- Published on
Believe it or not, there are a good handful of reasonably prominent genre films that – over the years – the readership have ‘taken me to task’ over.
No, I’m not going to start this review out my naming them, though I suspect a few of them might manage to creep in before all is said and done. To clarify, my position has never been – nor will it ever be – that I don’t like these motion pictures: rather, it’s that I personally don’t see any substantive reason for them to have received the amount of praise they have or that I’m a bit befuddled by conclusions some in the critical and academic community reached by watching the same thing I did. Though it’s sometimes easy to chalk these disagreements up to just differences of opinion, I can still cite some individual cases where a person of some acclaim – maybe even someone I find myself often agreeing with – just praises a certain film to the point of naming it one of the most significant Science Fiction or Fantasy or Horror productions he’s (or she’s) ever seen; this inevitably forces me to put on a look of sheer confusion – if not exasperated astonishment – as the only form of response. Yes, sometimes it is that mystifying … and I’m of a mindset that it shouldn’t be.
Now, yes, I am talking briefly here about Dark City (1998), but even that admission requires an honest clarification: when speaking about the feature written (in part) and directed by Alex Proyas, I’m usually addressing my complaints to the originally released theatrical edit, one which I’m quite sure has been a bit universally panned over the years. In fact, I distinctly recall a fair number of my educated betters emerging from their respective screenings feeling a bit lost with the plot of one man finding out that he might be the very center of a microcosmic universe (after all); and yet their opinions have changed somewhat dramatically when presented with the Director’s Cut finally given license roughly a decade later. All well and good – opinions can change when we’re given more to digest – and, true, Proyas’ return feels like it was conceived as a fuller meal on almost all counts.
Still … here’s the thing: at the end of the viewing, none of the significant questions I had after watching the original flick were really addressed … so pardon me if I’m still over here standing on my soapbox claiming that Dark City remains one of Science Fiction’s biggest missed opportunities at true, cinematic greatness.
(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 …)
No, I’m not going to start this review out my naming them, though I suspect a few of them might manage to creep in before all is said and done. To clarify, my position has never been – nor will it ever be – that I don’t like these motion pictures: rather, it’s that I personally don’t see any substantive reason for them to have received the amount of praise they have or that I’m a bit befuddled by conclusions some in the critical and academic community reached by watching the same thing I did. Though it’s sometimes easy to chalk these disagreements up to just differences of opinion, I can still cite some individual cases where a person of some acclaim – maybe even someone I find myself often agreeing with – just praises a certain film to the point of naming it one of the most significant Science Fiction or Fantasy or Horror productions he’s (or she’s) ever seen; this inevitably forces me to put on a look of sheer confusion – if not exasperated astonishment – as the only form of response. Yes, sometimes it is that mystifying … and I’m of a mindset that it shouldn’t be.
Now, yes, I am talking briefly here about Dark City (1998), but even that admission requires an honest clarification: when speaking about the feature written (in part) and directed by Alex Proyas, I’m usually addressing my complaints to the originally released theatrical edit, one which I’m quite sure has been a bit universally panned over the years. In fact, I distinctly recall a fair number of my educated betters emerging from their respective screenings feeling a bit lost with the plot of one man finding out that he might be the very center of a microcosmic universe (after all); and yet their opinions have changed somewhat dramatically when presented with the Director’s Cut finally given license roughly a decade later. All well and good – opinions can change when we’re given more to digest – and, true, Proyas’ return feels like it was conceived as a fuller meal on almost all counts.
Still … here’s the thing: at the end of the viewing, none of the significant questions I had after watching the original flick were really addressed … so pardon me if I’m still over here standing on my soapbox claiming that Dark City remains one of Science Fiction’s biggest missed opportunities at true, cinematic greatness.
(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:
“A man struggles with memories of his past, which include a wife he cannot remember and a nightmarish world no one else ever seems to wake up from.”
Before I delve into the intricacies of what makes an effort like Dark City as brilliant and equally as flawed as it is, let’s make one point certain: films like it are why those of us who love watching, thinking, and writing about them to do what we do. In other words, we see things in these adventures. Sometimes, we identify with the characters. In other cases, we are intrigued by the world as presented and are even willing to take great strides to understand it. In other ways still, there’s something in the picture’s primary message that resonates with us – rings like a bell or reverberates like a jackhammer – causing watchers to embrace it when even stronger stories in similar territory fall flat. Because both watching and interpreting such tales is so personal experience, I can even point to instances (few but they’re out there) wherein I cannot sensibly explain why a flick moves me the way it does. What can I say? I’m human after all!
On this scale, Proyas’ Dark City falls somewhere in the middle. I’ve seen it enough to know both what works aesthetically as well as cerebrally. I’ve certainly read enough about it to grasp where I believe the writer/director wanted it to go and maybe even his impressions of how successfully it achieved what he set out to do. And, yes, by ingesting the latest Arrow Films’ release – which is loaded with Arrow’s incredible assortment of odds and ends – I’ve probably thought enough about it to make up my own mind of its occasional genius being thwarted equally by (you guessed it!) its own occasional genius that I should have more to say about it.
However, I don’t. I just don’t.
Dark City is a film I like but, immeasurably, don’t quite understand. Under Proyas’ direction, it’s astonishingly efficient, and yet I’m not convinced it really says anything deeper than ‘be careful what you wish for.’ Damn near everything about the production is perfect – or as darkly pristine as was fully intended – but when I reach those closing scenes I’m still baffled with how I, as a viewer, am to be happy with the lead character choosing to live in a prison of his own making versus a prison of someone else’s design.
Or is that it? That I’m not supposed to be happy?
“A man struggles with memories of his past, which include a wife he cannot remember and a nightmarish world no one else ever seems to wake up from.”
Before I delve into the intricacies of what makes an effort like Dark City as brilliant and equally as flawed as it is, let’s make one point certain: films like it are why those of us who love watching, thinking, and writing about them to do what we do. In other words, we see things in these adventures. Sometimes, we identify with the characters. In other cases, we are intrigued by the world as presented and are even willing to take great strides to understand it. In other ways still, there’s something in the picture’s primary message that resonates with us – rings like a bell or reverberates like a jackhammer – causing watchers to embrace it when even stronger stories in similar territory fall flat. Because both watching and interpreting such tales is so personal experience, I can even point to instances (few but they’re out there) wherein I cannot sensibly explain why a flick moves me the way it does. What can I say? I’m human after all!
On this scale, Proyas’ Dark City falls somewhere in the middle. I’ve seen it enough to know both what works aesthetically as well as cerebrally. I’ve certainly read enough about it to grasp where I believe the writer/director wanted it to go and maybe even his impressions of how successfully it achieved what he set out to do. And, yes, by ingesting the latest Arrow Films’ release – which is loaded with Arrow’s incredible assortment of odds and ends – I’ve probably thought enough about it to make up my own mind of its occasional genius being thwarted equally by (you guessed it!) its own occasional genius that I should have more to say about it.
However, I don’t. I just don’t.
Dark City is a film I like but, immeasurably, don’t quite understand. Under Proyas’ direction, it’s astonishingly efficient, and yet I’m not convinced it really says anything deeper than ‘be careful what you wish for.’ Damn near everything about the production is perfect – or as darkly pristine as was fully intended – but when I reach those closing scenes I’m still baffled with how I, as a viewer, am to be happy with the lead character choosing to live in a prison of his own making versus a prison of someone else’s design.
Or is that it? That I’m not supposed to be happy?
John Murdoch (played by Rufus Sewell) wakes up in a hotel room next to the body of a dead woman bearing a curious sigil carved into her flesh. Doing the only thing a man utterly confused to find himself in such a predicament might do, he flees the scene of the crime only to realize slowly over the course of his flight that nothing about this place, his person, or his circumstance makes any sense. Initially, he’s thinking he’s suffered some mental breakdown fueled by marital difficulties with his wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly); and only the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the city’s chief detective – Inspector Frank Bumstead (William Hurt) – is enough to grant John the leeway to pull back the layers of mystery surrounding (literally) everything in this tortured existence. His realization will present world-changing opportunities no one ever predicted possible.
The problem with searching for answers to questions only few hold is that, ultimately, some will pay a high price for risking to fly so close to the sun. Yes, that’s a cautionary warning most of us know, but it doesn’t stop Bumstead from going in cahoots with Murdoch. Eventually, he pays dearly; and it’s his demise that fundamentally underscores where I struggled with this particular City. In his death, we learn that – gasp! – none of this is real. Not the city. Not the identities. Nothing. It’s all being heavily manipulated at the hands of The Strangers, an alien race seeking to understand nothing more than ‘the human soul’ because they believe that grasping such concepts as humanity and individuality will somehow ‘cure’ their own looming extinction. Somehow – though it’s never explicitly explained – these aliens believe that playing with life and death will grant them the ability to – ahem – transcend both.
Erm … what?
Precisely how they can chase this rabbit endlessly down whatever hole it runs is their ability to tune.
Tuning – as best as I’ve settled on the concept as presented – is the Strangers’ talent to reshape reality into whatever construct they desire. If they need a door, then they simply imagine one; and it appears. If they need a new building, then they use their psychic abilities to bend and twist existing matter into this new edifice. While the process is demonstrated once or twice in the film, there’s still so very little information provided that, essentially, I pretty much mark it down as ‘the movie’s required magic,’ the kind of storytelling trickery that does anything whenever and wherever the script necessitates. Though we’re shown it has limitations (i.e. their machinery can manufacture whatever is needed from small objects to massive skyscrapers, but it requires individual Strangers to physically step into the City and position people and their possessions along with memory injections to accomplish these existential rewrites), the true extent of ‘tuning’ – much less its origins or its evolution from their species to Murdoch – is never quite clarified. Indeed, once Murdoch is brought into the realm of the The Strangers, he’s suddenly found telekinesis on the menu; and he puts this new gift to great use in deconstructing their world more vividly than they ever did his.
The problem with searching for answers to questions only few hold is that, ultimately, some will pay a high price for risking to fly so close to the sun. Yes, that’s a cautionary warning most of us know, but it doesn’t stop Bumstead from going in cahoots with Murdoch. Eventually, he pays dearly; and it’s his demise that fundamentally underscores where I struggled with this particular City. In his death, we learn that – gasp! – none of this is real. Not the city. Not the identities. Nothing. It’s all being heavily manipulated at the hands of The Strangers, an alien race seeking to understand nothing more than ‘the human soul’ because they believe that grasping such concepts as humanity and individuality will somehow ‘cure’ their own looming extinction. Somehow – though it’s never explicitly explained – these aliens believe that playing with life and death will grant them the ability to – ahem – transcend both.
Erm … what?
Precisely how they can chase this rabbit endlessly down whatever hole it runs is their ability to tune.
Tuning – as best as I’ve settled on the concept as presented – is the Strangers’ talent to reshape reality into whatever construct they desire. If they need a door, then they simply imagine one; and it appears. If they need a new building, then they use their psychic abilities to bend and twist existing matter into this new edifice. While the process is demonstrated once or twice in the film, there’s still so very little information provided that, essentially, I pretty much mark it down as ‘the movie’s required magic,’ the kind of storytelling trickery that does anything whenever and wherever the script necessitates. Though we’re shown it has limitations (i.e. their machinery can manufacture whatever is needed from small objects to massive skyscrapers, but it requires individual Strangers to physically step into the City and position people and their possessions along with memory injections to accomplish these existential rewrites), the true extent of ‘tuning’ – much less its origins or its evolution from their species to Murdoch – is never quite clarified. Indeed, once Murdoch is brought into the realm of the The Strangers, he’s suddenly found telekinesis on the menu; and he puts this new gift to great use in deconstructing their world more vividly than they ever did his.
Because Proyas and his skilled technicians render this so spectacularly, I think most folks simply overlook the fact (via these cinematic distractions) that none of it really makes sense happening physically. Sure, when it’s pretty, why stop and ask how it works? Indeed, 1999’s The Matrix – a picture that many compare endlessly to Dark City – opted to do the same thing within consciousness instead of the real world, making the task much simpler and understandable. There, human participants were all linked into a hive-mind existence; and they could similarly interact with one another whilst still being observed or monitored by the aliens who were using their human bodies for the bio-electricity they provided while contained with ‘the Matrix.’ Likewise, Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) and the rebels found ways around their overlords’ control, much in the same way Murdoch ‘discovers’ this latest skill within himself. Still, using this same concept of reshaping reality but in the physical world truly required that Proyas do a bit more (in my opinion), and the picture scores poorly in that respect.
Additionally, Neo rose to the challenge of defying the conventions of his world with the goal of saving all of what remained of humanity from enslavement. Drawing that parallel to Murdoch’s task kinda/sorta comes up significantly short because, instead, he chooses to keep those still living within the prison of our aggressor’s construction. Yes, he’s torn down a wall or two. Yes, he’s turned up the lights. Yes, he’s obviously eliminated the invasion tinkering of the overlords even though we were never really shown such incessant tampering as producing ill effects on them. But it’s still a prison … no? The only significant difference – so far as this simple mind can determine – is that he’s become the warden. While it’s suggested that he’s restoring free will to survivors near and far (at least, that is what I take the metaphor of his Shell Beach destination to stand for), a case could be made that they already had free will to a small degree within their thematic incarceration. All that was truly lost was their respective ever-changing identities: choice never seemed to be in short supply.
For me, I still see the prison at the end of Dark City, a symbol that functionally not all that much is changed despite the revolution one man waged almost entirely on his own. For all intents and purposes, humanity remains well within the cage. We’re reminded of it even in those closing scenes wherein the alien station is depicted as a kinda/sorta island floating in space. Beyond those walls, no man can travel. Proyas showed us that with Bumstead’s floating body. Doesn’t this imply that even individuality has limitations? Doesn’t this mean that Murdoch really only let folks out of one prison so that they could endure another? Isn’t a cage always a cage, no matter who holds the keys to unlock the door?
Additionally, Neo rose to the challenge of defying the conventions of his world with the goal of saving all of what remained of humanity from enslavement. Drawing that parallel to Murdoch’s task kinda/sorta comes up significantly short because, instead, he chooses to keep those still living within the prison of our aggressor’s construction. Yes, he’s torn down a wall or two. Yes, he’s turned up the lights. Yes, he’s obviously eliminated the invasion tinkering of the overlords even though we were never really shown such incessant tampering as producing ill effects on them. But it’s still a prison … no? The only significant difference – so far as this simple mind can determine – is that he’s become the warden. While it’s suggested that he’s restoring free will to survivors near and far (at least, that is what I take the metaphor of his Shell Beach destination to stand for), a case could be made that they already had free will to a small degree within their thematic incarceration. All that was truly lost was their respective ever-changing identities: choice never seemed to be in short supply.
For me, I still see the prison at the end of Dark City, a symbol that functionally not all that much is changed despite the revolution one man waged almost entirely on his own. For all intents and purposes, humanity remains well within the cage. We’re reminded of it even in those closing scenes wherein the alien station is depicted as a kinda/sorta island floating in space. Beyond those walls, no man can travel. Proyas showed us that with Bumstead’s floating body. Doesn’t this imply that even individuality has limitations? Doesn’t this mean that Murdoch really only let folks out of one prison so that they could endure another? Isn’t a cage always a cage, no matter who holds the keys to unlock the door?
Because Dark City ends with the questions beginning, this is why I think it’s still arguably one of the better genre films to emerge from the late 1990’s. As imperfect as I see its message, it’s exactly the kind of feature that prompts alert viewers to evaluate it as a work of art, ponder the mysteries of existence, and wonder how all of the pieces of their own universe could inevitably fit together. At least, it’s smart enough to know where to leave them: where I disagree with most is that I still feel I deserved to know a bit more about it.
Dark City (1998) was produced by New Line Cinema, Time Warner, Mystery Clock Cinema, and Alex Proyas. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … just wow. Seriously, it ought to be a crime for a picture to look and sound as good as this one does. It’s fabulous throughout. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I said above, Arrow never disappoints, and this two-disc assortment has multiple commentary tracks along with a heady assortment of behind-the-scenes extras that cineastes love to spend time with. “Impressive” doesn’t even begin to describe this collection.
Strongly Recommended.
Look: just because I sound like I’m disappointed in a film doesn’t necessarily mean that I dislike it, and nothing could be further from the truth as it applies to Dark City. Proyas and his obviously talented cast and crew did a masterful job delivering something worth watching not once, not twice, not thrice, but over and over and over again even if one ultimately winds up going absolutely nowhere in the process. John Murdoch’s awakening happens with so little explanation – as does any attempt within the film to rationally explain how any of this world-building, world-shifting, and world-tuning is possible – that I’m just poorly invested in it. What does work? Well, damn near everything! The production details, the performances, the twists, the turns, the pacing! Everything! It’s just that centrally and critically flawed premise that will forever bug the crap out of me; and it’s a sentiment I’ve never been able to overcome. Still … it’s a solid thumbs up … a feature that deserves to be embraced with all of its storytelling flaws.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Dark City (1998) 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
Dark City (1998) was produced by New Line Cinema, Time Warner, Mystery Clock Cinema, and Alex Proyas. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert … just wow. Seriously, it ought to be a crime for a picture to look and sound as good as this one does. It’s fabulous throughout. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I said above, Arrow never disappoints, and this two-disc assortment has multiple commentary tracks along with a heady assortment of behind-the-scenes extras that cineastes love to spend time with. “Impressive” doesn’t even begin to describe this collection.
Strongly Recommended.
Look: just because I sound like I’m disappointed in a film doesn’t necessarily mean that I dislike it, and nothing could be further from the truth as it applies to Dark City. Proyas and his obviously talented cast and crew did a masterful job delivering something worth watching not once, not twice, not thrice, but over and over and over again even if one ultimately winds up going absolutely nowhere in the process. John Murdoch’s awakening happens with so little explanation – as does any attempt within the film to rationally explain how any of this world-building, world-shifting, and world-tuning is possible – that I’m just poorly invested in it. What does work? Well, damn near everything! The production details, the performances, the twists, the turns, the pacing! Everything! It’s just that centrally and critically flawed premise that will forever bug the crap out of me; and it’s a sentiment I’ve never been able to overcome. Still … it’s a solid thumbs up … a feature that deserves to be embraced with all of its storytelling flaws.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Dark City (1998) 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 2001 (in the United States), Elvira's Haunted Hills enjoyed its big screen launch when it was screened for its first time for audiences of the International Rocky Horror Fan Convention. Directed by Sam Irvin from a story by star Cassandra Peterson and John Paragon, the film starred Peterson alongside Richard O'Brien, Mary Scheer, Heather Hopper, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Spooky hijinks abound when Elvira finds herself spending the night in a mysterious castle en route to 1851 Paris."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Elvira's Haunted Hills earned some positive praise from a screening on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
On this day in 2001 (in the United States), Elvira's Haunted Hills enjoyed its big screen launch when it was screened for its first time for audiences of the International Rocky Horror Fan Convention. Directed by Sam Irvin from a story by star Cassandra Peterson and John Paragon, the film starred Peterson alongside Richard O'Brien, Mary Scheer, Heather Hopper, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Spooky hijinks abound when Elvira finds herself spending the night in a mysterious castle en route to 1851 Paris."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Elvira's Haunted Hills earned some positive praise from a screening on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
- Published on
Stardate 06.23.2023.A: Happy 49th Anniversay To 1976's Fantastic Science Fiction Flick 'Logan's Run'
So many movies ... so little time ...
Alongside George Lucas's original Star Wars (1977), one of the most significant SciFi flicks to come out of the late '70's was Logan's Run -- which the entertainment industry desperately wants to remake. (It opened theatrically in the United States on this day in 1976.) Let me go out on a limb and pronounce that I'll probably always prefer the original anyway should a remake or even a reboot ever see the light of Sanctuary. Directed by Michael Anderson and based on the novel by William F. Nolan, the SciFi/Fantasy starred Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, and others. Here's the plot from IMDB.com:
"Logan, a Sandman (police assassin), is forced to search for "Sanctuary" - a place to which people have apparently escaped from the sealed city of the future in which he lives. Jessica is caught up along the way and becomes his companion fugitive as they are both pursued by Francis, a fellow Sandman. Sanctuary is not what they expect."
For the record:
Logan's Run certainly 'ran away' from the competition so far as award recognition is concerned.
Editor's Note:
It's also worthy of note that Logan's Run was both successful at the box office and popular enough to warrant the studio fast-tracking a TV series spin-off that aired fourteen episodes across 1977 and 1978.
-- EZ
Alongside George Lucas's original Star Wars (1977), one of the most significant SciFi flicks to come out of the late '70's was Logan's Run -- which the entertainment industry desperately wants to remake. (It opened theatrically in the United States on this day in 1976.) Let me go out on a limb and pronounce that I'll probably always prefer the original anyway should a remake or even a reboot ever see the light of Sanctuary. Directed by Michael Anderson and based on the novel by William F. Nolan, the SciFi/Fantasy starred Michael York, Jenny Agutter, Richard Jordan, and others. Here's the plot from IMDB.com:
"Logan, a Sandman (police assassin), is forced to search for "Sanctuary" - a place to which people have apparently escaped from the sealed city of the future in which he lives. Jessica is caught up along the way and becomes his companion fugitive as they are both pursued by Francis, a fellow Sandman. Sanctuary is not what they expect."
For the record:
Logan's Run certainly 'ran away' from the competition so far as award recognition is concerned.
- At the 1977 Academy Awards, L.B. Abbott, Glen Robinson, and Matthew Yuricich shared a Special Achievement Oscar for the film's visual effects. (It was also nominated in the categories of 'Best Art Direction - Set Direction' and 'Best Cinematography' but lost out.)
- In the same year, it was also nominated for the Hugo Award for 'Best Dramatic Presentation.'
- Lastly, the feature cleaned out the trophy closet at the 1977 Saturn Awards, taking home statues for 'Best Make-up,' 'Best Costumes,' 'Best Set Decoration,' 'Best Art Direction,' 'Best Cinematography,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
Editor's Note:
It's also worthy of note that Logan's Run was both successful at the box office and popular enough to warrant the studio fast-tracking a TV series spin-off that aired fourteen episodes across 1977 and 1978.
-- EZ
- Published on
Awww! But the kids are so cute! So small! So nutritious!
On this day back in 1989 (in Canada and the U.S.), Walt Disney and Rick Moranis went small as the actor played a someone home-grown scientific genius who accidentally miniaturizes his children with the help of his latest invention. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids -- directed by genre-fave Joe Johnston -- did gangbusters at the box office, and it only helped further pave the way for Moranis's eventual retirement from acting.
Directed by Joe Johnston from a story by Stuart Gordon, Brian Yuzna, Ed Naha, and Tom Schulman, the film starred Rick Moranis, Matt Frewer, Marcia Strassman, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"On the brink of perfecting his state-of-the-art matter-shrinking machine, the suburban paterfamilias and indefatigable inventor, Professor Wayne Szalinski, realises that his device truly works, when it zaps both his kids and their friends. Now, to return to the relative safety of their home while being reduced to a mere quarter-inch size, the minuscule humans must venture out into the dense and perilous landscapes of their now-immense backyard--a hostile environment where nearly everything spells trouble. Can the kids exit the green maze of grass in one piece?"
For the record:
At the 1991 Saturn Awards sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films, the film received an incredible six nominations (though no wins) in the categories of 'Best Performance By A Younger Actor' (3 noms), 'Best Music,' 'Best Special Effects,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
Editor's Note:
It's also worth noting that -- to the best of my knowledge -- the film spawned not only two sequels and a spin-off television show but also was instrumental to the development of a theme park ride by the Walt Disney Company.
-- EZ
On this day back in 1989 (in Canada and the U.S.), Walt Disney and Rick Moranis went small as the actor played a someone home-grown scientific genius who accidentally miniaturizes his children with the help of his latest invention. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids -- directed by genre-fave Joe Johnston -- did gangbusters at the box office, and it only helped further pave the way for Moranis's eventual retirement from acting.
Directed by Joe Johnston from a story by Stuart Gordon, Brian Yuzna, Ed Naha, and Tom Schulman, the film starred Rick Moranis, Matt Frewer, Marcia Strassman, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"On the brink of perfecting his state-of-the-art matter-shrinking machine, the suburban paterfamilias and indefatigable inventor, Professor Wayne Szalinski, realises that his device truly works, when it zaps both his kids and their friends. Now, to return to the relative safety of their home while being reduced to a mere quarter-inch size, the minuscule humans must venture out into the dense and perilous landscapes of their now-immense backyard--a hostile environment where nearly everything spells trouble. Can the kids exit the green maze of grass in one piece?"
For the record:
At the 1991 Saturn Awards sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films, the film received an incredible six nominations (though no wins) in the categories of 'Best Performance By A Younger Actor' (3 noms), 'Best Music,' 'Best Special Effects,' and 'Best Science Fiction Film.'
Editor's Note:
It's also worth noting that -- to the best of my knowledge -- the film spawned not only two sequels and a spin-off television show but also was instrumental to the development of a theme park ride by the Walt Disney Company.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1977 (in the U.S.), the good people of Bismarck, North Dakota were treated to the exclusive theatrical debut of Ruby. Directed by Curtis Harrington from a story by George Edwards, Steve Krantz, and Barry Schneider, the film starred Piper Laurie, Stuart Whitman, Roger Davis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Sixteen years after Ruby Claire's gangster boyfriend was shot and killed by four associates, a series of gruesome murders takes place at the drive-in movie theatre she now owns. Meanwhile, the behaviour of her mute daughter Leslie is becoming increasingly strange and a visiting psychic claims that forces from beyond are out for revenge."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Ruby garnered a wee bit of attention from a screening on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
On this day in 1977 (in the U.S.), the good people of Bismarck, North Dakota were treated to the exclusive theatrical debut of Ruby. Directed by Curtis Harrington from a story by George Edwards, Steve Krantz, and Barry Schneider, the film starred Piper Laurie, Stuart Whitman, Roger Davis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Sixteen years after Ruby Claire's gangster boyfriend was shot and killed by four associates, a series of gruesome murders takes place at the drive-in movie theatre she now owns. Meanwhile, the behaviour of her mute daughter Leslie is becoming increasingly strange and a visiting psychic claims that forces from beyond are out for revenge."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Ruby garnered a wee bit of attention from a screening on the film festival circuit.
-- EZ
- Published on
press release
Hot Wheels Collectors
Hot Wheels Back to the Future
40th Anniversary Set
Great Scott! Hot Wheels celebrates a red-letter date in the history of science, and the 40th Anniversary of Back to the Future. This iconic scene features the Time Machine and, for the first time, Doc’s GMC Value Van – both featuring die-cast construction and Real Riders wheels. Our interactive outer box lets you unfold a ramp from the side, so you can slide out the diorama package just like the Time Machine itself being unloaded for its attempt at the world’s first temporal displacement.
Packaged in a movie-themed diorama display, packed in a protective outer box.
Final product color and design may vary. Purchase limits subject to change at the sole discretion of Mattel. Available while supplies last. Items placed in your shopping cart are not guaranteed to be available for purchase until you have completed checkout and received an order number via confirmation page or email.
©2025 Mattel
© Universal City Studios LLC and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
To see all pictures and access purchasing details, click here.
- HOT WHEELS® 40th Anniversary Back to the Future™ Time Machine Set
- Celebrate 40 years of Back to the Future with this special edition collector set, inspired by the iconic scene when the Time Machine is unveiled.
- Includes our first-ever 1:64 scale version of Dr. Emmet “Doc” Brown’s GMC Value Van from the first Back to the Future movie, with authentic graphics.
- Also comes with an updated 1:64 scale edition of the Time Machine, created to celebrate the 2025 San Diego Comic-Con and featuring deco exclusive to this set.
- Interior window packaging showcases the iconic Twin Pines mall parking lot scene, where Doc’s science experiment makes time-traveling history.
Packaged in a movie-themed diorama display, packed in a protective outer box.
Final product color and design may vary. Purchase limits subject to change at the sole discretion of Mattel. Available while supplies last. Items placed in your shopping cart are not guaranteed to be available for purchase until you have completed checkout and received an order number via confirmation page or email.
©2025 Mattel
© Universal City Studios LLC and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
To see all pictures and access purchasing details, click here.
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1988 (in France), Cameron's Closet was finally opened up -- theatrically, that is -- when it was screened for the very first time for audiences of the International Science Fiction & Fantasy Film Festival. Directed by Armand Mastroianni from a story by Gary Brandner, the film starred Cotter Smith, Mel Harris, Scott Curtis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A father (Tab Hunter) who experiments with his son's (Scott Curtis) psychokinetic powers is unaware that these experiments release a demon from hell, which lives in his son's closet, preparing to take over the young boy's soul."
For the record:
To the film's credit, actor Scott Curtis received a 1988 Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best Performance By A Younger Actor.'
-- EZ
On this day in 1988 (in France), Cameron's Closet was finally opened up -- theatrically, that is -- when it was screened for the very first time for audiences of the International Science Fiction & Fantasy Film Festival. Directed by Armand Mastroianni from a story by Gary Brandner, the film starred Cotter Smith, Mel Harris, Scott Curtis, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A father (Tab Hunter) who experiments with his son's (Scott Curtis) psychokinetic powers is unaware that these experiments release a demon from hell, which lives in his son's closet, preparing to take over the young boy's soul."
For the record:
To the film's credit, actor Scott Curtis received a 1988 Saturn Awards nomination in the category of 'Best Performance By A Younger Actor.'
-- EZ
- Published on
press release
Blue Harbor Takes STAR PEOPLE
to the Big Screen and beyond
Sci-fi thriller inspired by The Phoenix Lights hitting theaters July 25 and VOD August 12
New York, NY – June 23, 2025 – Blue Harbor Entertainment announced today that it will release Adam Finberg’s STAR PEOPLE in theaters on July 25 and on VOD beginning August 12.
The film will also have its festival World Premiere at Dances With Films: LA on June 28 at the TCL Chinese Theater.
For more information about Dances With Films: LA please go to:
https://danceswithfilms.com/star-people/
Inspired by The Phoenix Lights, the largest mass UFO sighting in U.S. history, STAR PEOPLE is a sci-fi thriller that tells the story of a photographer (Kat Cunning) who receives a tip that could finally shed light on her childhood UFO sighting, but a deadly heatwave and unexpected guests threaten to derail her obsessive search for answers.
Directed by Adam Finberg in his narrative feature directorial debut, the film stars actor and recording artist Kat Cunning (The Deuce, On Swift Horses), McCabe Slye (Destroyer, Fear Street Trilogy), Connor Paolo (The Last Stop in Yuma County, Revenge, Gossip Girl), Eddie Martinez (The Sinner, Night Swim), Bradley Fisher (Westworld), and Adriana Aluna Martinez (Duster).
The film is produced by Adam Finberg and Josh Shader.
"We’re all in on Blue Harbor’s vision for launching Star People. With their transparent, collaborative approach, the filmmaker isn’t just a spectator — they’re part of the marketing and distribution game plan from the start,” stated the film’s producer Josh Shader.
“We’re excited to share Star People with audiences everywhere later this summer. This eerie, atmospheric thriller deals with one of the more confounding events that remains in question today. Adam and Josh have really captured the unease and wonder of the unknown while keeping you on edge throughout, " continued Blue Harbor Entertainment.
Led by Amanda Sherwin, Mike Messina and Seth Needle, Blue Harbor Entertainment recently released the award-winning untold story of Dr. Audrey Evans, Audrey's Children, starring Natalie Dormer in March, and A Nice Indian Boy, starring Karan Soni and Jonathan Groff, which has become the highest-grossing English-language film in limited release thus far this year. They released Lilly, the powerful story of equal pay activist Lilly Ledbetter starring Patricia Clarkson, in May.
ABOUT BLUE HARBOR ENTERTAINMENT:
Blue Harbor Entertainment is a boutique distributor of independent films designed for the business needs of today’s filmmakers and provides a comprehensive and full-scale distribution and marketing solution covering theatrical releases, home entertainment, transactional and subscription digital streaming platforms, and television. Established in 2023 by industry veterans Amanda Sherwin, Mike Messina and Seth Needle, and with a combined experience spanning hundreds of films over multiple decades, Blue Harbor was conceived as a much-needed alternative in today’s challenging U.S. distribution environment with a structure that empowers filmmakers. Notable releases include the cannabis horror/thriller Trim Season, starring Bethlehem Million (Sick) and Jane Badler (V), director Olivia Kuan’s award-winning documentary The Herricanes about The Houston Herricanes, a team that was part of the groundbreaking first women’s full tackle football league of the 1970s, and writer/director Zia Mohajerjasbi's award-winning film Know Your Place, a story about change and loss set amidst the landscape of a transforming Seattle as seen by a young Eritrean-American boy. Recent releases include the award-winning, untold story of Dr. Audrey Evans, Audrey's Children, starring Natalie Dormer, and the romantic comedy A Nice Indian Boy starring Karan Soni and Jonathan Groff, and Lilly, the powerful story of equal pay activist Lilly Ledbetter starring Patricia Clarkson.
The film will also have its festival World Premiere at Dances With Films: LA on June 28 at the TCL Chinese Theater.
For more information about Dances With Films: LA please go to:
https://danceswithfilms.com/star-people/
Inspired by The Phoenix Lights, the largest mass UFO sighting in U.S. history, STAR PEOPLE is a sci-fi thriller that tells the story of a photographer (Kat Cunning) who receives a tip that could finally shed light on her childhood UFO sighting, but a deadly heatwave and unexpected guests threaten to derail her obsessive search for answers.
Directed by Adam Finberg in his narrative feature directorial debut, the film stars actor and recording artist Kat Cunning (The Deuce, On Swift Horses), McCabe Slye (Destroyer, Fear Street Trilogy), Connor Paolo (The Last Stop in Yuma County, Revenge, Gossip Girl), Eddie Martinez (The Sinner, Night Swim), Bradley Fisher (Westworld), and Adriana Aluna Martinez (Duster).
The film is produced by Adam Finberg and Josh Shader.
"We’re all in on Blue Harbor’s vision for launching Star People. With their transparent, collaborative approach, the filmmaker isn’t just a spectator — they’re part of the marketing and distribution game plan from the start,” stated the film’s producer Josh Shader.
“We’re excited to share Star People with audiences everywhere later this summer. This eerie, atmospheric thriller deals with one of the more confounding events that remains in question today. Adam and Josh have really captured the unease and wonder of the unknown while keeping you on edge throughout, " continued Blue Harbor Entertainment.
Led by Amanda Sherwin, Mike Messina and Seth Needle, Blue Harbor Entertainment recently released the award-winning untold story of Dr. Audrey Evans, Audrey's Children, starring Natalie Dormer in March, and A Nice Indian Boy, starring Karan Soni and Jonathan Groff, which has become the highest-grossing English-language film in limited release thus far this year. They released Lilly, the powerful story of equal pay activist Lilly Ledbetter starring Patricia Clarkson, in May.
ABOUT BLUE HARBOR ENTERTAINMENT:
Blue Harbor Entertainment is a boutique distributor of independent films designed for the business needs of today’s filmmakers and provides a comprehensive and full-scale distribution and marketing solution covering theatrical releases, home entertainment, transactional and subscription digital streaming platforms, and television. Established in 2023 by industry veterans Amanda Sherwin, Mike Messina and Seth Needle, and with a combined experience spanning hundreds of films over multiple decades, Blue Harbor was conceived as a much-needed alternative in today’s challenging U.S. distribution environment with a structure that empowers filmmakers. Notable releases include the cannabis horror/thriller Trim Season, starring Bethlehem Million (Sick) and Jane Badler (V), director Olivia Kuan’s award-winning documentary The Herricanes about The Houston Herricanes, a team that was part of the groundbreaking first women’s full tackle football league of the 1970s, and writer/director Zia Mohajerjasbi's award-winning film Know Your Place, a story about change and loss set amidst the landscape of a transforming Seattle as seen by a young Eritrean-American boy. Recent releases include the award-winning, untold story of Dr. Audrey Evans, Audrey's Children, starring Natalie Dormer, and the romantic comedy A Nice Indian Boy starring Karan Soni and Jonathan Groff, and Lilly, the powerful story of equal pay activist Lilly Ledbetter starring Patricia Clarkson.
- Published on
Good morning and Happy Monday, gentle readers! Welcome to an all-new week!
Scanning the Information Superhighway today (and trying desperately to ignore the growing sensation that we're quickly approaching the brink of World War III), I did see via another website that the fine folks at Warner Bros. has let loose another theatrical trailer for the upcoming Horror flick release Weapons. I believe this film is set to go into full U.S. theatrical release on August 8, but I'm also seeing indications that it opens a few days earlier on IMAX screens. Isn't that a bit strange? Do studios do that to capitalize on building greater interest for IMAX screenings? You'll have to accept my apologies as I'm entirely unaware. Not surprised. Just unaware.
In any event, Weapons comes to us from the fertile imagination of writer/director Zach Creeger, a talent who's 2022 outing -- Barbarian -- definately ratcheted up a great deal of positive praise and intereste. (Saw it. Liked a good deal of it. Found a few sequences a bit confusing.) The cast for Weapons includes josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Toby Huss, Alden Ehrenreich, June Diane Raphael, Amy Madigan, Benedict Wong, Austin Abrams, Whitmer Thomas, Melissa Ponzio, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When all but one child from the same class mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance."
Now, I've honestly seen and read very little about the film. I did see the first trailer that was released, and it definitely looked very curious. It's the kind of story -- a central mystery involving missing children who vanished under even more bizarre circumstances -- that could be hit or miss with audiences. reminding me lightly of the various works of Stephen King that have already tapped such thematic cores. I guess we'll have to wait-and-see what to make of this one once it's available for consumption on the silver screen.
In any event ... trailer is below. You know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
Scanning the Information Superhighway today (and trying desperately to ignore the growing sensation that we're quickly approaching the brink of World War III), I did see via another website that the fine folks at Warner Bros. has let loose another theatrical trailer for the upcoming Horror flick release Weapons. I believe this film is set to go into full U.S. theatrical release on August 8, but I'm also seeing indications that it opens a few days earlier on IMAX screens. Isn't that a bit strange? Do studios do that to capitalize on building greater interest for IMAX screenings? You'll have to accept my apologies as I'm entirely unaware. Not surprised. Just unaware.
In any event, Weapons comes to us from the fertile imagination of writer/director Zach Creeger, a talent who's 2022 outing -- Barbarian -- definately ratcheted up a great deal of positive praise and intereste. (Saw it. Liked a good deal of it. Found a few sequences a bit confusing.) The cast for Weapons includes josh Brolin, Julia Garner, Toby Huss, Alden Ehrenreich, June Diane Raphael, Amy Madigan, Benedict Wong, Austin Abrams, Whitmer Thomas, Melissa Ponzio, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"When all but one child from the same class mysteriously vanish on the same night at exactly the same time, a community is left questioning who or what is behind their disappearance."
Now, I've honestly seen and read very little about the film. I did see the first trailer that was released, and it definitely looked very curious. It's the kind of story -- a central mystery involving missing children who vanished under even more bizarre circumstances -- that could be hit or miss with audiences. reminding me lightly of the various works of Stephen King that have already tapped such thematic cores. I guess we'll have to wait-and-see what to make of this one once it's available for consumption on the silver screen.
In any event ... trailer is below. You know what to do about that.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2018 (in the U.S.), Await Further Instructions was first unveiled theatrically when it was screened for audiences of the Cinepocalypse. Directed by Johnny Kevorkian from a story by Gavin Williams, the film starred Sam Gittins, Neerja Naik, David Bradley, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A family's Christmas takes a strange turn when they awake to find themselves trapped inside and begin receiving mysterious instructions through the television."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Await Further Instructions earned a good deal of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
According to additional information on Google.com:
Await Further Instructions was not a box office hit.
Here's why:
In summary, Await Further Instructions had a very limited theatrical release and was primarily a streaming release, meaning it did not perform well at the box office.
-- EZ
On this day in 2018 (in the U.S.), Await Further Instructions was first unveiled theatrically when it was screened for audiences of the Cinepocalypse. Directed by Johnny Kevorkian from a story by Gavin Williams, the film starred Sam Gittins, Neerja Naik, David Bradley, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A family's Christmas takes a strange turn when they awake to find themselves trapped inside and begin receiving mysterious instructions through the television."
For the record:
To the film's credit, Await Further Instructions earned a good deal of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.
According to additional information on Google.com:
Await Further Instructions was not a box office hit.
Here's why:
- It had a very limited theatrical release, only playing in 1 theater in the United Kingdom, grossing only $3,823 worldwide.
- It was primarily released on the streaming platform Shudder.
- While it generated some revenue from home media sales, those were not significant enough to classify it as a box office success.
- It is considered a low-budget film.
In summary, Await Further Instructions had a very limited theatrical release and was primarily a streaming release, meaning it did not perform well at the box office.
-- EZ