It's been a little while since I've posted any new trailers.

Some of that is honestly owed to the fact that I really haven't seen all that many of any great interest to me.  If it doesn't appeal to me, then I'm hesitant to share it in this space as I feel it likely won't be all that inviting to the rest of you.  Such is the case of trying to maintain my esteemed position on the cutting edge of genre projects, so I do hope that you folks appreciate me kinda/sorta keeping up a bit of a wall around you, me, and the rest of mankind.  It's a dirty job ... but somebody's gotta do it!

However ...

The trailer for Huesera: The Bone Woman was offered to me last week via a distributor relationship.  I didn't get around to watching it until yesterday (I've had a lot on my plate, as of late), and I nearly (nearly!) shut it off about halfway through it as it just came across as far too d-o-m-e-s-t-i-c than authentically scary.  But then ... the sound effects kicked in ... and the truly Horror-based aesthetics ramped into gear ... and while I'm not convinced this one might be the dream come true as its marketing staffers promise it still does have a little something something in its tank, I suspect.

​IMDB.com shows that this Horror/Fantasy was written (in part) and directed by Michelle Garza Cervera.  For some reason, it's a name I recognize, but I can't figure out where and/or why.  I've even looked at her published online resume, and sadly nothing looks all that familiar.  Perhaps it's a name I've encountered in passing somewheres.  While Huesera doesn't look to be her theatrical debut project, its preview certainly has some expressed similarities with other films that have come to pass ... so this one might be worth the price of admission as they say.

As for on-screen talent?

Again, the reliable IMDB.com lists Alfonso Dosal, Mayra Batalla, Mercedes Hernández, Natalia Solián, and Sonia Couoh as ones to watch.

Here's the plot summary as provided:

"Valeria has long dreamed about becoming a mother. After learning that she's pregnant, she expects to feel happy, yet something's off."

Trailer is below.  You folks know what to do about that.
​

Also, I'd be remiss in my duties as editor-in-chief if I failed to mention that Huesera has enjoyed a wealth of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.  It's presently showing a 6.7 audience score (out of 10) on IMDB.com, and -- even more impressive -- it's showing an 80 (out of 100) score on Metacritic.com.  Those, my friends, are some high marks!

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

I’ve done a bit of reading this morning regarding the documentary/mockumentary The Visit (2015), and the reviews are a bit uneven.
 
It would appear that this project as written and directed by Michael Madsen (not the actor but another Michael Madsen) tried to give a rather dry, unemotional, but intellectual extrapolation of what our world might look like if and when our civilization came in contact with an arriving galactic intelligence.  I’ve even watched a few snippets of it online (it’s up for free with ads on YouTube.com).  While I found it an interesting diversion, I’m still not sure that – as a somewhat fictionalized proposition – it works as well as it could.  I will add that such circumstances as aliens arriving on Earth has long been the province of some great minds who’ve produced some incredible fictional accounts – from 1953’s The War Of The Worlds to 2016’s Arrival – so let’s agree that Mr. Madsen had an uphill battle from the outset.
 
Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:
 
“This documentary-style film shows how government agencies try to cope with human mankind’s first contact with alien life.”
 
A quick perusal of the cast listing suggests that Madsen did go to great lengths to bring in a variety of specialists from government and academia to discuss the potential reality of such extraordinary circumstances, and – in my own opinion – I suppose it’s grand to get a different perspective on potential first contact.  Certainly, establishing once and for all that we’re not alone in the vast, vast universe would create some chaos socially, psychologically, and spiritually; and likely in these areas that the feature teaches us more about ourselves than it ever does another civilization.
 
To the film’s credit, The Visit garnered a good amount of praise – but no wins – while appearing on the film festival circuit, with audiences at the DocAviv Film Festival, the Hamptons International Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, and more being understandably fascinated with it.
 
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

Well, well, well … leave it to the French!
 
At a time when George Lucas’ immortal Space Fantasy classic Star Wars was making its way around the world inspiring a whole new generation of storytellers, the French were producing a little something something called La fille à la fourrure … which according to Googe Translate turns out to be The Furry Girl in English.  Apparently, this was an Adult-themed romp that – depending upon when and where you saw it – may also have been theatrically or commercially billed as The Girl In The Fur Coat, Starship Eros, Naked Lovers, Fornicating Aliens, or even The Porno Zombies.  Who knows?  I guess maybe you can judge a book by its cover!
 
Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:
 
“Aliens from the planet Eros revive the dead on Earth and turn them into horny zombies.”
 
What?  It could happen …
 
In any event, the feature was directed by Claude Pierson.  I’ve done an online search, and unfortunately I don’t see much information regarding the man and/or his work.  A quick summary of his IMDB.com profile suggests that perhaps he’s most well known for a cinematic adaptation of the novel “Justine ou les malheurs de la vertu” that was released as Justine De Sade in 1972.  Furry Girl’s script is showing attributed to Huguette Boisvert, and it does appear (also from IMDB.com) that these two worked together on several occasions throughout their respective careers in the business.
 
As can happen with these titles that are increasingly obscure, reviews on the web are scarce.  I did find a single one – well, asides from the basic info on IMDB.com – but it appears that the author of it didn’t know French, and the film wasn’t subtitled.  (I say this full well that subtitles in – ahem – adult films are probably not very accurate nor much needed in most cases.)  Still, the reviewer seemed somewhat surprised that Furry Girl took its central premise very seriously – that of aliens inhabiting human corpses for the purposes of copulating – when a bit of humor might very well have been what the project needed.
 
As for the on-screen talent, Furry Girl starred Didier Aubriot, Alain Saury (in one of his last screen roles), Ursula White (who appears to be the marquee name draw here), Barbara Moose, and Lilian Allan as ‘the extraterrestrial.’

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

​Oh, how we’ve all come a long way, baby!
 
You kids today might not remember the joy of internet chatrooms.  (Yes, yes, yes: I know that they still exist, but methinks that they’re not quite the same as they were back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.)  In many ways, that’s where the whole problem with anonymity and the Internet truly started as anyone with the right software and a modem could log on, join a chat, and spout off damn near any thing without suffering a consequence in the slightest.  Occasionally, a moderator would kick some blowhards out – or freeze them out – but more often than not folks just dropped off and went into a different room, leaving the proliferation of idiocy up for grabs to anyone who wanted to discover it.
 
A good many pictures – both telefilms and theatrical releases – tried to tap into the phenomenon, but none of them really found major success in any lasting way.  The same could be said for today’s Social Media culture; though films like Searching (2018) and the more recent Missing (2023) have staked out solid thriller territory, I don’t believe either has found the kind of critical acclaim and/or commercial success that will make them long-term contenders to the throne.  Still, those two pictures are head-and-shoulders above a little something called .Com For Murder (Dot Com For Murder), which really only revels in the sleezier aspects of online chatting by giving some web-based psychopath a bit more skills than the average Tom, Dick, or Harry had back in the day.
 
(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 woman suspects that the person she encountered on the Internet is a killer.”

Frankly, it isn’t that often that I have to work really, really, really hard to come up with something positive to say about a production, but I have to admit that – having just finished screening .Com For Murder (Dot Com For Murder) – I’m a bit at a loss.  It isn’t as if it’s an entirely inferior production because there are some name commodities packed in there, what with stars Nastassja Kinski, Nicollette Sheridan, Huey Lewis, and even the recognizable Melinda Clarke filling in the biggest roles.  It’s just that there’s so little compelling action tied in with the story and its color-by-numbers delivery that I suspect most viewers are going to consider it an entirely forgettable affair.
 
Now … if it had clocked in under ninety minutes – a timeframe once lauded to be desirable across all genre entries – then I might not have felt that most of it was a big waste of time.  That – and given the fact that as a thriller this kind of thing has been done before ad infinitum – pretty much destined this one to the trash heap of dead cinema.  Maybe it should’ve stayed there, instead of getting such a primo release from the great and reliable Arrow Films.  How this thing fell onto anyone’s radar and just why said ‘expert’ thought it desired a contemporary makeover will likely end up one of life’s greatest mysteries.
 
The film’s saving grace is that writer/director Nico Mastorakis stole from the best: clearly, he (and the others who contributed to the script) sought to ‘contemporize’ one of Alfred Hitchcock’s best feature.  1954’s Rear Window pitted recuperating photographer L.B. Jefferies (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his ‘gal Friday’ Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) against neighbor Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr) whom they suspect has not only murdered his ailing wife but also did unspeakable things to her dead body.  The bulk of the action takes place entirely in Jefferies’ apartment as they watch and reflect on the lives of everyone they see through that ‘rear window,’ an activity that nearly costs them their mortal coils.
 
Dot Com mirrors Window to a large degree, what with gal pals Sondra (Nastassja Kinski) and Misty (Nicollette Sheridan) stumbling into what appears to be a series of online affairs gone awry.  (FYI: Sondra is even confined to a wheelchair, perhaps as direct an intentional nod to the source inspiration as Mastorakis’ wanted to include.)  When Sondra believes she’s tapped into an inappropriate relationship between her gone-for-the-weekend husband (The Who’s Roger Daltrey, in a curious cameo), she inadvertently sets in motion the series of events that leads to a hacker/killer named Werther (Jeffery Dean) setting his sights on more than ‘you’ve got mail.’  He wants blood, and he’ll stop at nothing to get it.
 
Well, the biggest problem here – as I see it – is that Natassja Kinski is certainly no Jimmy Stewart, and Nicollette Sheridan is no Grace Kelly … though I will admit that she’s arguably just as good to ogle.  (I’m full-blooded male, and I suffer the usual full-blooded male curse.)  These two make for affable chums, but they don’t have the chemistry required to really elevate this story beyond its dull pacing and predictable circumstances.  Inspiration does strike like a bolt of lightning in the final reel, but I’ll leave that alone as I do try to avoid spoiling plot details for those who may wish to discover this film all on their own.
​

Still, Dot Com musters a weird bit of charm by casting crooner Huey Lewis in the role of a veteran FBI Agent who apparently works for the bureau 24/7 as there is otherwise no logical reason why he’d be available as quickly and as conveniently as he is here to ride in with an attempt to rescue our ladies in distress.  Perhaps watching him and Daltrey do the acting thing might make this one a curiosity for some, but otherwise?  Like those annoying pop-up adverts from the days of dial-up computering, this one deserves to be closed quickly.
 
.Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) was produced by Omega Entertainment.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the good folks at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds were, mostly, very good, though I’ll admit that the flick’s overall cinematography was a bit jumbled in places: clearly director Mastorakis wanted to capture this trendy yarn with a certain flourish, and I’m just not entirely certain that was the best approach.
 
If you’re looking for special features, then buckle up!  This is Arrow Films, after all, and they never disappoint, even with some tepid flicks as this one is.  Stars Roger Daltrey and Huey Lewis are on-board with some archival interviews.  There’s a new featurette wherein the director revisits his time working on the film.  There are also making-of shorts, image galleries, and the theatrical trailer.  The provided advertising materials also boast that the packaging includes some artwork along with a collector’s booklet, but as I was only provided a pre-fab copy I can’t speak to the efficacy of those inserts.
 
Not really recommended.  .Com For Murder (aka Dot Com For Murder) plays more like a direct-to-cable bit of shlock.  There’s really no narrative beat that heightens the tension precisely the way even a passable film should.  Given the fact that there’s no performance in here that swings for the cheap seats, it’s hard to find any compelling reason to encourage folks to look it over … unless you need a Huey Lewis or Roger Daltrey quick fix.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screener/copy by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Erm ... how do I say this both delicately and respectfully?  I think I'll try it this way: " Like Schindler's List (1993), Perfect Sense (2011) isn't a film I think folks say they enjoyed.  But both are haunting visions one remembers."

As I've mentioned before, an incredible number of my reviews penned and posted during my time as an Amazon.com Reviewer have been -- alas -- lost to history, and Perfect Sense is one of them.  I will have to watch it again some time in order to offer up the most accurate and relevant observations on it.  My fragile memory being what it is, I can only muster up some scraps of visuals and feelings from it.  What I can recall is that I absolutely loved Eva Green in it -- and Ewan McGregor did some solid work as well -- along with the increasingly tragic love story bound to the narrative.  Essentially, this remains a 'boy meets girl' story, but it's all set against the backdrop of an unexplainable plague that's slowly destroying mankind.  First, it robs your senses -- kind of the way sufferers reported that COVID affected their sense of taste or smell -- and then it absolutely kills you.

Argh.  What a way to go.

I do also remember -- back in the day -- someone suggesting that perhaps the Illuminati wanted to film made in order to usher in a greater understanding of what it would be like for all of mankind to realize that Mother Nature had finally 'had it up to here' with us and decided it was time to wipe us from the face of the Earth.  (Keep in mind, peeps, that this was nearly a decade before COVID, so maybe there's something to that silly theory!)  Who knows?  I suppose stranger things have happened.  Whatever the truth there may be, I guess there's nothing wrong with casting two great-looking actors at the top of their game to depict the increasingly grim circumstances each and every one us could await should these circumstances truly come to pass.

It's a frightening film.  It's a frightening film all the way until its closing scene.

Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

"A chef and a scientist fall in love as an epidemic begins to rob people of their sensory perceptions."

Festivals and organizations are quite fond of mankind's demise, especially when given top talent like McGregor and Green.  This one garnered a solid handful of accolades, and heck even I liked what I saw.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

Right before the screen fully faded to black and the credits were set to roll in 1979's oft-maligned Star Trek: The Motion Picture, these words appeared on the silver screen: "The human adventure is just beginning."

Setting aside the controversy regarding whether that film was good or bad (I've often argued that it's very, very good), I think that phrase certainly summed up the way many of us in genre truly think about Science Fiction films: namely, the very best of them are about the human condition -- this ongoing adventure -- and not so much the flashes, bells, and whistles storytellers like to cram inside them.  At the film's heart, there's a real heart -- a human heart -- that beats in time with yours and mine.  It suffers the same shortcomings, has the same strengths, and experiences an awful lot of what you and I do.  Occasionally, I suppose it's safe to suggest that maybe a filmmaker or two goes way into the deep end of the pool, choosing to functionally minimize most of a flick's SciFi and/or Fantasy elements in favor of focusing more strongly on that human core ... and from what I've read that's probably why a feature like Another Earth (2011) probably only skirted legitimate SciFi fandom by appealing to a more centrist and/or artsy audience.

The picture premiered on this day back in 2011 screening for audiences in attendance of the Sundance Film Festival.  Actress and budding auteur Brit Marling headlined the piece, and why not?  She and director Mike Cahill collaborated on the screenplay, and they cast such talent as William Mapother, Matthew-Lee Erlbach, DJ Flava, and Meggan Lennon to join them on this journey into the heart of man.  Here's the premise as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:

"On the night of the discovery of a duplicate Earth in the Solar system, an ambitious young student and an accomplished composer cross paths in a tragic accident."

To the film's credit, Another Earth garnered a good share of recognition during festival screenings as well as throughout awards' season.  Still, what matters most to those of us who traffic in the realm of SciFi closely are the Saturn Awards, sponsored by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films.  In that respect, Another Earth received two solid nominations (but no wins) in the categories of 'Best Actress' (for Ms. Marling) and 'Best Writing' (which she shared with Cahill).

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ
​

​Wasn’t it Icarus who flew too close to the sun and – to his astonishment – melted his wings and doomed him for his arrogance?
 
This is a sentiment that pervades a vast number of Science Fiction and Fantasy films.  Even Dr. Frankenstein found himself receiving an epiphany too late to perhaps do anything about it when he unleashed his monster on the unsuspecting villagers.  Sometimes cheating death can be a bad thing, no?  That’s the thing about hubris, I suppose: it blinds us to the real possibilities of destiny – of what very well might be waiting at the end of the rainbow (hint: it’s not a pot of gold) – and all we’re left with is a quick ending brought about by our very own lack of foresight.  Yes, such a comeuppance isn’t restricted to only genre films – there are plenty of dramas, mysteries, and even conventional comedies that tinker with similar cause-and-effect scenarios – but it is only SciFi that typically blinds its cinematic geniuses to formulaic perfection, putting them on the road to ruin well before they’ve mustered the intuition to recognize the deadly path they’re on.
 
That’s pretty much the sum behind The Asphyx, an early 1970’s attempt to kinda/sorta blend steampunk with some English/Gothic Horror.  Its pacing is slow, to say the least, and its performances are only occasionally inspired.  Though it builds around an interesting premise – the fringe science to control one’s life – it really does very little with the concept, reducing it to the point of being a cliché within any otherwise curious experiment.  So while it isn’t particular good, it also isn’t particular bad, leaving director Peter Newbrook possibly having a bit more in the script (from Christina Beers, Laurence Beers, and Brian Comport) than he knew precisely how to stage.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 

From the product packaging:
“Utilizing an experimental photographic device, a scientist capture what appears to be the image of the Asphyx – the ancient Greek spirit of the dead.  With the help of his adopted son, he conducts further experiments and conceives of a way to harness the Asphyx and thereby gain immortality.  But, as every visionary scientist should know, defying the laws of the natural and spiritual world unleashes dreadful consequences …”
 
In the days of old in United States’ advertising, there once was a commercial for a particular brand of margarine that always ended with one singular line: “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”  The trick here was that it wasn’t margarine, but it tasted so much like it that buyers couldn’t tell the difference, so there was a price to pay when Mother Nature – a character in the ads – was duped.  At the end of the bit, a kind of vengeful wrath would be unleashed – lightning, winds, rains, etc., but all to comic effect, of course – and audiences would be reminded of a valuable lesson that seemingly always escapes our supposed brightest minds.
 
Well … that’s the basic premise behind The Asphyx: be careful what you wish for because it’ll likely be a curse.  Thus, Sir Hugo Cunningham (played by Robert Stephens) stumbles across the ‘science’ that opens the door to immortality, and not only does he wish to rush through but also he schemes to take all of his family with.  Obviously, this desire only serves to be his undoing – much in the same way Mother Nature paid back those who dared to toy with margarine authenticity – but I don’t want to get ahead of myself …
 
Sadly, there is an awful lot of ground that gets covered before The Asphyx gets to its seminal set of circumstances, and that is the film’s great hubris as so very little of it is delivered with any sense of urgency.
 
Our lead is given a rather theatrical beginning, including introductions for friends and family as well as a new love interest – all of which take a bit of time in setting this particular tale in motion.  The fact that Cunningham essentially stumbles into this specialty, though it is given a very weak foundation in the ‘spirit photography’ of a certain bygone era, slows the picture down a bit when perhaps some other modus operandi might’ve accomplished more with less.  If the script had started with the man chasing these answers over the loss of a previous wife, then perhaps this film wouldn’t have felt so languid.  However, the loss of the new fiancé and another untimely death that take place on screen in order to align the scientist’s personal interests with the narrative throughline.  Why introduce two characters just to kill them moments later?  We weren’t attached to them, so how are we to conclude that Cunningham was with so little screen time?  In fact, once the Asphyx appears, the audience is finally given a welcome distraction once it finally rears its cosmological (or is that existential?) head as opposed to what is otherwise a bit too banal melodrama.
 
Ah, if the problems only started and stopped there!
​

This is England, after all, so everything English must unfold based on the social norms of the day, and that has these events seemingly taking their sweet time to appear on screen.  (Yes, I think I’ve watched paint drying faster than some of this.)  The script tries very hard to legitimize the alleged science here (do they not realize they’re making a movie?), so much of what takes place doesn’t only appear but also needs to be talked about, giving the picture a clunkiness it never quite recovers from.  About the time you’re very clear on the specifics, something happens anew that requires even more exposition – there’s a sequence involving one of Cunningham’s colleagues that could’ve easily stayed on the chopping block – and it’s almost as if director Newbrook tried to avoid real dramatic tension at all costs … a crying shame if ever there were.
 
When all is said and done, The Asphyx boils down to yet one more attempt by a series of characters to cheat death.  That alone is a premise that has enjoyed a long life (gasp!) in Horror and Fantasy, and it’s even had a franchise all of its own not all that long ago: the Final Destination pictures toyed with its cast being chased down by the Grim Reaper when they survived some event that should’ve spelled their demise.  As this version stands, it really seems as if it would’ve been a vastly improved one-off episode of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits instead of a full motion picture; a truncated cut that stuck centrally to the fancy bits would’ve at the very least kept an audience’s interest better than this one does with a measure of bloat.
 
The Asphyx (1972) was produced by Glendale Films.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds of the theatrical version (86 minutes) were very good, though some might wonder if the special effects sequences even for their day were a bit substandard.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then there is an extended 99-minute cut of the picture that rather obviously blends HD with SD footage (of decidedly inferior quality); an audio commentary hosted by writers Kim Newman and Stephen Jones; and the theatrical trailer.  It’s an interesting collection to consider, though I found the commentary track a bit uninteresting … which can happen from time to time.
 
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
 
While not a particular good film, The Asphyx benefits to a small degree by not being particular bad, either.  Its cinematography is quite good in a few places, and the sequences involving capturing these elusive creatures do have a good visceral thrill to them in a few spots.  But so very much of the fate awaiting these characters is so obviously predictable that you’re never compelled to care about them very deeply if even at all … as they’re all inevitably destined for the trash heap of history or going to survive with some consequence worse than death.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Asphyx (1972) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

I think some of the very best Science Fiction and Fantasy stories ever have toyed directly with the unseen assault that technology has on our bodies.

All one need do these days is consult Google for the plethora of theories (conspiracy or not) worldwide on what the exposure of implementing 5G technology could be doing to ourselves.  Heck, go back a few centuries, and even some inspired writing was focused on what the advent of any other new (back then) but relatively primative (based on today's standards) machinery would have on subsequent generations.  Even a tale as timeless as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine was -- in some ways -- more about the dangers of using it (what we learned of ourselves) than it was anything else, so storytellers have certainly invested in this kind of creative extrapolation whenever an opportunity presented itself.

Lo and behold, 2007's The Signal kinda/sorta did much of the same -- via its Horror construct -- by featuring residents exposed to a silent but deadly frequency that caused confusion if not downright madness as a result.  If you think about it, confusion might push any of us toward the direction of doing something dangerous, but madness?  Well, as you can guess, that had this film's characters teetering on the brink of actions quite deadly.  Essentially, this signal induced an unimaginable level of paranoia, and the players engaged in all kinds of nasty business as a consequence of exposure.

Written and directed by the team of David Bruckner, Dan Bush, and Jacob Gentry, the Horror/Fantasy starred Anessa Ramsey, Justin Welborn, Scott Poythress, Sahr Ngaujah, and AJ Bowen.  According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

"A horror film told in three parts, from three perspectives, in which a mysterious transmission that turns people into killers invades every cell phone, radio, and television."

While audiences can be a bit fickle with themes that tinker a bit too closely with science they don't quite understand, these tales generally garner a bit of acclaim and attention from the artistic community.  As you can guess, The Signal did quite well on the film festival circuit, garnering some popular marks from such institutions as the Sitges - Catalonia International Film Festival, the Neuchatel International Fantastic Film Festival, the Film Independent Spirit Awards, and the Fangoria Chainsaw Awards.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper ... so long as The Signal doesn't get to you!

-- EZ
​

Good morning, and Happy Friday, regular readers!

As some of you know from following my reviews and general whatnot reasonably closely, I've had an ongoing love/hate relationship with Amazon.com.  (No, no, no: this doesn't involve my purchasing history!)  For the better part of a decade and one-half, I was one of the site's frequent contributors, having built my reviews up in stature to the point of achieving their Top 1,000 Amazon Reviewers.  (Think what you will, but that was a pretty significant accomplishment, in its day.)  Then -- not all that long back -- the retailer rather unceremoniously and definitely unprofessionally dumped those of us who for many years had worked alongside them building their identity with absolutely no personal gain from it.  To make matters worse, even once we were following their new rules, the powers that be ultimately decided to remove everything many of us had contributed, banishing our accounts to obscurity and then denying us the opportunity to participate in any way whatsoever ... well, except for still being happy to take our money, that is.

Because I'd been doing it for so long, I had an incredible portfolio of reviews writing over there.  I had started going back and grabbing my stuff once they announced their changes, hoping to save it into my own files for posterity's sake ... but, alas, I wasn't fast enough.  Before I knew it, everything I had posted there was gone.  I can't tell you how frustrating it is to follow the rules and still suffer a culling, and I'm sure those of you who have experienced similar circumstances know all too well of what I'm speaking.  It's ... just ... damn ... infuriating.

Well, lo and behold, I did some digging in some old back-up files over the weekend; and I did manage to locate a good amount of stuff, reviews written from roughly 2012 and onward for a few years.  (I'm still plumbing the depths of old disks and stuff, so I might locate more in the future.)  Yesterday, I posted a few of these old pieces on the MainPage -- reviews for films A Haunting At Silver Falls (2013) and Reversion (2015) -- and it's my intent to eventually get all of the appropriate content blogged here on my own site.  So you will start to see some older reviews mixed in with the current stuff.  I just wanted to warn you to be on the look-out for it.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Let me say this without getting into a full review of The Signal, an at best middling exploration of what I think to be is an otherwise good idea: come its big finish, the script really only ended up toying with the audience -- much in the same way it did its characters -- leaving you ultimately feeling full yet empty the way you occasionally can feel after ingesting what you thought was going to be a good meal.

Too harsh?

Meh.

I guess it's that I loved so much of the production, right up until its kinda/sorta disastrous closing, at which point you're left with loosely re-evaluating everything that took place up to the level of absurdity.  In fact, I could suggest that The Signal's story -- as scripted by Carlyle Eubank, William Eubank (who also directed), and David Frigerio -- was truly only getting started when it came to the finale: once you have a complete grasp of the ... erm ... ahhh ... "the storytelling concept," it's only then that I'd now want to see how the surviving players might want to consider their respective places in the wider cosmos at large.  As no follow-up has been delivered, I'm guessing we're all just left at this critical impasse, making of it what we will in the final estimation.

​Generally speaking, I am a fan of features that toy with reality, our perceptions of it, and how we cope with its sometimes fragile nature.  Where a flick like The Signal fails is that it strives very efficiently toward misdirecting viewers away from 'the twist' of its ending -- M. Night Shyamalan is still writing checks on what is essentially a lot of scripts similar in construction but varied in presentation: depending upon how you react to the plight of these characters, you might feel cheated by having spent over ninety minutes getting to know them, savor their struggles, only to have the rugged ripped out from under you (and them) with the reveal.

Sigh.

I did so much want to know what happens next?

That's just how I'm wired.

Here's the plot summary as provided by the good folks at IMDB.com:

"On a road trip, Nic and two friends are drawn to an isolated area by a computer genius. When everything suddenly goes dark, Nic regains consciousness - only to find himself in a waking nightmare."

To the film's credit, it did garner some attention from the BloodGuts UK Horror Awards, a ceremony largely dedicated -- as its title suggests -- to honoring the best in Horror releases annually.  Actor Laurence Fishburne -- a tremendous asset to many genre films -- received a 'Best Actor' nomination for their 2014 roster; and composer Nima Fakhrara enjoyed a nomination in the category of 'Best Soundtrack/Score.'  Furthermore, at the 2014 Sitges - Catalonian International Film Festival, The Signal took home top honors in the category of 'Best Special Effects.'
​
As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​