- Published on
When it comes to the fantastic output of Hammer Studios, it’s safe in almost every conceivable way to conclude: “this is most definitely not your father’s average Horror outing.”
While the great monsters of Universal Pictures first came to life on the silver screen in the 1930’s, Hammer Studios opted to give these vintage chillers their own makeover in the 1950’s. With bigger budgets and a greater emphasis on the true gothic template in which all of these creatures and critters inhabit, Hammer presented audiences with some darker, mysterious, and even somewhat miserable interpretations of these tortured lives and their attempts to pursue happiness, sometimes in even the most carnal ways. Though critics were sometimes caught in print ‘clutching their pearls’ over such nasty visions, viewers rather enthusiastically embraced this wicked aesthetic turn, happily plunging into Horror’s grimmer yarns at a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy had grown a bit too pedestrian, a bit too unfocused. Indeed, the studio’s growing success smacked entirely of irony because only a mere two decades earlier merry old England had pretty much banned American Horror imports on the grounds that they had grown too violent and frightening. Now, everything British censors hated was back; and a path to theatrical success showed brightly in the dark.
1957’s The Curse Of Frankenstein wasn’t Hammer’s first Horror film, but it was their first in color. Over time, some have suggested that it was this one simple choice that initially paved the way for what would become an impressive output of Gothic chillers with some growing even more gruesome as the time changed. Directed by Terence Fisher and scripted by Jimmy Sangster (though based obviously on the Mary Shelley novel), the film was also revered for giving Peter Cushing – one of Hammer’s biggest stars – his first big break in the genre. Certainly, the actor made his interpretation of Victor Frankenstein something to watch in true theatrical fashion, a role he inhabited five more times for the studio in sequels to this original. Also aboard this new incarnation were Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart, Christopher Lee, Valerine Gaunt, and others.
Paralleling Victor’s idea of creating bold, new life, this Curse did just that, not only for the Shelley tale but also the entire Horror genre. It was back in style … this time in color!
(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 …)
While the great monsters of Universal Pictures first came to life on the silver screen in the 1930’s, Hammer Studios opted to give these vintage chillers their own makeover in the 1950’s. With bigger budgets and a greater emphasis on the true gothic template in which all of these creatures and critters inhabit, Hammer presented audiences with some darker, mysterious, and even somewhat miserable interpretations of these tortured lives and their attempts to pursue happiness, sometimes in even the most carnal ways. Though critics were sometimes caught in print ‘clutching their pearls’ over such nasty visions, viewers rather enthusiastically embraced this wicked aesthetic turn, happily plunging into Horror’s grimmer yarns at a time when Science Fiction and Fantasy had grown a bit too pedestrian, a bit too unfocused. Indeed, the studio’s growing success smacked entirely of irony because only a mere two decades earlier merry old England had pretty much banned American Horror imports on the grounds that they had grown too violent and frightening. Now, everything British censors hated was back; and a path to theatrical success showed brightly in the dark.
1957’s The Curse Of Frankenstein wasn’t Hammer’s first Horror film, but it was their first in color. Over time, some have suggested that it was this one simple choice that initially paved the way for what would become an impressive output of Gothic chillers with some growing even more gruesome as the time changed. Directed by Terence Fisher and scripted by Jimmy Sangster (though based obviously on the Mary Shelley novel), the film was also revered for giving Peter Cushing – one of Hammer’s biggest stars – his first big break in the genre. Certainly, the actor made his interpretation of Victor Frankenstein something to watch in true theatrical fashion, a role he inhabited five more times for the studio in sequels to this original. Also aboard this new incarnation were Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart, Christopher Lee, Valerine Gaunt, and others.
Paralleling Victor’s idea of creating bold, new life, this Curse did just that, not only for the Shelley tale but also the entire Horror genre. It was back in style … this time in color!
(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:
“While awaiting execution for murder, Baron Victor Frankenstein tells the story of a creature he built and brought to life - only for it to behave not as he intended.”
At a time when Hollywood and many other studios around the world were still relegating Horror stories to second tier entries, Hammer Studios did the unthinkable: they decided to produce their latest effort – The Curse Of Frankenstein – in vivid color.
Lo and behold, one relatively simple creative choice put Hammer on the cultural map … a place they remain even to this day.
My first exposure to the studio’s unique output – believe it or not – was back in my junior high school days, and I remember it vividly though which particular film honestly escapes my old mind. Living in the United States, I wasn’t all that familiar with this uniquely British take on Horror; but at the height of the Halloween season my middle school decided to pull the student body to the gymnasium for a feature film event. The school principal introduced the production, warning the student body that if anyone felt ill at any time during the screening they’d be free to leave. Naturally, we assumed he was joking; but then the lights dimmed, and – while I can’t be exactly certain – I believe the first reel of Dracula: Prince Of Darkness (1966) unspooled. As it did, the boys cheered … and the young ladies squealed. Young fans were made that day, but not a lot of them were of the fairer sex.
But back to Curse …
With the death of his mother, a young Victor inherits the Frankenstein estate. His first executive decision – as it were – is to bring aboard a tutor, one who can teach him the ways of science. Paul Krempe (played by Robert Urquhart) is hired; and over several years (via montage) the two are shown establishing the clinical foundation which the emerging young scientist (Peter Cushing) will enact his agenda to seize destiny on controlling life itself from nature. Indeed, the two are successful at reanimating a young dog – no mention on how the thing passed in the first place, and that should be a cause for concern – and this benchmark rather quickly turns to Frankenstein desirous of more. Once he announces his plans to bring back a human being, it is Krempe who begins to regret the ‘young monster’ he's inadvertently created.
Of course, there’s more to the story than just the growing moral divide between the two men; and – for what it’s worth – the time spent with the seminal monster (Christopher Lee) is reasonably brief in here. (This is not to suggest in any way that it’s insufficient: rather, it’s a bit more supportive of the overall narrative than it is the central focus.) As it turns out, the younger Victor didn’t always have his attentions fixed on his studies; and we learn that he engaged in a highly sensual affair with the castle maid Justine (Valerie Gaunt), a relationship that turns out very poorly for the lady. Also, the mature Victor eventually brings his lovely cousin under the roof: Elizabeth (Hazel Court) proves to be a temptation that some suggest introduces a chasm between our two scientists though nothing regarding a possible love triangle is ever authentically introduced (so far as I could tell) in the script. But as all roads here lead to a climactic confrontation between these players, it’s legitimate to say that these alliances are always shifting; and rarely does that work out to Victor’s benefit.
“While awaiting execution for murder, Baron Victor Frankenstein tells the story of a creature he built and brought to life - only for it to behave not as he intended.”
At a time when Hollywood and many other studios around the world were still relegating Horror stories to second tier entries, Hammer Studios did the unthinkable: they decided to produce their latest effort – The Curse Of Frankenstein – in vivid color.
Lo and behold, one relatively simple creative choice put Hammer on the cultural map … a place they remain even to this day.
My first exposure to the studio’s unique output – believe it or not – was back in my junior high school days, and I remember it vividly though which particular film honestly escapes my old mind. Living in the United States, I wasn’t all that familiar with this uniquely British take on Horror; but at the height of the Halloween season my middle school decided to pull the student body to the gymnasium for a feature film event. The school principal introduced the production, warning the student body that if anyone felt ill at any time during the screening they’d be free to leave. Naturally, we assumed he was joking; but then the lights dimmed, and – while I can’t be exactly certain – I believe the first reel of Dracula: Prince Of Darkness (1966) unspooled. As it did, the boys cheered … and the young ladies squealed. Young fans were made that day, but not a lot of them were of the fairer sex.
But back to Curse …
With the death of his mother, a young Victor inherits the Frankenstein estate. His first executive decision – as it were – is to bring aboard a tutor, one who can teach him the ways of science. Paul Krempe (played by Robert Urquhart) is hired; and over several years (via montage) the two are shown establishing the clinical foundation which the emerging young scientist (Peter Cushing) will enact his agenda to seize destiny on controlling life itself from nature. Indeed, the two are successful at reanimating a young dog – no mention on how the thing passed in the first place, and that should be a cause for concern – and this benchmark rather quickly turns to Frankenstein desirous of more. Once he announces his plans to bring back a human being, it is Krempe who begins to regret the ‘young monster’ he's inadvertently created.
Of course, there’s more to the story than just the growing moral divide between the two men; and – for what it’s worth – the time spent with the seminal monster (Christopher Lee) is reasonably brief in here. (This is not to suggest in any way that it’s insufficient: rather, it’s a bit more supportive of the overall narrative than it is the central focus.) As it turns out, the younger Victor didn’t always have his attentions fixed on his studies; and we learn that he engaged in a highly sensual affair with the castle maid Justine (Valerie Gaunt), a relationship that turns out very poorly for the lady. Also, the mature Victor eventually brings his lovely cousin under the roof: Elizabeth (Hazel Court) proves to be a temptation that some suggest introduces a chasm between our two scientists though nothing regarding a possible love triangle is ever authentically introduced (so far as I could tell) in the script. But as all roads here lead to a climactic confrontation between these players, it’s legitimate to say that these alliances are always shifting; and rarely does that work out to Victor’s benefit.
Thankfully, the melodrama never gets too deeply centered to mire down the story. Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster – an accomplished contributor to the Hammer library – keeps most of the focus on the moral triangle between the men here – Frankenstein, Krempe, and the Monster – leaving a good degree of what could’ve happened between Paul and Elizabeth in the realm of speculation. The scripter also keeps the cast reasonably small as Curse unfolds with a surprisingly intimate story more so about desire gone bad as opposed to science running awry. In this incarnation, it’s Victor’s unchecked ambitions that lead to some monstrous results – both personally and professionally – and the man’s inability to see his descent into ethically dubious territory proves to be what inevitably leads to his own personal doom.
The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957) was produced by Hammer Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? Wow. While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that this 4K restoration both looks and sounds impressive. There are a few sequences wherein colors don’t quite pop – nothing in here is unusually bright, and the template is obviously pretty somber – and I would guess that any deficiency is owed to issues with the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well … it’s alive! It’s alive! This 3-disc collection has an astonishing collection of just about everything (I honestly haven’t made it through all of them at this point), along with four different audio commentaries (two new, two which appear archival) … so true fans will be spending an incredible amount of time with this one.
Strongly Recommended.
Even though I’ll admit to not being as big a fan of The Curse Of Frankenstein as are so many, it’s easy to see how this singular effort arguably set the standard upon which others could build with Hammer’s distinctive style in the years ahead. Instead of portraying Frankenstein as only a scientist possessed by his visions of Godhood, Victor in this tale turns his struggle outward, terrorizing those around him – sometimes unintentionally – as the stakes are raised, always mounting against his success to accomplish the unthinkable. In Curse, he’s far more the monster than The Monster ever truly was; and maybe that’s because of professional jealousy? You see, ultimately, it was god who made his creature’s life possible – with a symbolic strike of thunder – and not Frankenstein’s science. That fact alone likely didn’t sit well with Victor; and he suffered The Curse as a result.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957) 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
The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957) was produced by Hammer Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Warner Archive. As for the technical specifications? Wow. While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure readers that this 4K restoration both looks and sounds impressive. There are a few sequences wherein colors don’t quite pop – nothing in here is unusually bright, and the template is obviously pretty somber – and I would guess that any deficiency is owed to issues with the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well … it’s alive! It’s alive! This 3-disc collection has an astonishing collection of just about everything (I honestly haven’t made it through all of them at this point), along with four different audio commentaries (two new, two which appear archival) … so true fans will be spending an incredible amount of time with this one.
Strongly Recommended.
Even though I’ll admit to not being as big a fan of The Curse Of Frankenstein as are so many, it’s easy to see how this singular effort arguably set the standard upon which others could build with Hammer’s distinctive style in the years ahead. Instead of portraying Frankenstein as only a scientist possessed by his visions of Godhood, Victor in this tale turns his struggle outward, terrorizing those around him – sometimes unintentionally – as the stakes are raised, always mounting against his success to accomplish the unthinkable. In Curse, he’s far more the monster than The Monster ever truly was; and maybe that’s because of professional jealousy? You see, ultimately, it was god who made his creature’s life possible – with a symbolic strike of thunder – and not Frankenstein’s science. That fact alone likely didn’t sit well with Victor; and he suffered The Curse as a result.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of The Curse Of Frankenstein (1957) 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 this day in 2014 (in Spain), audiences in attendance of the Seville European Film Festival were treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of Androids Dream (aka Sueñan los androides). Written (in part) and directed by Ion De Sosa, the film starred Manolo Marín, Marta Bassols, Moisés Richart, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"It is the year 2052, on Earth, in Spain, and the final days of almost everything. The city is a string of abandoned construction sites. Everyday there are fewer people and not all of them are human. A sheep costs four and a half million pesetas and you have to spend a lot of bullets to pay for one."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Androids Dream earned a wee bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
On this day in 2014 (in Spain), audiences in attendance of the Seville European Film Festival were treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of Androids Dream (aka Sueñan los androides). Written (in part) and directed by Ion De Sosa, the film starred Manolo Marín, Marta Bassols, Moisés Richart, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"It is the year 2052, on Earth, in Spain, and the final days of almost everything. The city is a string of abandoned construction sites. Everyday there are fewer people and not all of them are human. A sheep costs four and a half million pesetas and you have to spend a lot of bullets to pay for one."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Androids Dream earned a wee bit of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2011 (in Italy), audiences in attendance of the ToHorror Film Festival were treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of The Gerber Syndrome. Written and directed by Maximilien Dejoie, the film starred Valentina Bartolo, Elisabetta Fischer, Pia Lanciotti, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A new, very dangerous virus, spreading all over Europe in early 2011."
-- EZ
On this day in 2011 (in Italy), audiences in attendance of the ToHorror Film Festival were treated to the exclusive theatrical premiere of The Gerber Syndrome. Written and directed by Maximilien Dejoie, the film starred Valentina Bartolo, Elisabetta Fischer, Pia Lanciotti, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A new, very dangerous virus, spreading all over Europe in early 2011."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1985 (in the U.S.), Horror underwent a comedy makeover with the theatrical release of Transylvania 6-5000. Written and directed by Rudy De Luca, the film starred Jeff Goldblum, Ed Begley Jr., Geena Davis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Two tabloid reporters are sent to Transylvania to find the Frankenstein monster - or get fired. They are laughed at there, but something suspicious is going on."
-- EZ
On this day in 1985 (in the U.S.), Horror underwent a comedy makeover with the theatrical release of Transylvania 6-5000. Written and directed by Rudy De Luca, the film starred Jeff Goldblum, Ed Begley Jr., Geena Davis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Two tabloid reporters are sent to Transylvania to find the Frankenstein monster - or get fired. They are laughed at there, but something suspicious is going on."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1975 (in the U.S.), the fertile imagination of the male mind were forever piqued when Lynda Carter suited up for the very first time for the broadcast television premiere of the Superhero telefilm, The New Original Wonder Woman. Directed by Leonard J. Horn from a story by William Moulton Marston, Stanley Ralph Ross, and Harry G. Peter, the film starred Lynda Carter, Lyle Waggoner, John Randolph, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"After a dogfight with a German plane, U.S. Army Air Force pilot Steve Trevor crash lands on an uncharted island in the Bermuda Triangle. Paradise Island is inhabited only by women, and their existence has been kept a secret for thousands of years. Learning of the Nazi German threat to humanity, the Amazon princess Diana is chosen to accompany Trevor back to the United States to battle the Third Reich. Garbed in a skimpy red, white, and blue costume and armed with a magic lasso that forces anyone within its grasp to tell the truth, Diana uses her powers as Wonder Woman to battle the forces of evil."
-- EZ
On this day in 1975 (in the U.S.), the fertile imagination of the male mind were forever piqued when Lynda Carter suited up for the very first time for the broadcast television premiere of the Superhero telefilm, The New Original Wonder Woman. Directed by Leonard J. Horn from a story by William Moulton Marston, Stanley Ralph Ross, and Harry G. Peter, the film starred Lynda Carter, Lyle Waggoner, John Randolph, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"After a dogfight with a German plane, U.S. Army Air Force pilot Steve Trevor crash lands on an uncharted island in the Bermuda Triangle. Paradise Island is inhabited only by women, and their existence has been kept a secret for thousands of years. Learning of the Nazi German threat to humanity, the Amazon princess Diana is chosen to accompany Trevor back to the United States to battle the Third Reich. Garbed in a skimpy red, white, and blue costume and armed with a magic lasso that forces anyone within its grasp to tell the truth, Diana uses her powers as Wonder Woman to battle the forces of evil."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1929 (in Hungary), Alraune enjoyed its first theatrical release. Directed by Richard Oswald from a story by Hanns Heinz Ewers, Charlie Roellinghoff, and Richard Weisbach, the film starred Brigitte Helm, Albert Bassermann, Harald Paulsen, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A scientist, Professor Jakob ten Brinken, interested in the laws of heredity, impregnates a prostitute in a laboratory with the semen of a hanged murderer. The prostitute conceives a female child who has no concept of love, whom the professor adopts. The girl, Alraune, suffers from obsessive sexuality and perverse relationships throughout her life. She learns of her unnatural origins and she avenges herself against the professor."
Editor's Note:
This 1929 German Science Fiction film is a bit difficult to research, mostly because it's a remake of a 1928 version of the story ... and both incarnations starred the same lead actress, Brigitte Helm! In trying to obtain information regarding it, I'm often directed to the 1928 film instead of this one ... so at this juncture I can only hope that the above photo cites the correct version.
-- EZ
On this day in 1929 (in Hungary), Alraune enjoyed its first theatrical release. Directed by Richard Oswald from a story by Hanns Heinz Ewers, Charlie Roellinghoff, and Richard Weisbach, the film starred Brigitte Helm, Albert Bassermann, Harald Paulsen, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A scientist, Professor Jakob ten Brinken, interested in the laws of heredity, impregnates a prostitute in a laboratory with the semen of a hanged murderer. The prostitute conceives a female child who has no concept of love, whom the professor adopts. The girl, Alraune, suffers from obsessive sexuality and perverse relationships throughout her life. She learns of her unnatural origins and she avenges herself against the professor."
Editor's Note:
This 1929 German Science Fiction film is a bit difficult to research, mostly because it's a remake of a 1928 version of the story ... and both incarnations starred the same lead actress, Brigitte Helm! In trying to obtain information regarding it, I'm often directed to the 1928 film instead of this one ... so at this juncture I can only hope that the above photo cites the correct version.
-- EZ
- Published on
Happy Friday, gentle readers! Looks like we made it to the end of another work week!
In any event ...
I've been scrolling through the World Wide Web this morning looking for some content to add to this space, and I just stumbled across a trailer for the December release of Afraid? (2025) from Skydirects Flix. While I'm not seeing a great deal of information available regarding its production or whatnot -- looks like it was made under the name of What Are You Afraid Of? -- I'm always willing to keep my eyes open for press releases and the like from other outlets. In the meantime, let me pony up what I have found and host the coming attraction below for your entertainment.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A group of 5 daring high school teenagers takes a weekend trip to the woods during Halloween. What starts off as a thrilling adventure quickly turns deadly."
Also according to the popular movie website, the cast includes such names and faces as P.T. Ashlock, Kendre Berry, Nakosha Briggs, Lil' Fizz, Teairra Mari, Rezia Thornton, and others.
Alas ... that's really about it. Not seeing anything else of substance to pass along at this time, so the trailer will be below. You know what to do about that.
-- EZ
In any event ...
I've been scrolling through the World Wide Web this morning looking for some content to add to this space, and I just stumbled across a trailer for the December release of Afraid? (2025) from Skydirects Flix. While I'm not seeing a great deal of information available regarding its production or whatnot -- looks like it was made under the name of What Are You Afraid Of? -- I'm always willing to keep my eyes open for press releases and the like from other outlets. In the meantime, let me pony up what I have found and host the coming attraction below for your entertainment.
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
"A group of 5 daring high school teenagers takes a weekend trip to the woods during Halloween. What starts off as a thrilling adventure quickly turns deadly."
Also according to the popular movie website, the cast includes such names and faces as P.T. Ashlock, Kendre Berry, Nakosha Briggs, Lil' Fizz, Teairra Mari, Rezia Thornton, and others.
Alas ... that's really about it. Not seeing anything else of substance to pass along at this time, so the trailer will be below. You know what to do about that.
-- 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:
“After an accident and a major transformation, an adult film star seeks revenge for all the abuse she suffered.”
It’s often been said that – in life and the universe – there are good ideas and there are bad ideas.
What grows increasingly complicated when you’re dealing with inserting ideas into storytelling is that context not only is key but also will always be the key. Against the backdrop of characters, locations, and circumstances, the storyteller needs to be exactly certain of what he (or she) wants to say as well as putting extreme effort into guaranteeing that the ‘moral of the story’ is as accessible as it can be. If that central precept isn’t made clear by the light of the projection lamp, then one can be assured that the message will likely wind up sacrificed because of less important decisions made somewhere along the way. Viewers might even be confused by impressions that don’t appear in sync, and – must I say it? – methinks that’s what’s happened with the otherwise interesting parable at the heart of Mar.ia (2024).
Smarter people than I am have long said that the 1980’s – what with the worldwide video explosion taking place at the time – truly invented the solid B-Movie; and I’ve often argued that – if that is true – then it was the 1990’s that truly added a layer of glitz and gloss to the genre. Cable channels and smaller studios were granted access to effects wizardry that was quickly growing more affordable by the year; and this advantage meant to more and more producers were capable of delivering unique visions to both the cineplexes and television outlets. In many small ways, Mar.ia feels like it’s the product of that age – a dark and bloody tale broadcast after hours on pay cable that lacked the panache to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Hollywood heavyweights but, instead, was comfortable dialing up a bit of gore and sleaze in order to woo viewers over. For the record: there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After an accident and a major transformation, an adult film star seeks revenge for all the abuse she suffered.”
It’s often been said that – in life and the universe – there are good ideas and there are bad ideas.
What grows increasingly complicated when you’re dealing with inserting ideas into storytelling is that context not only is key but also will always be the key. Against the backdrop of characters, locations, and circumstances, the storyteller needs to be exactly certain of what he (or she) wants to say as well as putting extreme effort into guaranteeing that the ‘moral of the story’ is as accessible as it can be. If that central precept isn’t made clear by the light of the projection lamp, then one can be assured that the message will likely wind up sacrificed because of less important decisions made somewhere along the way. Viewers might even be confused by impressions that don’t appear in sync, and – must I say it? – methinks that’s what’s happened with the otherwise interesting parable at the heart of Mar.ia (2024).
Smarter people than I am have long said that the 1980’s – what with the worldwide video explosion taking place at the time – truly invented the solid B-Movie; and I’ve often argued that – if that is true – then it was the 1990’s that truly added a layer of glitz and gloss to the genre. Cable channels and smaller studios were granted access to effects wizardry that was quickly growing more affordable by the year; and this advantage meant to more and more producers were capable of delivering unique visions to both the cineplexes and television outlets. In many small ways, Mar.ia feels like it’s the product of that age – a dark and bloody tale broadcast after hours on pay cable that lacked the panache to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Hollywood heavyweights but, instead, was comfortable dialing up a bit of gore and sleaze in order to woo viewers over. For the record: there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Tragically, the hot and sensuous porn sensation Maria Black (played by the comely Daria Panchenko) is (basically) killed in a car crash in California. Not that long after her accident, her body goes missing, leaving friends and family aghast at how such a thing could happen in this time and place. A few years later, however, a near-perfect lookalike surfaces working as – you guessed it – the hottest porn star of a somewhat new era, one wherein shooting such efforts has gone a bit underground. When this new Maria collapses and seemingly dies again under curious circumstances during coitus, the producer and director are suddenly offered an unthinkable choice: offer up the temptress’ dead body for sex acts with a trio of masked strangers, and they’ll profit $100,00 for the deed as well as film the necrophilia for release (and profit) via the Dark Web.
Well, when one gets in bed with such mobsters (snicker snicker), bad things are bound to transpire. The boss Varela (Juan Palomino) is actually being sought by authorities in a sting operation being run by … well … that’s a bit unclear in all of this. Wanting to insure his privacy, Varela shoots the film crew dead; but, unbeknownst to him, two technicians – Mel (Sofía Gala Castiglione) and Alina (Malena Sánchez) have been bound, gagged, and locked away in the warehouse for their refusal to allow the director to go along with such a vile request. Before the night is over, these two women will find themselves paired up with an unlikely ally – the cybernetically reanimated form of Maria who rises from the dead again – in a bid to bring down this nefarious patriarchy once and for all!
So … it’s Die Hard. In a warehouse. With porn stars. And a robotic dominatrix. Along with sound technicians.
As you can see, there’s a lot to unpack with Mar.ia; and, frankly, there isn’t a lot of it that harmonizes. The writing and directing team of Gabriel Grieco and Nicanor Loreti clearly are trying to say something about the greater nature of mankind here, but far too much of it gets buried alive under neon lights, gender politics, over-the-top sound cues, and exploitation. When one is trying to expose the harm to the fairer sex that takes place in the hidden corners of the world, is that treatise best delivered salaciously? Everything about Mar.ia – from our sex worker set-up where she’s clearly living her best life (before her multiple deaths) to her Terminator-style killing spree – is presented with the pomp and circumstance of extravagant exaggeration, so much so that it’s hard not to see some of this as unintentional high camp. Complicating matters, the directors choose to employ some bizarre technological trickery – whenever Mar.ia (the killer robot) kicks into high gear, they adorn the screen with almost anime-like cybernetic inserts – and the whole effect feels more comic than stridently serious.
Well, when one gets in bed with such mobsters (snicker snicker), bad things are bound to transpire. The boss Varela (Juan Palomino) is actually being sought by authorities in a sting operation being run by … well … that’s a bit unclear in all of this. Wanting to insure his privacy, Varela shoots the film crew dead; but, unbeknownst to him, two technicians – Mel (Sofía Gala Castiglione) and Alina (Malena Sánchez) have been bound, gagged, and locked away in the warehouse for their refusal to allow the director to go along with such a vile request. Before the night is over, these two women will find themselves paired up with an unlikely ally – the cybernetically reanimated form of Maria who rises from the dead again – in a bid to bring down this nefarious patriarchy once and for all!
So … it’s Die Hard. In a warehouse. With porn stars. And a robotic dominatrix. Along with sound technicians.
As you can see, there’s a lot to unpack with Mar.ia; and, frankly, there isn’t a lot of it that harmonizes. The writing and directing team of Gabriel Grieco and Nicanor Loreti clearly are trying to say something about the greater nature of mankind here, but far too much of it gets buried alive under neon lights, gender politics, over-the-top sound cues, and exploitation. When one is trying to expose the harm to the fairer sex that takes place in the hidden corners of the world, is that treatise best delivered salaciously? Everything about Mar.ia – from our sex worker set-up where she’s clearly living her best life (before her multiple deaths) to her Terminator-style killing spree – is presented with the pomp and circumstance of extravagant exaggeration, so much so that it’s hard not to see some of this as unintentional high camp. Complicating matters, the directors choose to employ some bizarre technological trickery – whenever Mar.ia (the killer robot) kicks into high gear, they adorn the screen with almost anime-like cybernetic inserts – and the whole effect feels more comic than stridently serious.
Additively, there are sequences in the film wherein two characters separated suddenly appear back together without the filler of showing them catch up with one another. Mainly, this occurs in the second half when the forces of evil are hunting down the female technicians fleeing for their lives; and – as continuity errors go – some might see them as negligible, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that they’re still there. Also, Mel and Alina – only shown previously as being loosely at odds with each other before teaming up – are suddenly exposed as … erm … lesbians in a somewhat former relationship, a development that had no underpinning so far as I could tell whatsoever. (They clearly knew one another, but the fact that they apparently may’ve been coupled previously – in some relationship – escaped me entirely.)
Furthermore, the script gives no logical reason why Mar.ia – the nimble sexbot – died on the conjugal bed during her video shoot. In fact, she was presented entirely as the picture of perfect health, and she’s depicted as rather aggressively enjoying everything that’s taking place. It’s only after climbing atop her willing partner that she develops a nosebleed and simply keels over, perhaps giving the slight suggestion of having suffered some cerebral event. Later in the film, Grieco and Loreti loosely incorporate the suggestion that her faked death was part and parcel of some larger scheme to lure Varela and his goons to expose them for their necromania, hinting that such a lifestyle choice is a vastly greater problem in some countries than I personally would choose to accept.
To their credit, the storytellers bury the most obvious evidence of their political intent in a long after-the-credits sequence: a pair of nurses working on the automaton incarnation of the porn star are shown on screen with a digital overlay showing the mechanical woman’s programming. (This is a direct visual nod to the scene from 1987’s RoboCop wherein the deceased Alex Murphy awakens, and the perspective is rendered as if through robot eyes.) The newfangled Maria has been created to:
Furthermore, the script gives no logical reason why Mar.ia – the nimble sexbot – died on the conjugal bed during her video shoot. In fact, she was presented entirely as the picture of perfect health, and she’s depicted as rather aggressively enjoying everything that’s taking place. It’s only after climbing atop her willing partner that she develops a nosebleed and simply keels over, perhaps giving the slight suggestion of having suffered some cerebral event. Later in the film, Grieco and Loreti loosely incorporate the suggestion that her faked death was part and parcel of some larger scheme to lure Varela and his goons to expose them for their necromania, hinting that such a lifestyle choice is a vastly greater problem in some countries than I personally would choose to accept.
To their credit, the storytellers bury the most obvious evidence of their political intent in a long after-the-credits sequence: a pair of nurses working on the automaton incarnation of the porn star are shown on screen with a digital overlay showing the mechanical woman’s programming. (This is a direct visual nod to the scene from 1987’s RoboCop wherein the deceased Alex Murphy awakens, and the perspective is rendered as if through robot eyes.) The newfangled Maria has been created to:
- Directive 1: Protect Women’s Lives.
- Directive 2: Protect Women’s Civil Rights.
- Directive 3: Gather Information To Assure A Better Future For The Feminine Gender.
- Directive 4: Classified.”
Undoubtedly, this implies that women – in this universe – are subject to some despicable injustices; and I’m certain that this viewpoint serves as the foundation for all of what services as a story herein. Where I take issue with it is the fact that – were this fully the case – then why was Maria of the film’s opening living life to the fullest? She wasn’t in any pain. She certainly wasn’t in any despair. Are they trying to say that her death – shown entirely as an accident – was a necessary part in her coming to ‘see the light,’ that the patriarchy was an instrument of evil? She was reaping untold rewards, and – for all I know – went into the business willingly – so why are men to blame? Because they’re the consumers? Or is it because they’re always the first ones – rather easily – blamed for the state of global affairs?
I hate playing the odd man out here, but Mar.ia – as a completed whole – suffers precisely because of the gaps left in place by Grieco and Loreti … both men last I looked. Yes, their film is an occasionally entertaining bit of B-Movie schlock. Yes, it can be gratuitous with cheap thrills and only infrequent but tasteful flashes of skin. But when it comes to preaching about the ills of the world? Well, perhaps that may ultimately be handled better being left to the females in the industry. An otherwise paper-thin story with this many flaws and some narrative inconsistencies might, at best, get them laid in certain circles, but I don’t think it’s really going to convince many members of the patriarchy to change their ways. No insult intended.
Now – in fairness – I want to admit that some of my confusion could very well be the result of being a bit ‘lost in translation.’ This Spanish-language import shot in Argentina is a dubbed cut; and the Blu-ray provides no closed captioning. While there isn’t exactly a mountain of dialogue in here, what remains is rather lazily dubbed, so much so that I’ll admit to watching the film’s opening set-up twice: it’s a black-and-white sequence that’s somewhat choppily rendered, and it feels very much like some reason for its existence is missing. (I find close captioning generally better fills in these holes.) Suffice it to say, even after a second view I still wasn’t entirely certain what the takeaway here was intending; sadly, it really doesn’t grow any clearer once a few clues are dropped later in the flick. I needed a bit more; and, yes, this could be one reason why Mar.ia left me underwhelmed.
I hate playing the odd man out here, but Mar.ia – as a completed whole – suffers precisely because of the gaps left in place by Grieco and Loreti … both men last I looked. Yes, their film is an occasionally entertaining bit of B-Movie schlock. Yes, it can be gratuitous with cheap thrills and only infrequent but tasteful flashes of skin. But when it comes to preaching about the ills of the world? Well, perhaps that may ultimately be handled better being left to the females in the industry. An otherwise paper-thin story with this many flaws and some narrative inconsistencies might, at best, get them laid in certain circles, but I don’t think it’s really going to convince many members of the patriarchy to change their ways. No insult intended.
Now – in fairness – I want to admit that some of my confusion could very well be the result of being a bit ‘lost in translation.’ This Spanish-language import shot in Argentina is a dubbed cut; and the Blu-ray provides no closed captioning. While there isn’t exactly a mountain of dialogue in here, what remains is rather lazily dubbed, so much so that I’ll admit to watching the film’s opening set-up twice: it’s a black-and-white sequence that’s somewhat choppily rendered, and it feels very much like some reason for its existence is missing. (I find close captioning generally better fills in these holes.) Suffice it to say, even after a second view I still wasn’t entirely certain what the takeaway here was intending; sadly, it really doesn’t grow any clearer once a few clues are dropped later in the flick. I needed a bit more; and, yes, this could be one reason why Mar.ia left me underwhelmed.
Mar.ia (2024) was produced by Camauer, Crep Films, and Lahaye Media. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Leomark and Black Mandala. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights and sounds are, mostly, good: as I said above, I’m not a fan of forced visual trickery effects and clumsy dubbing, but … sigh … it is what it is. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Disappointingly, the disc is empty of anything, including even a Main Menu. Talk about your bargain basement!
Mildly Recommended.
Despite a litany of narrative problems, Mar.ia (2024) occasionally delivers a few respectable moments. However, doesn’t packaging a ‘message movie’ beneath the slick veneer of genre exploitation make the storytellers arguably as guilty here as the world they’re trying to condemn? While I’m not opposed to didactic mythmaking, I’m at a loss to understand precisely what lesson Grieco and Loreti wish to take away from their fictional exposé: (1) treat women better or (2) don’t smash a robot? Those two morals aren’t exactly mutually exclusive, and their yarn could’ve been more fulfilling if it had greater context.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Mar.ia (2024) 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
Mildly Recommended.
Despite a litany of narrative problems, Mar.ia (2024) occasionally delivers a few respectable moments. However, doesn’t packaging a ‘message movie’ beneath the slick veneer of genre exploitation make the storytellers arguably as guilty here as the world they’re trying to condemn? While I’m not opposed to didactic mythmaking, I’m at a loss to understand precisely what lesson Grieco and Loreti wish to take away from their fictional exposé: (1) treat women better or (2) don’t smash a robot? Those two morals aren’t exactly mutually exclusive, and their yarn could’ve been more fulfilling if it had greater context.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Allied Vaughn provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Mar.ia (2024) 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
Editor's Note:
Folks, I've told the story before, so please bear with me for new readers. Having written reviews for products for well into three decades, I maintain a mountain of material, much of which was used back in the day when I was an Amazon Top 1,000 Reviewer. Now, these were composed under an entirely different format, meaning that they're not nearly as in-depth compared to what I do today ... and, yet, I hate to see these lost to history entirely. As such, when I have a few free moments I pull one out, dust it off a bit, and reframe it for use here on SciFiHistory.Net. Such is the case here with my reflections on Ghost Of Goodnight Lane ... enjoy ...
Folks, I've told the story before, so please bear with me for new readers. Having written reviews for products for well into three decades, I maintain a mountain of material, much of which was used back in the day when I was an Amazon Top 1,000 Reviewer. Now, these were composed under an entirely different format, meaning that they're not nearly as in-depth compared to what I do today ... and, yet, I hate to see these lost to history entirely. As such, when I have a few free moments I pull one out, dust it off a bit, and reframe it for use here on SciFiHistory.Net. Such is the case here with my reflections on Ghost Of Goodnight Lane ... enjoy ...
I get slagged a lot for either being too easy on films or too picky – which, at the end of the day, can only really mean that there’s no way to please all readers.
In fact, I’ve often spent more time with smaller releases – exactly the kind of film that Ghost Of Goodnight Lane (2014) both is and tries to be – because they’re an affordable and reasonable alternative to the latest bloated-budget craptacular spectacle available for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure) at the multiplexes or your preferred streaming platform. Now, Ghost isn’t perfect – far from it – and here’s the dirty little secret few will tell you: it probably was never meant to be.
You want a little mindless escape for 90 minutes?
Then it’s right up your alley.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the product packaging:
“In a Dallas film studio the actors and crew of a horror film become the victims of their own bloody horror story. One by one, they are killed off by a vengeful ghost who seems to be re-enacting some of the scariest moments in the history of film. As the director (Billy Zane) and his pretty actresses begin to piece together a forty-year-old puzzle, it may be too late for them all. The key to their freedom is held by a creepy old woman who reveals a murder mystery with a shocking and sinister twist.”
The straight dope is that so very much of Ghost Of Goodnight Lane is handled exactly the way it should be for its intended audiences: everything in it is very tongue-in-cheek camp.
The story as detailed above pokes an awful lot of fun at the conventions of mainstream horror movies, and writer/director Alin Bijan imbues about fifty percent of it with what I’d call an almost ‘Scooby Doo’ vibe. Nothing – or very little of it – is intended to make literal sense. It’s a bit goofy. It’s a bit silly. It isn’t meant to be taken seriously. After all, half the fun charged to your average horror flick is just you watching, sitting patiently in wait for the most likely suspects to become the next victim – and (most definitely) none of it is meant to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with, say, 1942’s Casablanca. This is the world of ghosts and demons and old crones and creepy children and other things that go bump in the night. What you think is Billy Zane’s tired expression for agreeing to star in yet one more direct-to-DVD release is actually Billy Zane – the actor -- acting like a disenfranchised direct-to-DVD film producer/director who’s about at the end of his wits with the (God)damn entertainment business. There’s a difference, you know?
To my delight, Ghost was moderately enjoyable. If you’re paying attention, the script is smart enough to poke holes in half of the ideas it toys with visually; but – out of quintessential respect for the genre – it still manages to serve up more than a fair share of good old-fashioned scares alongside some obvious post-production camera trickery. For example, watch for Zane to misinterpret a video snippet of the young ghost when he cracks, “Is that CGI? I didn’t authorize that!”
The rest of the cast is rounded out by a roster of familiar faces, all who’ve made marks in smaller projects (like that that this film represents). Each turns up, delivers the lines, and (I suspect) had a little fun over a weekend gig. Matt Dallas (TV’s Kyle XY, 2018’s Along Came The Devil) tries to be the calming force behind so much of the chaos. Scream queen Danielle Harris (the Hatchet franchise, 2007’s Halloween, and a great many other chillers) is the good-girl-gone-bad only so far as it makes her capable of paying the rent. Richard Tyson (1987’s underrated Three O’Clock High, 2000’s Battlefield Earth) shows up in the opening segment in a bit meant to set this small affair in motion. And the lovely Lacey Chabert (1998’s Lost In Space and a whole slew of Hallmark movies) – a young lady who only grows more and more fetching with each opportunity – is the good-girl-who-stays-good who is also hell bent on uncovering the mystery behind all of this and bring this Ghost’s glory days to a fitting and timely end.
“In a Dallas film studio the actors and crew of a horror film become the victims of their own bloody horror story. One by one, they are killed off by a vengeful ghost who seems to be re-enacting some of the scariest moments in the history of film. As the director (Billy Zane) and his pretty actresses begin to piece together a forty-year-old puzzle, it may be too late for them all. The key to their freedom is held by a creepy old woman who reveals a murder mystery with a shocking and sinister twist.”
The straight dope is that so very much of Ghost Of Goodnight Lane is handled exactly the way it should be for its intended audiences: everything in it is very tongue-in-cheek camp.
The story as detailed above pokes an awful lot of fun at the conventions of mainstream horror movies, and writer/director Alin Bijan imbues about fifty percent of it with what I’d call an almost ‘Scooby Doo’ vibe. Nothing – or very little of it – is intended to make literal sense. It’s a bit goofy. It’s a bit silly. It isn’t meant to be taken seriously. After all, half the fun charged to your average horror flick is just you watching, sitting patiently in wait for the most likely suspects to become the next victim – and (most definitely) none of it is meant to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with, say, 1942’s Casablanca. This is the world of ghosts and demons and old crones and creepy children and other things that go bump in the night. What you think is Billy Zane’s tired expression for agreeing to star in yet one more direct-to-DVD release is actually Billy Zane – the actor -- acting like a disenfranchised direct-to-DVD film producer/director who’s about at the end of his wits with the (God)damn entertainment business. There’s a difference, you know?
To my delight, Ghost was moderately enjoyable. If you’re paying attention, the script is smart enough to poke holes in half of the ideas it toys with visually; but – out of quintessential respect for the genre – it still manages to serve up more than a fair share of good old-fashioned scares alongside some obvious post-production camera trickery. For example, watch for Zane to misinterpret a video snippet of the young ghost when he cracks, “Is that CGI? I didn’t authorize that!”
The rest of the cast is rounded out by a roster of familiar faces, all who’ve made marks in smaller projects (like that that this film represents). Each turns up, delivers the lines, and (I suspect) had a little fun over a weekend gig. Matt Dallas (TV’s Kyle XY, 2018’s Along Came The Devil) tries to be the calming force behind so much of the chaos. Scream queen Danielle Harris (the Hatchet franchise, 2007’s Halloween, and a great many other chillers) is the good-girl-gone-bad only so far as it makes her capable of paying the rent. Richard Tyson (1987’s underrated Three O’Clock High, 2000’s Battlefield Earth) shows up in the opening segment in a bit meant to set this small affair in motion. And the lovely Lacey Chabert (1998’s Lost In Space and a whole slew of Hallmark movies) – a young lady who only grows more and more fetching with each opportunity – is the good-girl-who-stays-good who is also hell bent on uncovering the mystery behind all of this and bring this Ghost’s glory days to a fitting and timely end.
But … will you remember it next week to recommend to your friends?
Survey says, “Not likely.”
Ghost Of Goodnight Lane (2014) was produced by FTG Media, Media World Studios, and Media World Television. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by Inception Media Group. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … this is still one smartly assembled piece of work. The producers spared no expense in serving up some high-quality sights and sounds, as well as some modestly impressive digital and in-camera horror effects work. Lastly – if it’s special features you’re looking for – then prepare to be disappointed as there’s nothing extra.
Mildly Recommended.
Sometimes the only way to endorse a movie these days is to offer the simplest explanation possible: (A) it didn’t suck, and (B) it actually kept my interest. There’s nothing wrong with such quality craftsmanship with smaller releases like Ghost Of Goodnight Lane; and that’s precisely why you’re drawn to them when you find them. You give ‘em a chance to ‘wow’ you for 90 minutes, and they either work or not. Trust me when I caution that you could do far worse.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Inception Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Ghost Of Goodnight Lane by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Survey says, “Not likely.”
Ghost Of Goodnight Lane (2014) was produced by FTG Media, Media World Studios, and Media World Television. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by Inception Media Group. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … this is still one smartly assembled piece of work. The producers spared no expense in serving up some high-quality sights and sounds, as well as some modestly impressive digital and in-camera horror effects work. Lastly – if it’s special features you’re looking for – then prepare to be disappointed as there’s nothing extra.
Mildly Recommended.
Sometimes the only way to endorse a movie these days is to offer the simplest explanation possible: (A) it didn’t suck, and (B) it actually kept my interest. There’s nothing wrong with such quality craftsmanship with smaller releases like Ghost Of Goodnight Lane; and that’s precisely why you’re drawn to them when you find them. You give ‘em a chance to ‘wow’ you for 90 minutes, and they either work or not. Trust me when I caution that you could do far worse.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Inception Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Ghost Of Goodnight Lane by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
- Published on
Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for independent films.
Rather than delve into any great essay about why I tend to gravitate toward these smaller, quieter, gentler films, let me offer up only a few reasons. First, they’re often times much more obvious efforts of love on the part of those involved: like it or not, you can tell when a picture has been assembled by those who’ve enjoyed time spent together. Second, there’s usually a freshness to the ideas; and this doesn’t mean the story is necessarily brand-new but – at the same time – these films minimally offer an alternative, less-expansive take on subjects that perhaps we’ve seen elsewhere. Lastly, as someone who watches more films in the average year than the next person can shake a stick at, I’d rather wear out my shoes walking miles with projects and people who don’t get near as much exposure as major studios push because – quite frankly – I’m disappointed with most of what survives as ‘mainstream entertainment’ these days. If this is all Hollywood can do, then … well … I’ll happily look elsewhere … and I think the struggles of the American box office alone suggests that’s become a shared reality.
This is why I’m glad to spend time with The Strange Dark (2024).
It’s a clever yarn deserving of its title; and – from what I’ve read online – has been garnering some positive praise from screenings on the film festival circuit. Written and directed by Chris Messineo – himself and owner, director, and educator of the NJ Film School – Dark is kind of story that gets told so well in a certain format that its characters and events become inseparable in such a way it becomes impossible to imagine it as a web being spun in any other fashion. (Trust me: I’ll explain below.) It stars Nili Bassman, Caleb Scott, Carmen Borla, Bates Wilder, John Beckwith, Carson Jean Holly, and Athan Sporek in roles they uniquely make their own, all coming together in a plot that suggests the secrets to understanding the future might lie in the stars right over our heads.
Rather than delve into any great essay about why I tend to gravitate toward these smaller, quieter, gentler films, let me offer up only a few reasons. First, they’re often times much more obvious efforts of love on the part of those involved: like it or not, you can tell when a picture has been assembled by those who’ve enjoyed time spent together. Second, there’s usually a freshness to the ideas; and this doesn’t mean the story is necessarily brand-new but – at the same time – these films minimally offer an alternative, less-expansive take on subjects that perhaps we’ve seen elsewhere. Lastly, as someone who watches more films in the average year than the next person can shake a stick at, I’d rather wear out my shoes walking miles with projects and people who don’t get near as much exposure as major studios push because – quite frankly – I’m disappointed with most of what survives as ‘mainstream entertainment’ these days. If this is all Hollywood can do, then … well … I’ll happily look elsewhere … and I think the struggles of the American box office alone suggests that’s become a shared reality.
This is why I’m glad to spend time with The Strange Dark (2024).
It’s a clever yarn deserving of its title; and – from what I’ve read online – has been garnering some positive praise from screenings on the film festival circuit. Written and directed by Chris Messineo – himself and owner, director, and educator of the NJ Film School – Dark is kind of story that gets told so well in a certain format that its characters and events become inseparable in such a way it becomes impossible to imagine it as a web being spun in any other fashion. (Trust me: I’ll explain below.) It stars Nili Bassman, Caleb Scott, Carmen Borla, Bates Wilder, John Beckwith, Carson Jean Holly, and Athan Sporek in roles they uniquely make their own, all coming together in a plot that suggests the secrets to understanding the future might lie in the stars right over our heads.
(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:
“Edgar believes he can see the future, but his wife thinks he's mad, his daughter thinks he's strange, and the agents from double star accounting will stop at nothing to get their data back.”
Storytelling works best when it’s done economically.
Back in my college days, I had a professor in a film class who explained this by suggesting that only those elements absolutely needed to tell the story completely need be kept in any shooting script. Anything extraneous – whether it was good, bad, or ugly – had to go as it ultimately gets in the way of the tale being told. Writers – like any artist – can get attached to their words, making it difficult to trim some eloquently composed speeches even if they’re only partially referential. As one can imagine, this is a hard lesson to learn – a bitter pill to swallow – and probably accounts for a great deal of controversy in the editing suite where a passionate narrator wants to preserve what he or she feels might be the best work.
Clearly, writer/director Messineo knows this fundamental guideline as his latest – The Strange Dark – percolates on such an economy. While I can say that there were a few of those moments wherein I questioned the purpose of a scene or even a snippet of dialogue, the film justifies everything in here in its own due course. Some viewers will have to be patient as Dark unfolds in a non-linear format, a construct largely made famous (or, at least, mainstream) by Quentin Tarantino with his groundbreaking Pulp Fiction (1994) but expanded upon by other directors in such features as Memento (2000), Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004), or even Weapons (2025). In other words, what you might question in, say, Part I has a necessary payoff in Part III. So … be patient. All will be revealed. But truth – like good fiction – takes time.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Edgar believes he can see the future, but his wife thinks he's mad, his daughter thinks he's strange, and the agents from double star accounting will stop at nothing to get their data back.”
Storytelling works best when it’s done economically.
Back in my college days, I had a professor in a film class who explained this by suggesting that only those elements absolutely needed to tell the story completely need be kept in any shooting script. Anything extraneous – whether it was good, bad, or ugly – had to go as it ultimately gets in the way of the tale being told. Writers – like any artist – can get attached to their words, making it difficult to trim some eloquently composed speeches even if they’re only partially referential. As one can imagine, this is a hard lesson to learn – a bitter pill to swallow – and probably accounts for a great deal of controversy in the editing suite where a passionate narrator wants to preserve what he or she feels might be the best work.
Clearly, writer/director Messineo knows this fundamental guideline as his latest – The Strange Dark – percolates on such an economy. While I can say that there were a few of those moments wherein I questioned the purpose of a scene or even a snippet of dialogue, the film justifies everything in here in its own due course. Some viewers will have to be patient as Dark unfolds in a non-linear format, a construct largely made famous (or, at least, mainstream) by Quentin Tarantino with his groundbreaking Pulp Fiction (1994) but expanded upon by other directors in such features as Memento (2000), Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004), or even Weapons (2025). In other words, what you might question in, say, Part I has a necessary payoff in Part III. So … be patient. All will be revealed. But truth – like good fiction – takes time.
Two ominious Men In Black (my term, not Messineo’s) – Maria (played by Carmen Borla) and Frank (Bates Wilder) – show up unannounced one evening at your typical suburban home. At the front door, they announce themselves as employees of Double Star Accounting and their intention to locate a missing employee, Edgar (Caleb Scott). Susan (Nili Bassman) explains that she and Eddie have separated; but before you know it our corporate bounty hunters are inside, initially playing nice but growing increasingly frustrated with the woman’s refusal to answer their questions. As they begin to threaten her health and safety – as well as that of her child Taylor (Carson Jean Holley) – Edgar reveals himself … but the twists and turns of only one busy evening have only just begun.
As appreciating a great many genre potboilers requires little to no foreknowledge of surprises, I won’t spoil anything major in this space. Suffice it to say, Double Star Accounting isn’t exactly an accounting firm – not the kind regular folks would be familiar with anyway – and Edgar isn’t exactly working solely with numbers. It would seem that he’s an experienced specialist at cracking numeric codes; and he’s discovered that the secret to prognosticating one’s future lies in the ability to interpret phosphenes – those curious flashes of light each of sees when applying pressure to closed eyes – alongside some ‘movie science’ math involving starlight. The point is that he’s broken a code so strongly that everyone around him thinks he’s lost his mind; and it’s this intersection that supplies most of the intrigue, comedy, and drama for what evolves as a single-location storyline.
The importance to making an ensemble work is in casting the right talent to fill each identity; and, mostly, that’s Dark’s greatest strength.
Though Scott is a bit light on the mania required to fully sell what’s suggested as a kinda/sorta mental breakdown (or mental lapse, one significant enough to crumble his dynamic), he’s entirely affable as the Average Joe – part brainiac – who has stumbled into a life-altering discovery. Of course, it helps that Bassman – as the wife who still loves him in spite of their marital woes – is that ‘strong woman behind every man,’ and the two make for an entirely credible pairing with maybe even a bit of chemistry to spare. When he’s weak, she’s strong – and vice versa – so their match-up grounds everything that transpires herein. Holley – as their only child – is given a limited handful of tasks to accomplish here; and yet she, too, comes off looking, sounding, and behaving entirely like the product of her good-intentioned parents with the typical wild streak as it applies to youthful indiscretion.
As appreciating a great many genre potboilers requires little to no foreknowledge of surprises, I won’t spoil anything major in this space. Suffice it to say, Double Star Accounting isn’t exactly an accounting firm – not the kind regular folks would be familiar with anyway – and Edgar isn’t exactly working solely with numbers. It would seem that he’s an experienced specialist at cracking numeric codes; and he’s discovered that the secret to prognosticating one’s future lies in the ability to interpret phosphenes – those curious flashes of light each of sees when applying pressure to closed eyes – alongside some ‘movie science’ math involving starlight. The point is that he’s broken a code so strongly that everyone around him thinks he’s lost his mind; and it’s this intersection that supplies most of the intrigue, comedy, and drama for what evolves as a single-location storyline.
The importance to making an ensemble work is in casting the right talent to fill each identity; and, mostly, that’s Dark’s greatest strength.
Though Scott is a bit light on the mania required to fully sell what’s suggested as a kinda/sorta mental breakdown (or mental lapse, one significant enough to crumble his dynamic), he’s entirely affable as the Average Joe – part brainiac – who has stumbled into a life-altering discovery. Of course, it helps that Bassman – as the wife who still loves him in spite of their marital woes – is that ‘strong woman behind every man,’ and the two make for an entirely credible pairing with maybe even a bit of chemistry to spare. When he’s weak, she’s strong – and vice versa – so their match-up grounds everything that transpires herein. Holley – as their only child – is given a limited handful of tasks to accomplish here; and yet she, too, comes off looking, sounding, and behaving entirely like the product of her good-intentioned parents with the typical wild streak as it applies to youthful indiscretion.
On the other side of the coin, our screen villains are also evenly matched. Borla suffers a bit as the evil lead mostly because she’s only shown as the kind of mover and shaker who gives orders: for me, Messineo’s script lacks a scene convincing of the reputation she’s apparently earned around the office. (Barking commands is one thing: a willingness to get one’s hands authentically dirty is another. She does 'pony up' in the last reel, but it felt a little too little a little too late for me.) Beckwith – as curiously named ‘The Kid’ – winds up being a bit more comic relief than anything else: his purpose is largely to establish there’s more to Double Star’s hierarchy than what meets the eye, and – while nice – it really never resonates beyond a bit of narrative convention. Wilder’s Frank – an obvious corporate goon trying very hard to hide what beats as a heart of gold – steals scenes in small, funny ways that feel so authentic one wonders if they weren’t ad-libbed. If not, no worries … because comedy works best when you don’t see it coming.
Now, there’s a curious development late in the picture – a vignette involving Taylor’s boyfriend escaping on foot – that momentarily hijacks what otherwise was smooth sailing. Though none of what occurred outside the home between the fleeing youth and Frank is shown, there’s a strong hint that our enforcer’s explanation of how the kid got away wasn’t exactly the truth and nothing but the truth; or, maybe, all of that is speculation on my part. The way the rest of Dark works, I sensed that Frank’s account was going to turn out to be manufactured, and we – the audience – would be shown what truly went down in another sequence. That doesn’t happen, and I’ll simply leave it at that, always skeptical over just how our lovable heavy actually tore that hole in his pants.
It's often been said that the beauty of knowing whether or not viewers connected with a specific story’s characters is whether or not the film ends with the audience acknowledging a desire to spend more time with them; and I’m happy to say that’s the case here. The ensemble clicks. The story is smart – or smart enough – and the non-linear format works so well that I think it’d be improbable for all of this to function this effectively in any other manner. In fact, this suburban trio’s story about bridging time and space is really just beginning. I’m not sure the magic could necessarily be recaptured in the further adventures Edgar, Susan, and Taylor, but I suppose the temptation could be there if this first part gets the attention it deserves.
Now, there’s a curious development late in the picture – a vignette involving Taylor’s boyfriend escaping on foot – that momentarily hijacks what otherwise was smooth sailing. Though none of what occurred outside the home between the fleeing youth and Frank is shown, there’s a strong hint that our enforcer’s explanation of how the kid got away wasn’t exactly the truth and nothing but the truth; or, maybe, all of that is speculation on my part. The way the rest of Dark works, I sensed that Frank’s account was going to turn out to be manufactured, and we – the audience – would be shown what truly went down in another sequence. That doesn’t happen, and I’ll simply leave it at that, always skeptical over just how our lovable heavy actually tore that hole in his pants.
It's often been said that the beauty of knowing whether or not viewers connected with a specific story’s characters is whether or not the film ends with the audience acknowledging a desire to spend more time with them; and I’m happy to say that’s the case here. The ensemble clicks. The story is smart – or smart enough – and the non-linear format works so well that I think it’d be improbable for all of this to function this effectively in any other manner. In fact, this suburban trio’s story about bridging time and space is really just beginning. I’m not sure the magic could necessarily be recaptured in the further adventures Edgar, Susan, and Taylor, but I suppose the temptation could be there if this first part gets the attention it deserves.
The Strange Dark (2024) was produced by Anthony Pettine and Chris Messineo. A quick search of Google.com shows that the project is tentatively scheduled for release for streaming on Plex, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Fandango this forthcoming December 5th. (Additionally, there are plans for a forthcoming Blu-ray/DVD which I'm told will contain a commentary track, a making-of documentary, and bloopers.) As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure readers that the provided sights-and-sounds are top notch, especially in the world of independent productions. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
Strongly Recommended.
Without a doubt, I think the single greatest reason to take in a nifty little flick like The Strange Dark (2024) is because – without obvious designs or weighty pretentions – it shows audiences exactly what’s possible with not only Science Fiction and Fantasy attempted on a small scale but also serves as a textbook example of what’s possible with a solid independent effort. Small in scale but big in stagecraft, the story and its characters deliver expertly on what’s expected here, never reaching for anything greater than the sum of what’s achievable and feasible at this level. (Trust me: I’ve seen a great many indie films destroyed by trying to live beyond their means, and –thankfully – that isn’t the case here.) My only complaint – I reserve the right to always have one – is that it ends with my wanting to spend more time with these players … even the villains … and that rarely happens in my corner of the webosphere.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that writer/director Chris Messineo provided me with complimentary streaming access to The Strange Dark (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. His contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Strongly Recommended.
Without a doubt, I think the single greatest reason to take in a nifty little flick like The Strange Dark (2024) is because – without obvious designs or weighty pretentions – it shows audiences exactly what’s possible with not only Science Fiction and Fantasy attempted on a small scale but also serves as a textbook example of what’s possible with a solid independent effort. Small in scale but big in stagecraft, the story and its characters deliver expertly on what’s expected here, never reaching for anything greater than the sum of what’s achievable and feasible at this level. (Trust me: I’ve seen a great many indie films destroyed by trying to live beyond their means, and –thankfully – that isn’t the case here.) My only complaint – I reserve the right to always have one – is that it ends with my wanting to spend more time with these players … even the villains … and that rarely happens in my corner of the webosphere.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that writer/director Chris Messineo provided me with complimentary streaming access to The Strange Dark (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. His contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ