to figure into the whole affair?
This is where Army fails to muster anything special. Naturally, the strongman – Mesito (played Bud Spencer) – and the munitions fellow – Augustus (James Daly) – do have shoes to fill in the resulting caper; but they’re still rather pale by comparison to the promise of the premise. What the mastermind Dutchman (Peter Graves) assembles as his crack special ops team resembles just about anything else that’s come down in like-minded cinema, leaving not much room for Luis (Nino Castelnuovo) and Samurai (Tetsurō Tanba) for add much flavor to the action. Furthermore, the fact that the actual caper itself never really shows until after the midpoint and at the start of the second act, there’s never any real doubt that the plan will come together even though most of the elements were never quite spelled out clearly enough for audiences to anticipate what was coming.
Now, an argument could be made that concealing some of the Dutchman’s game plan was a necessity, the kind which is crafted to keep audiences glued to their screens with what’s happening in real time. While that’s true, directors Don Taylor and Italo Zingarelli – Zingarelli being attached mostly for funding and tax issues, from what I’ve read – don’t stage the high stakes with any sense of urgency with the sole exception of sequence involving the Samurai falling off and needing to get back aboard the train. However, that vignette is laughable largely because it’s not handled with any measure of believability: the swordsman gets back on only since the heist required five men, not because screenwriters Marc Richards and Dario Argento found any compelling much less original means to make it happen.
As for the cast?
Well, Graves is largely wasted in a role that could’ve cast anyone as the lead. Spencer attacks with great aplomb just about every scene he’s in, suitably demonstrating that he’s a soul with a healthy appetite for life. Castelnuovo plays the upstart convincingly, but it might’ve been nice to give the character a bit more backstory than just being an acrobat. As the munitions man, Daly really is the one teammate whose involvement seems critical; and the actor capably delivers with what little gravitas a rather flat script requires. Tanba – as the mysterious man from the East – also could’ve been elevated with some more interesting background: while his skills with a blade are theatrically cool, there’s more to be said for the way the only true outsider in all of this might’ve encountered some discrimination and how he might’ve overcome it.
Sigh.
Let’s just accept that characterization – or any character development – was also firmly locked away as was the half-million in gold. Come the big finish, a late-breaking twist with the Dutchman’s motivations becoming suspect really goes nowhere: though it leaves room for a bit of tension – along with modest action when the enemy soldiers finally reach the gang’s hideout – everyone inevitably joins hands with the rebels in the closing moments. Were these hired hands really going to accept nothing in exchange for putting their lives at risk? I’m young enough to remember when authentic Spaghetti Westerns were a bit more diabolical than what gets rendered here.
On the plus side, however, I’ll have to concede that it looks very much like the principal actors did a great deal of their own stunt work on the seminal train ride of the second half. A great deal of the cinematography was accomplished with faces shown, and – from what I could tell – these men were made of different stuff, hanging and crawling and running across and from moving train cars much of the time. Granted, not a great deal of it looked all that treacherous; and yet the fact that it was all captured with modest stunt intervention always speaks volumes with this reviewer. While I’m sure no one was ever at risk, there’s still a shot or two which suggests they were ready to roll when Taylor called for action.
The 5-Man Army (1969) was produced by Tiger Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the Warner Archive Collection. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are quite good throughout: if anything, some of the cinematography could’ve been improved by making some of this less than squeaky-clean. It lacks so much grain and character that I wondered at one point if it was a television production, meaning that it never feels gritty the way so many other Westerns of the era do. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, the best they could muster was the theatrical trailer.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
In all honestly, I was chiefly drawn to The 5-Man Army (1969) owed to Argento’s association to it (as screenwriter); and – on that front – I’ll admit to some disappointment. While I certainly didn’t expect the level of colorful violence the auteur eventually became known for, I was still a bit curious what breadcrumbs might’ve been dropped along the way, signaling the voice that would eventually emerge on the big screen. Sadly, there really was nothing of any substance, and Army is more of a kinda/sorta heist flick than it is an authentic Western. While I’ve read some suggesting that it’s a solid Spaghetti Western, I’d only agree that it fits the mold conventionally but still fails to offer up anything deserving of praise or memory.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The 5-Man Army (1969) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“At the behest of Mexican revolutionaries, a mercenary enlists an acrobat, a strongman, a dynamiter and a swordsman to help him rob an army train carrying $500,000 in gold.”
Now, with that kind of synopsis, one might go into The 5-Man Army expecting a bit more of these characters, am I right?
Hear me out.
Essentially, the premise gives away the Golden Goose here by making it perfectly clear that – instead of a conventional Western – audiences are promised something a bit extra. You don’t draw together a small band of ‘specialists’ of this type without having some very, very, very specific requirements for their particular sets of skills; and that’s where you’d be disappointed with the outcome. Although one could easily see the need for a strongman in any conceivable plot and perhaps even a dynamiter, how specifically are an acrobat and a Samurai swordsman going to figure into the whole affair?
This is where Army fails to muster anything special. Naturally, the strongman – Mesito (played Bud Spencer) – and the munitions fellow – Augustus (James Daly) – do have shoes to fill in the resulting caper; but they’re still rather pale by comparison to the promise of the premise. What the mastermind Dutchman (Peter Graves) assembles as his crack special ops team resembles just about anything else that’s come down in like-minded cinema, leaving not much room for Luis (Nino Castelnuovo) and Samurai (Tetsurō Tanba) for add much flavor to the action. Furthermore, the fact that the actual caper itself never really shows until after the midpoint and at the start of the second act, there’s never any real doubt that the plan will come together even though most of the elements were never quite spelled out clearly enough for audiences to anticipate what was coming.
Now, an argument could be made that concealing some of the Dutchman’s game plan was a necessity, the kind which is crafted to keep audiences glued to their screens with what’s happening in real time. While that’s true, directors Don Taylor and Italo Zingarelli – Zingarelli being attached mostly for funding and tax issues, from what I’ve read – don’t stage the high stakes with any sense of urgency with the sole exception of sequence involving the Samurai falling off and needing to get back aboard the train. However, that vignette is laughable largely because it’s not handled with any measure of believability: the swordsman gets back on only since the heist required five men, not because screenwriters Marc Richards and Dario Argento found any compelling much less original means to make it happen.
As for the cast?
Well, Graves is largely wasted in a role that could’ve cast anyone as the lead. Spencer attacks with great aplomb just about every scene he’s in, suitably demonstrating that he’s a soul with a healthy appetite for life. Castelnuovo plays the upstart convincingly, but it might’ve been nice to give the character a bit more backstory than just being an acrobat. As the munitions man, Daly really is the one teammate whose involvement seems critical; and the actor capably delivers with what little gravitas a rather flat script requires. Tanba – as the mysterious man from the East – also could’ve been elevated with some more interesting background: while his skills with a blade are theatrically cool, there’s more to be said for the way the only true outsider in all of this might’ve encountered some discrimination and how he might’ve overcome it.
Sigh.
Let’s just accept that characterization – or any character development – was also firmly locked away as was the half-million in gold. Come the big finish, a late-breaking twist with the Dutchman’s motivations becoming suspect really goes nowhere: though it leaves room for a bit of tension – along with modest action when the enemy soldiers finally reach the gang’s hideout – everyone inevitably joins hands with the rebels in the closing moments. Were these hired hands really going to accept nothing in exchange for putting their lives at risk? I’m young enough to remember when authentic Spaghetti Westerns were a bit more diabolical than what gets rendered here.
On the plus side, however, I’ll have to concede that it looks very much like the principal actors did a great deal of their own stunt work on the seminal train ride of the second half. A great deal of the cinematography was accomplished with faces shown, and – from what I could tell – these men were made of different stuff, hanging and crawling and running across and from moving train cars much of the time. Granted, not a great deal of it looked all that treacherous; and yet the fact that it was all captured with modest stunt intervention always speaks volumes with this reviewer. While I’m sure no one was ever at risk, there’s still a shot or two which suggests they were ready to roll when Taylor called for action.
The 5-Man Army (1969) was produced by Tiger Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the Warner Archive Collection. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are quite good throughout: if anything, some of the cinematography could’ve been improved by making some of this less than squeaky-clean. It lacks so much grain and character that I wondered at one point if it was a television production, meaning that it never feels gritty the way so many other Westerns of the era do. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, the best they could muster was the theatrical trailer.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
In all honestly, I was chiefly drawn to The 5-Man Army (1969) owed to Argento’s association to it (as screenwriter); and – on that front – I’ll admit to some disappointment. While I certainly didn’t expect the level of colorful violence the auteur eventually became known for, I was still a bit curious what breadcrumbs might’ve been dropped along the way, signaling the voice that would eventually emerge on the big screen. Sadly, there really was nothing of any substance, and Army is more of a kinda/sorta heist flick than it is an authentic Western. While I’ve read some suggesting that it’s a solid Spaghetti Western, I’d only agree that it fits the mold conventionally but still fails to offer up anything deserving of praise or memory.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive (via Allied Vaughn) provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The 5-Man Army (1969) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
so many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 2023 (in the U.S.), Suitable Flesh enjoyed its big screen premiere when it was first screened for audiences of the Tribeca Film Festival. Directed by Joe Lynch and based on a story from H.P. Lovecraft, the film starrerd Heather Graham, Judah Lewis, Bruce Davison, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A psychiatrist becomes obsessed with one of her young patients, who she later discovers is linked to an ancient curse."
For the record:
At the 2024 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, Suitable Flesh received a nomination in the category of 'Best Limited Release Film.'
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A psychiatrist becomes obsessed with one of her young patients, who she later discovers is linked to an ancient curse."
For the record:
At the 2024 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, Suitable Flesh received a nomination in the category of 'Best Limited Release Film.'
-- EZ
From Google.com:
Suitable Flesh is a 2023 horror, body-horror, and psychological thriller film directed by Joe Lynch. It follows an esteemed psychiatrist who becomes dangerously obsessed with a young patient with a personality disorder, ultimately dragging her into a nightmarish maelstrom of an ancient curse and body-swapping. [1, 2]
Key Details
Cast
Plot Summary
Dr. Elizabeth Derby, a once-respected psychiatrist, becomes deeply entangled with a young patient named Asa Waite. Asa claims his body is being targeted and occasionally overtaken by a dark, supernatural force. As Elizabeth investigates, she falls victim to a dangerous game involving body-switching, manipulation, and the occult. She soon finds her own life, sanity, and physical form in horrific jeopardy. [2, 5, 7, 8, 9]
Reception & Vibe
The film is known for being an unapologetically erotic, "sex-positive," and gruesome throwback to the B-movies and psychological thrillers of the 80s and 90s. Reviews are generally mixed to positive. Critics and audiences often praise the film for being a wild, fun, and kinky thrill ride with excellent make-up effects and unhinged performances. However, some viewers note that it leans much more into a softcore erotic thriller than traditional Lovecraftian cosmic horror. [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Where to Watch
You can stream or rent Suitable Flesh across various digital platforms, including Amazon Prime Video and Shudder . [10, 12]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21397580/
[2] https://pophorror.com/joe-lynchs-suitable-flesh-2023-a-psychological-thrillers-descent-into-ambiguity-movie-review/
[3] https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/Suitable_Flesh
[4] https://horror.fandom.com/wiki/Suitable_Flesh
[5] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/suitable_flesh
[6] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/suitable-flesh-movie-review-2023
[7] https://www.amazon.com/Suitable-Flesh-Heather-Graham/dp/B0CLHFK27N
[8] https://filmstories.co.uk/reviews/suitable-flesh-review-joe-lynchs-horror-is-2023s-horniest-movie/
[9] https://neverthinkimpossible.com/2024/01/15/movie-review-suitable-flesh-2023/
[10] https://www.facebook.com/groups/119441938068660/posts/24933345542918289/
[11] https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/1afizss/suitable_flesh_2023_is_hardly_comparable_to_from/
[12] https://www.roku.com/whats-on/movies/suitable-flesh?id=952d8b9577e95ec696a4420d8b0cc167
Suitable Flesh is a 2023 horror, body-horror, and psychological thriller film directed by Joe Lynch. It follows an esteemed psychiatrist who becomes dangerously obsessed with a young patient with a personality disorder, ultimately dragging her into a nightmarish maelstrom of an ancient curse and body-swapping. [1, 2]
Key Details
- Director: Joe Lynch
- Writer: Dennis Paoli
- Source Material: Loosely based on the 1937 H.P. Lovecraft short story "The Thing on the Doorstep"
- Run Time: 1 hour and 40 minutes [1, 3, 4]
Cast
- Heather Graham as Dr. Elizabeth Derby
- Judah Lewis as Asa Waite
- Bruce Davison as Ephraim Waite
- Barbara Crampton as Dr. Daniella Upton (who also produced) [5, 6]
Plot Summary
Dr. Elizabeth Derby, a once-respected psychiatrist, becomes deeply entangled with a young patient named Asa Waite. Asa claims his body is being targeted and occasionally overtaken by a dark, supernatural force. As Elizabeth investigates, she falls victim to a dangerous game involving body-switching, manipulation, and the occult. She soon finds her own life, sanity, and physical form in horrific jeopardy. [2, 5, 7, 8, 9]
Reception & Vibe
The film is known for being an unapologetically erotic, "sex-positive," and gruesome throwback to the B-movies and psychological thrillers of the 80s and 90s. Reviews are generally mixed to positive. Critics and audiences often praise the film for being a wild, fun, and kinky thrill ride with excellent make-up effects and unhinged performances. However, some viewers note that it leans much more into a softcore erotic thriller than traditional Lovecraftian cosmic horror. [7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
Where to Watch
You can stream or rent Suitable Flesh across various digital platforms, including Amazon Prime Video and Shudder . [10, 12]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt21397580/
[2] https://pophorror.com/joe-lynchs-suitable-flesh-2023-a-psychological-thrillers-descent-into-ambiguity-movie-review/
[3] https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/Suitable_Flesh
[4] https://horror.fandom.com/wiki/Suitable_Flesh
[5] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/suitable_flesh
[6] https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/suitable-flesh-movie-review-2023
[7] https://www.amazon.com/Suitable-Flesh-Heather-Graham/dp/B0CLHFK27N
[8] https://filmstories.co.uk/reviews/suitable-flesh-review-joe-lynchs-horror-is-2023s-horniest-movie/
[9] https://neverthinkimpossible.com/2024/01/15/movie-review-suitable-flesh-2023/
[10] https://www.facebook.com/groups/119441938068660/posts/24933345542918289/
[11] https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/1afizss/suitable_flesh_2023_is_hardly_comparable_to_from/
[12] https://www.roku.com/whats-on/movies/suitable-flesh?id=952d8b9577e95ec696a4420d8b0cc167
- Published on
site update
so many movies ... so much to celebrate!!!
On this day in 2023 (in Australia), audiences in attendance of the Sydney Film Festival were treated to the theatrical premiere of Birdeater. Written and directed by the team of Jack Clark and Jim Weir, the film starred Mackenzie Fearnley, Shabana Azeez, Ben Hunter, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A bride-to-be is invited to her fiancé's bachelor party, but when uncomfortable details of their relationship are exposed, the night takes a feral turn."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Birdeater earned a bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A bride-to-be is invited to her fiancé's bachelor party, but when uncomfortable details of their relationship are exposed, the night takes a feral turn."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Birdeater earned a bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
From Google.com:
Birdeater (2023) is a dark, Australian psychological thriller and drama film directed and written by Jack Clark and Jim Weir. The film explores the complexities of modern intimate relationships and toxic masculinity through a rural, co-ed bachelor party (or "bucks party") that spirals into a hallucinatory, feral nightmare. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Plot Overview
Louie (Mackenzie Fearnley) is a groom-to-be planning his bachelor party in the remote Australian bush. Because his fiancée Irene (Shabana Azeez) suffers from crippling separation anxiety, Louie makes an unusual compromise and invites her to tag along. Accompanied by one of Louie's friends and another couple (Charlie and Grace), the group gathers at an isolated cabin. What starts as a weekend of drinking and catching up takes a chaotic, drug-fueled turn as home truths, emotional manipulation, and serious flaws in Louie and Irene's relationship are violently exposed. [2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8]
Key Themes & Style
Cast & Crew
Reception
Birdeater holds a positive critical reception, sitting at around a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics have praised its tension-building, stellar acting, and bold stylistic choices, with several outlets calling it a striking, uncompromising debut. However, it is an intentionally uncomfortable "sit," and some viewers have noted that its pacing drags in the middle and the narrative remains somewhat intentionally ambiguous. [2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Availability
The film premiered at the 2023 Sydney Film Festival (where it won the Audience Award), followed by an international run at SXSW and an official wide release. You can check out where it is available to stream or buy on platforms like IMDb or Letterboxd. [2, 4, 15, 17]
[1] https://letterboxd.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org
[3] https://notanotherfilmblog1.substack.com
[4] https://www.heavenofhorror.com
[5] https://collider.com
[6] https://www.imdb.com
[7] https://filmint.nu
[8] https://warped-perspective.com
[9] https://www.thecurb.com.au
[10] https://fillums.com.au
[11] https://projectedfigures.com
[12] https://thedarksidemagazine.com
[13] https://screenrant.com
[14] https://www.reddit.com
[15] https://letterboxd.com
[16] https://fictionmachine.com
[17] https://www.imdb.com
Birdeater (2023) is a dark, Australian psychological thriller and drama film directed and written by Jack Clark and Jim Weir. The film explores the complexities of modern intimate relationships and toxic masculinity through a rural, co-ed bachelor party (or "bucks party") that spirals into a hallucinatory, feral nightmare. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Plot Overview
Louie (Mackenzie Fearnley) is a groom-to-be planning his bachelor party in the remote Australian bush. Because his fiancée Irene (Shabana Azeez) suffers from crippling separation anxiety, Louie makes an unusual compromise and invites her to tag along. Accompanied by one of Louie's friends and another couple (Charlie and Grace), the group gathers at an isolated cabin. What starts as a weekend of drinking and catching up takes a chaotic, drug-fueled turn as home truths, emotional manipulation, and serious flaws in Louie and Irene's relationship are violently exposed. [2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8]
Key Themes & Style
- Exploration of Masculinity: The film is primarily a subversion of "boys will be boys" tropes, stripping away the benign facades of the "good guys" to reveal deep-seated, often insidious, manipulation and misogyny. [5, 9]
- Lynchian & Hallucinatory: Reviewers frequently compare the film to the Australian classic Wake in Fright and Gaspar Noé’s Climax. As the night progresses, the film uses disorienting editing, surrealism, and drug-induced altered states to blur the lines between reality and nightmare. [2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13]
Cast & Crew
- Directors / Writers: Jack Clark and Jim Weir (making their debut feature)
- Louie: Mackenzie Fearnley
- Irene: Shabana Azeez
- Dylan: Ben Hunter (notable for playing a particularly wild and complex friend)
- Charlie / Grace: Jack Bannister and Clementine Anderson [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13]
Reception
Birdeater holds a positive critical reception, sitting at around a 74% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics have praised its tension-building, stellar acting, and bold stylistic choices, with several outlets calling it a striking, uncompromising debut. However, it is an intentionally uncomfortable "sit," and some viewers have noted that its pacing drags in the middle and the narrative remains somewhat intentionally ambiguous. [2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16]
Availability
The film premiered at the 2023 Sydney Film Festival (where it won the Audience Award), followed by an international run at SXSW and an official wide release. You can check out where it is available to stream or buy on platforms like IMDb or Letterboxd. [2, 4, 15, 17]
[1] https://letterboxd.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org
[3] https://notanotherfilmblog1.substack.com
[4] https://www.heavenofhorror.com
[5] https://collider.com
[6] https://www.imdb.com
[7] https://filmint.nu
[8] https://warped-perspective.com
[9] https://www.thecurb.com.au
[10] https://fillums.com.au
[11] https://projectedfigures.com
[12] https://thedarksidemagazine.com
[13] https://screenrant.com
[14] https://www.reddit.com
[15] https://letterboxd.com
[16] https://fictionmachine.com
[17] https://www.imdb.com
- Published on
Well, well, well ...
If you're a bit of a Science Fiction and Fantasy pundit -- much like I consider myself to be -- then you've no doubt not only heard the news of Doctor Who's cancellation but also been inundated with folks asking what you think of it. At least, that's what I'm dealing with this morning, as I've received several email requests wondering what my opinion of this breaking news is; and rather than spend an inordinate amount of time writing several responses and/or copying and pasting them for inquiring minds let me put up a few quick thoughts in this space.
For the record: it is my understanding that Doctor Who has not, in fact, been cancelled.
Now, I'm reading the same thing each and every one of you are; and I do understand that perhaps this announcement has rather quickly morphed into that rumor game of long ago. Person A starts a rumor, Person B picks it up, Person C changes it a bit for posterity, Person D wants his/her own spin on it, Person E couldn't care less so he/she alters the context a bit to make it a bit more salacious, etc., etc., etc. This tends to be the norm as it applies to 'news scoops,' and it's easy to see how what was released in the press has found legs elsewhere, albeit in slightly different shape.
So far as I've been able to ascertain, it's only the customary Doctor Who holiday special that's been cancelled. That's all. Well ... that and the fact that showrunner Russell T. Davies and the production company Bad Wolf have parted ways. That is what I believe has been stated as fact; and -- being humans -- I understand perfectly well that each of us is entitled to read into that what we may. Such is life; and I firmly believe that's what's taking place across the Information Superhighway this morning.
Of course, one can go about making any number of assumptions based on the reportage. Yes, perhaps the BBC was unhappy with the show's ratings; but knowing what little I know of that august organization I suspect they had no qualms with the stories -- or what served as stories -- through the Jodie Whittaker and Ncuti Gatwa tenures were like. Nor do I think that the BBC had any problem with RTD's and Gatwa's kinda/sorta mean-spirited attacks on the show's critics many of us were forced to watch unfold. Think what you may, but -- ahem -- spitting in the eye of someone who was simply trying to offer up some honest, reflective, and constructive commentary is never a good look; but -- the web being what it is -- context rarely matters when stars and creators are more attached to perception than they are reality.
Ultimately, none of this truly matters in the scheme of things.
Throughout entertainment history, shows -- including Doctor Who -- have experienced creative, commercial, and cultural highs and lows. Frankly, there's ample room for some truly investigative analysis on how societal changes across franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Doctor Who may have impacted the show (and/or vice versa); and I applaud any genius who's willing to put in the time and effort to offer up such a work. Many of us enjoy examining entertainment -- indeed, just look at what a cottage industry YouTube.com has become with pop culture experts doing what they do with each subsequent entry; and this will likely be the case for decades if not centuries ahead. Opinions differ as much as they matter, and who among us doesn't like sounding off on the latest craze? We're human, and it shows. As we change, so does our programming.
Still, there are fundamental reasons that we're drawn over and over and over again to a few select properties, like the aforementioned Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor Who. As much as it might be familiarity or nostalgia, I've often argued that these three enterprises -- unlike many others -- haven't had to seriously invest greatly in the long-form storytelling so many franchises embrace these days. Yes, there may be core mythology elements to each; but the point is the vast, vast, vast majority of these IPs remain centered on stand-alone stories. These individual tales often are tied closely to some central moral -- something code of conduct we likely support but rarely talk about -- and it's the journey to see that moral properly elucidated that makes the destination worthwhile. Granted -- as I've said -- this isn't always the case -- and, yet, here these projects are -- decades into their respective lives -- and that same narrative formula remains part of their cores.
This is why I've always often stated that there will always be a market for good stories but not necessarily good storytelling. Good stories bring us together: good storytelling is the technique by which these stories are told. We can like the storytelling elements -- the performances, the direction, the effects, the sets, etc. -- even if the story itself winds up being uninspired or derivative. But we'll always return to good stories. Always. Personally, I think we're living at a time wherein many who are telling these stories have confused the two -- stories and storytelling -- and that's been a huge, huge, huge detriment to the entertainment industry. You can have one without the other; but you can't have good stories without good stories.
It's easy to conclude that Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and Doctor Who are now reaping the sad benefits of investing in storytelling as opposed to good stories. You can't blow through, say, $100 million that allegedly the Walt Disney Company invested in Doctor Who and only find cause to celebrate the storytelling. When the stories don't resonate with viewers -- when they don't bring us back again and again and again -- then there will be little return on that investment. Essentially, that's what's been learned in this process -- one big damn expensive lesson -- while you and I could've told them this going in.
This isn't superhero fatigue. This isn't one of the unintended consequences of COVID still hindering a studio's ability to give audiences what they want. This isn't even a rejection of Hollywood's cursed insistence on "fixing everything in post" with endless CGI-laden sequences that mean little to nothing to the casual watcher. Spectacles will always be spectacles ... even if no one shows up to watch them. (Hello, The Mandalorian And Grogu!) When what's missing is a good story, it's been my experience that watchers can smell that stink a mile away; and they've grown smart by learning what to avoid. Doctor Who has just jumped into that well along with a growing number of IPs which may or may not recover.
Regardless, Doctor Who is far from dead. It has the same potential it had -- if not more -- when it was created back in the early 60's. What it needs is for someone who both understands what that is and demonstrates an innate ability to spin good yarns -- to craft good stories -- for audiences hungry to celebrate them once more.
-- EZ
If you're a bit of a Science Fiction and Fantasy pundit -- much like I consider myself to be -- then you've no doubt not only heard the news of Doctor Who's cancellation but also been inundated with folks asking what you think of it. At least, that's what I'm dealing with this morning, as I've received several email requests wondering what my opinion of this breaking news is; and rather than spend an inordinate amount of time writing several responses and/or copying and pasting them for inquiring minds let me put up a few quick thoughts in this space.
For the record: it is my understanding that Doctor Who has not, in fact, been cancelled.
Now, I'm reading the same thing each and every one of you are; and I do understand that perhaps this announcement has rather quickly morphed into that rumor game of long ago. Person A starts a rumor, Person B picks it up, Person C changes it a bit for posterity, Person D wants his/her own spin on it, Person E couldn't care less so he/she alters the context a bit to make it a bit more salacious, etc., etc., etc. This tends to be the norm as it applies to 'news scoops,' and it's easy to see how what was released in the press has found legs elsewhere, albeit in slightly different shape.
So far as I've been able to ascertain, it's only the customary Doctor Who holiday special that's been cancelled. That's all. Well ... that and the fact that showrunner Russell T. Davies and the production company Bad Wolf have parted ways. That is what I believe has been stated as fact; and -- being humans -- I understand perfectly well that each of us is entitled to read into that what we may. Such is life; and I firmly believe that's what's taking place across the Information Superhighway this morning.
Of course, one can go about making any number of assumptions based on the reportage. Yes, perhaps the BBC was unhappy with the show's ratings; but knowing what little I know of that august organization I suspect they had no qualms with the stories -- or what served as stories -- through the Jodie Whittaker and Ncuti Gatwa tenures were like. Nor do I think that the BBC had any problem with RTD's and Gatwa's kinda/sorta mean-spirited attacks on the show's critics many of us were forced to watch unfold. Think what you may, but -- ahem -- spitting in the eye of someone who was simply trying to offer up some honest, reflective, and constructive commentary is never a good look; but -- the web being what it is -- context rarely matters when stars and creators are more attached to perception than they are reality.
Ultimately, none of this truly matters in the scheme of things.
Throughout entertainment history, shows -- including Doctor Who -- have experienced creative, commercial, and cultural highs and lows. Frankly, there's ample room for some truly investigative analysis on how societal changes across franchises like Star Trek, Star Wars, and Doctor Who may have impacted the show (and/or vice versa); and I applaud any genius who's willing to put in the time and effort to offer up such a work. Many of us enjoy examining entertainment -- indeed, just look at what a cottage industry YouTube.com has become with pop culture experts doing what they do with each subsequent entry; and this will likely be the case for decades if not centuries ahead. Opinions differ as much as they matter, and who among us doesn't like sounding off on the latest craze? We're human, and it shows. As we change, so does our programming.
Still, there are fundamental reasons that we're drawn over and over and over again to a few select properties, like the aforementioned Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor Who. As much as it might be familiarity or nostalgia, I've often argued that these three enterprises -- unlike many others -- haven't had to seriously invest greatly in the long-form storytelling so many franchises embrace these days. Yes, there may be core mythology elements to each; but the point is the vast, vast, vast majority of these IPs remain centered on stand-alone stories. These individual tales often are tied closely to some central moral -- something code of conduct we likely support but rarely talk about -- and it's the journey to see that moral properly elucidated that makes the destination worthwhile. Granted -- as I've said -- this isn't always the case -- and, yet, here these projects are -- decades into their respective lives -- and that same narrative formula remains part of their cores.
This is why I've always often stated that there will always be a market for good stories but not necessarily good storytelling. Good stories bring us together: good storytelling is the technique by which these stories are told. We can like the storytelling elements -- the performances, the direction, the effects, the sets, etc. -- even if the story itself winds up being uninspired or derivative. But we'll always return to good stories. Always. Personally, I think we're living at a time wherein many who are telling these stories have confused the two -- stories and storytelling -- and that's been a huge, huge, huge detriment to the entertainment industry. You can have one without the other; but you can't have good stories without good stories.
It's easy to conclude that Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, and Doctor Who are now reaping the sad benefits of investing in storytelling as opposed to good stories. You can't blow through, say, $100 million that allegedly the Walt Disney Company invested in Doctor Who and only find cause to celebrate the storytelling. When the stories don't resonate with viewers -- when they don't bring us back again and again and again -- then there will be little return on that investment. Essentially, that's what's been learned in this process -- one big damn expensive lesson -- while you and I could've told them this going in.
This isn't superhero fatigue. This isn't one of the unintended consequences of COVID still hindering a studio's ability to give audiences what they want. This isn't even a rejection of Hollywood's cursed insistence on "fixing everything in post" with endless CGI-laden sequences that mean little to nothing to the casual watcher. Spectacles will always be spectacles ... even if no one shows up to watch them. (Hello, The Mandalorian And Grogu!) When what's missing is a good story, it's been my experience that watchers can smell that stink a mile away; and they've grown smart by learning what to avoid. Doctor Who has just jumped into that well along with a growing number of IPs which may or may not recover.
Regardless, Doctor Who is far from dead. It has the same potential it had -- if not more -- when it was created back in the early 60's. What it needs is for someone who both understands what that is and demonstrates an innate ability to spin good yarns -- to craft good stories -- for audiences hungry to celebrate them once more.
-- EZ