Like so many of you, I've railed about Paramount Pictures' incessant desire to bleed the stone dry that is the entire Star Trek franchise.

As I've written, I'm really no fan of Star Trek: Discovery, though I'll admit that I've only watched its first season and snippets from Season 2.  (I do have Season 2 on DVD and mean to watch it at some point.)  Honestly, I was massively disappointed with Star Trek: Picard, mostly because I found so much of its plot to be wildly out-of-touch with Trek (in general) and for a lot of issues I had with the narrative.  (No, I'm not gonna rehash it here, nor am I gonna argue with anyone.  It is what it is, and we'll agree to disagree.)   I haven't even explored the animated incarnations, so it'd be unfair of me to sound off on that.

But when it comes to the adventures of the original crew, I'm a huge supporter.

Still, I'm inclined to pass at this point on investing in the forthcoming 4K restoration of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Unlike so many of you, I actually love the film.  Though I'll happily concede it has some pacing problems, I think too much criticism has been layered onto it over the years, so much so that even folks who were thrilled with it in its original run have kinda/sorta turned on it decades later out of fear of being found 'out of the mainstream' of opinion.  Those who know me -- or at least those who've read my stuff in this space for some time -- know that I could honestly care less what the mainstream thinks of my take of things; I try to always stick true to my own voice, no matter what fans or enemies it earns me.  That's who I've always been, and that's likely how I'll leave this Earth.

But I do see that this restoration is being given the Fathom Events treatment -- meaning it'll make a round through select theaters -- and I am likely inclined to partake of that.  Any opportunity to see Kirk and company on the silver screen in their original features almost always means I'll be there, and I encourage fans of the Starship Enterprise to think about doing the same.

I'm coping and pasting the details below that were provided by StarTrek.com for all to enjoy.

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

-- EZ
​

Sigh.  I don’t pen all that many book reviews these days.
 
Let me clarify: I used to write a helluva lot more.  In fact, I used to be one of Amazon.com’s Top 1000 Reviewers, back in the day when the mega-company actually maintained a consumer-friendly environment.  I had reviewed books, products, films, videos, books, etc. for nearly two decades on their site and had been recruited by a huge, huge, huge number of merchants to screen all kinds of stuff in exchange for a kind word here and there.  In case you missed it, a few years back the internet retailer unceremoniously dumped those of us who had worked very hard to make them what they were with no legitimate explanation other than to say we had broken the rules … the very rules that they had just changed a few days before … so how we were to go back in time and undo the vast array of work we had done weeks, months, and years before?  It was, simply put, maddening.
 
That’s part and parcel of why I set up my own shop here, so that I could finally have a measure of control over my own content.  Granted, it’s a narrower focus than I ever had at Amazon.com, but it’s one that keeps me happily plugging away with whatever time permits.
 
In any event …
 
I don’t review books regularly because I truly don’t read as much Science Fiction and Fantasy as I used to.  I’m a bit older – and with age comes a bit more discriminating tastes – so I gravitate toward a different set of interests with my reading time.  Occasionally, however, I will pick up something with its feelers set in the realm of the fantastical … and when I happened across Charles Band’s bio – “Confessions Of A Puppetmaster” – I couldn’t pass it up.  Well, truth be told, I did pass it up the first time I had my hands on it, but that’s only because I knew I was getting a Barnes & Noble Gift Card in a few weeks, which would make the purchase a perfect choice.  I hope Mr. Band would agree.
 
Still, for those of you who’ve never heard the name, let me educate you briefly: Band is definitely one of mankind’s truly original B-Movie makers.  Folks who traffic this space within SciFiHistory.Net have no doubt happened across an incredible number of movie titles, actors, and citations related to his wares; but as I don’t tend to hawk too many producers in this space they may’ve missed his contributions to our beloved genre.  If you peruse the man’s incredible IMDB.com profile, you’ll see he’s well on his way to a gob-smackingly-incredible four hundred different titles – easily one of the most prolific and profound in the business – and while his flicks might be household names his usually isn’t, unless you’re a true aficionado of some wonderfully inventive yet occasionally bizarre features.
 
Still not sure?
 
Let me drop some titles.
 
Laserblast (1978).  Parasite (1982).  Metalstorm: The Destruction Of Jared-Syn (1983).  Trancers (1984).  Zone Troopers (1985).
 
Still not sure?
 
Well, how about a few more titles?
 
Ghoulies (1985).  Troll (1986).  From Beyond (1986).  Dolls (1986).  Slave Girls From Beyond Infinity (1987).
 
Am I getting closer … or do you need a few more?
 
Creepozoids (1987).  Assault Of The Killer Bimbos (1988).  Puppet Master (1989).  Robot Jox (1989).  Subspecies (1991).
 
Now you’re getting it?  Good.
 
Granted, Band’s particular narrative vision clearly hasn’t been to everyone’s delight, but nevertheless the man has put in his stripes in the film industry and knows more than a thing or two about crafting motion pictures that will entertain his fans throughout multiple viewings.  His might not be a singular perspective, but I’ve read that his features continue to resonate with folks decades beyond most flicks’ typical shelf life.  In a business that’s chewed up and spit out more souls than you or I can imagine, Band has proven he can withstand any storm and rise up tomorrow with the same unquenchable thirst to spin yarn with the best of them.
 
And that’s precisely what I learned from his biography.
 
“Confessions” really doesn’t contain any earth-shattering confessions.  Band – who might argue otherwise – is still a humble salesman pushing his wares.  These pictures – known in some parts as schlock – are trim and efficient … and his bio is much the same.  It’s concise.  It’s ‘to the point.’  It contains a bit of humor and a bit of pathos, but what it does so well is show a man with an irrepressible optimism who has withstood more than a single slap from Fate to the face, taken it in stride, and yet – like Thomas Edison advised – tried again tomorrow.  Despite the mounting failures and setbacks, Band and his merry band of filmmakers merely kept plugging away when adversity reared its inevitable head; and their attitudes – while occasionally dampened – stayed robust, refreshed, and full of life.
 
Honestly, I can be a fairly negative guy.  While I haven’t faced the measure of challenges Band has, I do tend to get wrapped up in dwelling on the particulars too much, so much so that I’ll lose focus for a time and have to re-focus.  Each of us could learn a thing or two about how to approach life through the words of Band alone: while he doesn’t offer up what most folks would consider any profound wisdom, it’s his ‘can do’ and ‘little engine that could’ attitude which has put him in the position time-and-time-again to not so much start over but still pick up where he left off the day before and keep marching onward.
 
And … yeah … there are a few ‘confessions’ weaved into the story of his life.  I definitely learned a thing or two about his experiences with Demi Moore, Jay Leno, and Bill Maher.  But this is no typical Hollywood ‘tell-all,’ and that’s largely because most of Band’s worklife has kinda/sorta been on the fringes of Tinseltown.  Thankfully, he’s escaped the oppression of the the studio system throughout most of his career, pairing up with them when the opportunities were rip but otherwise going the way of the true independent filmmaker.  Like his films, his bio moves briskly, detailing the good, the bad, the ugly of capturing light and shadows in a way unique his own.
 
Plus … that lucky bastard owned a castle.
 
How many of you can claim that legacy?

​-- EZ

I don't know how many of you peeps are watching Syfy's Resident Alien, but I decided to give them a proper shout-out today for delivering one of the best laughs I've had this far in 2022.  Hell, even the wifey was busting a gut over this one.

The show has changed a bit (in tone) from first to second season.  The short skinny is that the writers -- in my humble and unprofessional opinion -- have relied too heavily on Alan Tudyk's schtick since launching back onto the airwaves in this season; when for all of my money the real comic gold in all of the show's run to date has been Corey Reynolds.  Before Resident Alien, I'd only known him as the somewhat tight-lipped voice of police authority aboard TNT's stellar crime procedural The Closer; so to watch this guy deliver some of the funniest observations in this podunk mountain escape town has been a bit of a Godsend throughout COVID.  I lost count of the number of laughs he delivered in Season 1, and -- as I said -- Season 2 has been (ahem) lukewarm at best.  But this past episode -- "Alien Dinner Party" -- he offered up an observation about rabies that only this self-absorbed lunkhead could muster.

The wifey and I nearly rolled off the couch laughing.

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

​-- EZ

​Shocking admission: as the reviewer, I’m never asked my opinion of what’s most important to a good story … but I’ll let you anyway.  It’s C-O-N-T-E-X-T.
 
Context – when done right – helps set the stage.  Context matters, and it matters more than damn near anything else.  Context gives me a clear time and a clear place with which these events are about to occur.  Context introduces me to the characters, places, and circumstances required for me to fully appreciate the tale as it unfolds.  While it’s safe for any storyteller to withhold a bit of context in order to, say, deliver the narrative’s bigger surprises, then I need to be amply rewarded for exercising such patience, for waiting for the pieces to be put together in such a way that I can finally say, “Oh, yes, I see it now.”  So without proper context, there really is no story worth its weight in gold.
 
Still, a lot of films have tried to achieve big things by sticking small; and – in that respect – a little something something like Bryan Loves You (2008) probably passed by a lot of folks’ radar without a second look.  It doesn’t have a lot of bells and whistles.  In fact, being one of those ‘found footage’ features – as it was advertised – probably didn’t do the Horror/Drama any favors: 1999’s The Blair Witch Project was nearly a decade old, and the resulting knock-offs, imitators, and do-overs had likely drained the market dry of the potential to do good (much less great) box office by that time.
 
That’s a shame because … well … because Bryan Loves You.  Shouldn’t you love him back?  This independent ‘investigation’ into a probable cult development has a wealth of good ideas in it (some not so good), though I’ll honestly assert right up front that it could’ve used a bit of its own makeover.  As you’ll find below, it’s really two films disguised as one, meaning that each half needed to be damn near perfect in order to light the kind of critical fire it needed to truly break through the traditional noise of our entertainment culture.  Alas, it’s imperfect – like those of you who don’t love Bryan – but now that it's available on Blu-ray maybe you’ll give it a second chance?
 
If not for you … then how about … for Bryan?
 
(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:
“In the early 90’s, a 32-year-old psychotherapist Jonathan began to suspect that his small Arizona community was being taken over by a homicidal religious cult known as ‘Followers of Bryan.’  What starts as an innocent inquisitiveness quickly turns into a violent and harrowing fight for his freedom … and survival.”
 
Though there’s a bit more information on the slipcase, the above works best because I think that there’s some otherwise uneven context provided that I’m gonna wax on a little about.  Again, this isn’t an appraisal of quality, per se, but rather it’s an attempt to clarify this story as presented.
 
Much of what I’ve read about Bryan Loves You indicates that it’s supposed to be a ‘found footage film,’ a unique sub-genre of storytelling for which I’m always hounded because I appreciate it much more than the next blogger.  (What can I say?  Sue me.)  For what it’s worth, I think that’s wildly inaccurate – Bryan is NOT found footage – mostly because the breadth of this particular story has been edited together from a vast, vast, vast different number of cameras.  True found footage relates one story found on a single recorder; this way, nothing can be augmented by, excised from, or added to in any way legitimately, and the audience is presented a story ‘as is’ fresh from the eyes of whoever taped it.  While that may seem like a small quibble to some, I introduce it because it’s going to factor into my overall impression of the film in a moment.  (Bear with me.)
 
We’re introduced to the material by a nameless narrator (played by Tony Todd) who prefaces the film solely for the case of serving viewers with a warning: what follows, he says, is very, very, very disturbing.
 
Well …
 
The problem here is that it’s not.  It isn’t all that disturbing.  Heck, it’s not even all that alarming when positioned in the timeframe of the early 90’s, from which this tale is allegedly set.  Bryan offers little to nothing by way of, say, controversial subject matter (it deals essentially with cults and brainwashing); and while there may be some suggestions of violence and bloodshed very little of that is captured on film.  So what exactly are we supposed to have found so startling in all of this?  It’s entirely unclear, nor is it ever expanded upon in any meaningful way.  As such, Todd’s warning – in hindsight – felt superfluous and (dare I say?) manipulative … much in the same way the Followers of Bryan conduct themselves.  Does that make this a release endorsed by them?  If they’re so secretive, why would they endorse this?  And if they’re endorsing this, does that mean they’re not as secretive as Landau’s script would lead us to believe?
 
Therein lies the rub when dealing with stories that only dabble with messaging instead of going all-in: typically, they leave out context, allowing the viewers to watch, digest, and make up their own mind about what truly went on here and ascribe whatever value they want to it.  As a viewer, I always hate having to interpret the whole cloth much less the individual scenes; that’s because I’d rather be given something with a message than without because I’m otherwise free to plug any ol’ theory into the open space … and I’ve always felt that’s a disservice to storytellers and audiences both.  Have something to say … because, otherwise, why are you speaking to me?
 
Yes, yes, yes: I’m still free to make up my own mind on the subject matter, but the message of the film is the province of the filmmaker.  It’s a fine line, but it’s still there.
​

What Landau and his crew have delivered here felt like two films strung together by the tenuous link of a maybe/maybe-not cult with no clear endgame.  The first half works to set-up the world in which these characters live (it’s much closer to the ‘found footage’ genre organically), while the second half felt weirdly autobiographical.  (Listening to the director’s 2022 commentary, I learned that it was VERY autobiographical, indeed.)  These followers are used to bridge the two halves into one whole, but as I could never quite personally reconcile the ‘goodness’ or the ‘badness’ of the cult there’s an ambiguousness to the clear and present danger and just how much I should fear it.
 
For example, we establish in the first half that there’s a probability one can be ‘turned’ into a follower by being bitten by one of the followers: high school teacher Linda (Tori King) gets chomped on by one of her students, and a few scenes later Jonathan (Landau) and Nicole (Candy Stanton) are attacked by the now-crazed woman as a result of going to her home to check on her safety.  Also, Candy eventually gets abducted by the church and converted; though we’re not shown the particulars of her conversion, a rabid believer is presented to her while in custody, reminding us of Linda’s earlier assault.  So if this secret belief system can be forced upon a non-believer through infection, why then is the audience taken through the second half wherein Landau’s tale suggests he needs to accept Bryan into his life and celebrate this ascension consciously?  Why not just have one of the followers bite him and … problem solved?
 
I’ve seen this happen all-too-often in films that try to lean in the direction of, say, conventional Horror when in reality what they’re founded on is a much narrower subset of a particular genre, like psychological Horror.  Often times, storytellers will insert elements of other ideas into their films as a way to widen the possible audience; this isn’t to suggest that the additions weren’t planned but I’d argue they weren’t central to whatever the original plan could have been.  In my estimation, Bryan works better in its second half – it’s Kafkaesque exploration of a world not quite normal, not intentionally abnormal, probably not paranormal – because I’m drawn into moments of character conflict. People matter; so the mindless zombies who propagate some nebulous church mean nothing to me on a personal level.  Now, had there been a more informative explanation behind the Followers of Bryan, I could easily have felt differently … but being left with having to respond to this story as presented I only have more questions about the cult than I need.  In the end, all I can care about is Jonathan; the sect becomes an inconsequential sideshow act needing a better foundation.
 
Breaking the two halves into separate projects could’ve made for a more rewarding experience.  In fact, they could’ve been related flicks – two yarns spun in the same universe, much like the Marvel storytellers do in big budget fashion.  (If small, independent dramas are your thing, then writer/director Gonzalo Calzada kinda/sorta did this with his Nocturna: Side A and Nocturna: Side B features, though I found some of that project suffering from predictable bloat.)  The set-up – the ‘found footage’ – could even have been added to with perhaps a faux documentary looking back on the cult, its effects on the area, etc.  This would’ve left the second act to be truly a second act, and I think the overall impact might have been greater.
 
Maybe Landau is looking to do a sequel?  “Bryan Loved You: A Look Back”?  That could be cool.
 
Still, kudos are deserved for big things coming in small roles.  Bryan dishes out a handful of supporting players – many of whom are known quantities like Tony Todd, George Wendt, and Tiffany Shepis (who makes a great good-looking version of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’s ‘Nurse Ratchet’) – and they hit their marks admirably, though I’m left with questions due mostly to the lack of context on too much in here.  If that near-miss was intentional, then it was soundly achieved.  If it was unintended, then a change would do you good … but not the change they tried to force on poor Jonathan!
​

Bryan Loves You (2008) was produced by Landau Motion Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable MVD Visual.  As for the technical specifications?  As this thing is a collection of ‘found footage,’ there’s an understandable amount of grain that goes hand-in-hand with that technique, along with the occasional audio issues.  Nothing is so great that it detracts from the experience.  As for the special features?  Well, well well … this release ponies up a nice amount of extras, especially given the fact that this is a very small indie, but interested parties can look for to:

• An all-new audio commentary from Landau;
• The 2008 commentary from Landau, some cast members, and a host;
• Lengthy interviews with stars George Wendt, Tiffany Shepis, Daniel Roebuck; and Brinke Stevens; and
• An all-new theatrical trailer.

As one who regularly reviews genre entries, I can assure you that a great many releases don’t get this much attention, so fans should appreciate the package for what it’s worth.
 
Recommended.  As I often warn readers, low-budget films are most definitely not for everyone; I’ve found that I tend to enjoy them much more than most, and that’s because – in my humble opinion – they’re a bit rawer than studio fare, meaning there’s a bit more to chew on, even though the meat might have a surplus of gristle.  My chief complaint with Bryan Loves You is that it kinda/sorta never quite decided what it wanted to be – the narrative is clearly a mash-up of two different ideas with a very weak bridge between them – and, thus, it left me wanting to know more context in order to understand what I just finished.  The 2022 commentary helps greatly … but I still had questions.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Bryan Loves You (2008) 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

True story, kids: I used to watch a lot more movies than I do today, and a great deal more of them were foreign as opposed to U.S. releases.

Time changes things, and many of the relationships I had, say, ten to fifteen years ago were built on the back of my Amazon.com profile.  I was one of those Top 1,000 Reviewers -- an extremely difficult opportunity to reach -- so I had a line of companies offering me products on a daily basis.  I wasn't flooded with stuff the way many were because I did take a discriminating approach to what I'd review, what I had to say about it, etc., but it was still an incredible amount of items I'd have to go through on a weekly basis.  Today -- since I'm pretty much aligned exclusively here (after Amazon.com used and abused us for so many years only to unceremoniously dump us when they realized it was too expensive to maintain their chokehold on the consumer marketplace) -- so I do limit the wares even further, sticking mainly to Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror related items.  Sure, every now and then I'll do something a bit different -- mostly because, simply put, I can as the editor-in-chief -- but I do prefer "keeping it real" with a narrow focus on quality genre properties for most of my time shucking words.

But there was a time when a little something something like Spiritwalker -- a forthcoming release from the reliable Well Go USA Entertainment -- was all the rage.  I've got one coming -- meaning you'll have a review in store for you very soon -- so I wanted to ramp up the coverage (as they say in the industry) by posting a link and some general information regarding the company's release.  The trailer will be below; following that you'll have the publicity info from Well Go USA.  Watch the coming attraction.  Read the info.  This looks like it could be great stuff.

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

-- EZ
​

​​Back in my college days (don’t ask how long ago that was, please), I had a media professor who just wasn’t a fan of The Twilight Zone.
 
Whut?!?!
 
I know, I know, I know.  To be as precise as I can, it wasn’t that he thought it was a bad show, because that wasn’t the case at all.  His position – as best I can state it – is that the entire program’s catalogue relied on a kind of narrative trickery that almost always led to what he dubbed “the same conclusion.”  He contended that if you’d seen one episode you’d – in reality – seen them all because they stuck to the formula so closely that viewers needn’t invest in understanding or appreciating the characters because what mattered most was the last scene.  Then, the truth would be revealed, and it was always some ‘spin’ few could logically anticipate because to see it sooner would destroy the work as presented.
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That’s a mouthful.  I know.
 
But it was an opinion I could certainly understand.  When you go into any film knowing that the ending involves such a dramatic shift of perception then you do begin to watch everything – the players, the settings, even the props – a bit differently.  Naturally, you’re looking for the seams, as it were: you want to be able to identify exactly when and where the storyteller positioned clues (if any) pointing you in the direction of a conclusion.  Whether you found them or not never detracted from your enjoyment unless you solved the unspoken mystery from the beginning, at which point you’d turn to the person next to you and say, “I saw that coming.”
 
Director Craig Singer’s 6:45 (2021) suffers from an ample amount of creative overkill.  He and screenwriter Robert Dean Klein have fashioned a kinda/sorta whodunit within what audiences were promised to be a Groundhog Day time loop; but what they deliver is an entirely different animal, one we’ve seen all-too-often in stories involving a descent (or is that ascent?) from madness.
 
You be the judge.
 
(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:
“A couple embarks on a weekend getaway only to find the island curiously deserted.  After stumbling upon the town’s dark secret, they trigger a time loop, forcing them to relive a demented cycle of terror with seemingly no means of escape.”
 
Occasionally I like to use this space to be as specific as possible because what follows may lead readers to a different conclusion.  So – right up front – here it is: I didn’t dislike 6:45. It may’ve disappointed me – much of which is owed to the way it's constructed and marketed – but that there’s them apples.
​

Bobby (played by Michael Reed) and Jules (the lovely Augie Duke) have curiously found themselves trapped on a resort island somehow caught up in what appears to be a temporal hiccup: one day – a particularly good yet increasingly bloody one – keeps happening to them over and over and over again, with Bobby magically the only player aware of this existential reboot.  Setting aside the reality that – much like in other films or television shows that have toyed with time loops – all narrative weight rests on a single person’s shoulders to carry said burden, it’s only human to begin watching him closer and closer.  As one does – and his psyche begins to necessarily fracture – I found it pretty clear early on that what 6:45 truly was is more parlor tricks than it was Science Fiction.
 
As such, stories like this have been done since the golden days of television, many of which appeared in episodes of The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, and Night Gallery.  There’s nothing new here – heck, it’s the kind of thing that even M. Night Shyamalan is still writing checks off of – and I think that’s a disservice to the onscreen talent.  Reed is good – he conveys the increasing paranoia of being stuck on repeat very well, and he even manages to wring a bit of pathos to moments where he does absolutely nothing to save himself and his alleged soulmate from the assault of an always-out-of-focus attacker.  I felt that Duke was given a bit too little to do here – many of her emotional ‘beats’ are mild rehashes with little new information gleaned – but she’s a budding master at conveying the commonplace intimacy of everyday relationships.  Mousy yet resolved, she’s the quintessential ‘girl next door’ you always rooted for who couldn’t quite escape a bad match-up, and your heart breaks every single time her life comes to its end time and time again.  (Dammit, Jules, you're perfect! He doesn't know a good thing when he's got it!  Don't listen to him! Call me!)
 
To the film’s credit, 6:45 has garnered an impressive number of festival trophies – all of them essentially tied to Singer’s ability to flesh out the story – and I’d heartily agree that such praise is well earned.  The film has an efficiency to spinning the tale onward – even through its most repetitive sequences, though I was put off by so much post-production camera trickery in the second half.  (Sorry, folks, but I’m never a fan of any stylistic technique that reminds me this is no organic experience, and this one uses it far too often.)  As I’ve tried to be clear, my hesitation on granting the feature an enthusiastic thumbs up rests on the fact that we’ve all ‘been there, done that’ with the story.  While I’ll concede there’s always an audience for this kind of thing, most of the times it's film nerds, critics, and academics … folks who don’t see flicks the same way the masses do … and I tend to be a bit more ‘blue color’ than most who blog these days.
 
Call me old-fashioned, but I like my lunatics properly diagnosed.
 
6:45 (2021) is produced by Birds Fly Dogs Bark Wind Blows Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Well Go USA Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  This all looks and sounds delightful, though there’s a modest amount of gore for those who prefer to be warned about that sort of thing.  As for the special features?  Gasp!  None!  Zip!  Nada!  Zilch!  C’mon, folks, it would’ve been nice for a little something extra.
 
(Mildly) Recommended.  Sigh.  The chief problem I have with films like 6:45 is that we’ve all seen this kinda/sorta thing before – sometimes better, sometimes not – and this one honestly brings nothing new to the table, no matter how well directed, acted, or produced.  At 93 minutes, it’s too long for ‘the twist’ ending, and it ends up feeling bloated by a lot of post-production camera trickery that increasingly reminds you that you’re watching a movie.  (Hello, split screens! Multiple camera views! Artistic crossfades!)  At some point I stopped caring for the characters and just started watching for ‘the twist,’ and that’s never a good development.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of 6:45 (2021) 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

One of the things I've always wanted to do with SciFiHistory.Net -- but have yet to truly find the time required -- is to create a specific page within the site wherein I can post content (reviews, articles, interviews, screencaps, etc.) involving titles that I've chosen to spend a bit more time with.  Granted, this certainly wouldn't involve all films in the vast Science Fiction and Fantasy library, but just a few of those extra special titles -- the ones fans over the years have truly rewarded with their time, sweat, effort, and money.  When I find myself with some free time, then I do make an attempt ... but as I said this would be more time than a single person in a single lifetime might have to invest.

So ...

As I've mentioned elsewhere on the site, I recently purchased the Shout Factory 4K release of Albert Pyun's The Sword And The Sorcerer (1982); and I spent a bit of time with it over the past few days pulled some screen images from this version.  As you can imagine, it's very hard to get anything of value from action sequences (the quick movements practically prohibit anything worth of posting), so fans familiar with the film will notice only a smattering of snips from the intense battle moments.  Also, there are only a few pics from several long passages Pyun and company filmed in a relatively dark castle interiors (the dungeons, the nighttime hallways and corridors, etc.).  I've reviewed these pics at some length and chosen to share only those I think are the very best.  So forgive my jaundiced old eyes if you don't like them!

Folks interested in checking out the assortment of images pulled from the transfer can find them right here.

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

-- EZ

​Good grief: I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve witnessed our big blue marble – and all of its people – decimated by an alien invasion.
 
I guess the first of which – and still one of the very best – was the George Pal produced adaptation of H.G. Wells The War Of The Worlds (1953) from Paramount Pictures.  That outing proved so popular with audiences that studios were naturally happy to start ponying up more cinematic depictions of the inevitable loss or near-loss of the planet.  While the aliens have come in all shapes and sizes – including plant life and even viruses – the end result has often been much the same: some small platoon of plucky Earthlings somehow manages to rise to the occasion, defy the odds, and save (what remains of) life as we know it.  There’s typically a lot lost in the process, true, but viewers are assured before the credits roll that the survivors will rebuild … and it’ll no doubt be a better place.
 
More than a century after Mr. Wells crafted that first invasion in print, storytellers are proud to continue the tradition; and one cinematic incarnation that completely escaped me was Occupation (2018).  This Australian release – written and directed by Luke Sparke – took the approach of having the heroes chosen not from one of the world’s biggest and boldest military apparatuses but rather from the ranks of you and I: regular Joes who quickly grow tired with the invading forces and decide to strike back.  After winning the ‘Best Feature Film’ prize from the Australian Screen Industry Network Awards, a follow-up was probably inevitable … so Sparke and company dipped back into that well with the release of Occupation: Rainfall … or as it’s titled in the film itself, “Occupation: Rainfall – Chapter 1.”
 
Since I missed the set-up picture, I waded into this one a bit slowly at first, not entirely certain I’d understand all that was going on.  Thankfully, there’s a brief set-up that sets the film’s events into motion, and I can assure anyone reading that you do not need to have seen the earlier flick to understand what’s going on here.  (It would help clarify some of the particulars, but it isn’t entirely necessary.)  But as “Rainfall – Chapter 2” does not as of yet appear to have materialized nor be on the calendar (so far as IMDB.com suggests), I think it’s fair to point out that this one ends on a massive cliffhanger … a bit of a disappointment so far as this reviewer is concerned.
​

(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 promotional materials:
“The highly anticipated follow-up to Occupation (2018) picks up two years into an intergalactic invasion of Earth where survivors in Sydney, Australia are fighting back in a desperate ground war.  As casualties mount by the day, the resistance and their unexpected allies uncover a plot that could see the war come to a decisive end.  With the alien invaders hell-bent on making Earth their new home, the race is on to save mankind.”
 
One of the blessings (or is that a curse?) to having been treated to so many alien invasions is that there are ample comparisons that can be drawn to, literally, hundreds of properties.  I suspect anyone who has ever watched any movies has seen at least one invasion feature; and, yes, that truth likely applies to folks who don’t consider themselves much a fan of Science Fiction or Fantasy.  But because storytellers have seen these films and television shows ad infinitum, I think there’s a latent tendency to inadvertently ‘recreate’ some of what’s been done before without realizing it’s been done (to death!) already.
 
For example, the armor-protected aliens of Occupation: Rainfall bear a striking resemblance to those from Fox TV’s stellar 1995-1996 SciFi/Action series Space: Above And Beyond.  Their fighter craft?  Well, upon closer inspection I found them to look an awful lot like those already soaring onto silver screens worldwide in Roland Emmerich’s popular Independence Day (1996).  And a handful of the film’s action sequences?  Again, I’m not trying to point fingers, but didn’t I see some of this – or snippets very similar – in Jonathan Liebesman’s Battle Los Angeles (2011)?  Though I’m not trying to pick a fight or start a war with anyone, my chief concern in trying to approach Rainfall independently is difficult because so very, very, very much of it felt derivative.
 
Now, this isn’t to say the picture isn’t well done.
​

Mr. Sparke has put together what could be a crowd-pleaser, though I wonder if it won’t end up having an audience a bit more ‘cult’ in size after all is said and done.  (Again, that’s not a bad thing, per se.)  The action is exceedingly well crafted; though I’ll admit I chuckled aloud at a handful of scenes that were obviously computer-generated (and not exactly what I’d classify as ‘motion picture caliber’), the pace relents only in a few select places.  When it does take a breath, it even occasionally has a few good character moments between our two leading ‘men’: soldier Matt Simmons (Dan Ewing) and – snicker – ‘Garry the Alien’ (Lawrence Makoare).  Their relationship – one Earthling and a rebel alien – hits to the core of what the film’s underlying message could be – that collaboration and cooperation is all that’ll save both species now – and the script admirably keeps banging that drum whenever the two share the screen.
 
The downside to that?  Well, their best moments are lost in a helluva lot of noise.
 
The relationships in the film aren’t exactly very well spelled out, and the result ends up producing a wide array of players who spend most of their time running, shooting, screaming, flying, fighting, etc.  Multiple alien species were involved in this original assault on the Earth, but – as some of them have paired up with humans wishing to bring the fighting to an end – even they don’t get the kind of explanation required to make sense of who they are, why they’re necessary, and what role they could inevitably play in all of this.  The script even introduces a secret American project – tied closely to the title – that ends up being more of a distraction here when it should feel organic to the saga.  Nothing quite gels together the way it should, and the result kept me asking a lot of questions that apparently have no answers.
 
The aforementioned Independence Day – as a solo picture – accomplished great balance with its impressively large cast because everyone had a singular purpose.  Some were rather obviously meant to be victims in the alien onslaught, but their deaths were necessary in order to stir the remaining significant survivors on a call-to-arms.  (That’s damn near fundamental in films of this type.)  But Rainfall – even at its midpoint – is still introducing characters (some from the first film), and they’re never quite doing anything other than reacting to the story as plotted.  A vastly more interesting film could’ve been achieved by slimming down this cast and focusing on that central relationship (Matt and Garry) and maybe a second subplot; what we’re left with instead feels like a conclusion rushed (and a bit unclear) for the sake of tying this installment up, getting it in theaters, and securing funding for a third.  Very little is brought to effective closure here – well, I’m sure the former population of Sydney, Australia might disagree, were they still alive – and I’m left wondering why.
​

Thankfully, this thing was filmed before COVID as the script genuinely risks putting a pretty negative spin on what remained of the Australian government.  (Hint: it goes pretty Fascist pretty damn fast.)  There are some obvious, humorous, and lazy cheap shots lobbed against America – it’s fallen, don’t you know? – but methinks I’ve grown used to those.  But at a time when that great nation down under has been reduced to some ugly talking points in the press about how they’ve been treating their own citizens in defiance of some arguably totalitarian policies, who’d have thought a military officer embracing the genocide of multiple alien species was still possible in this day and age?  I never would’ve imagined it would’ve been an Aussie.
 
Sigh.
 
Dare I say it makes me long for the days of Crocodile Dundee?
 
Occupation: Rainfall (2020) was produced by Occupation Two Productions and Sparke Films.  The feature is currently available around the world on various streaming platforms as well as Cable VOD.
 
Recommended.  You know, at some point the worldwide Liberals and Progressives who push even the mildest politically-driven stories really ought to put-up or shut-up: since our world only has ten years left due to the “damage” we’ve inflicted on it with the burning of fossil fuels, maybe these invading aliens would be better served by taking some other planet?  Certainly, these aggressors don’t seem all that concerned with the amount of soot and ash they’re releasing in our atmosphere, so I really think the solution practically writes itself.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Saban Films provided me with a complimentary streaming link for Occupation: Rainfall (2020) 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

​Ok, ok, ok …
 
It’s 1982.  Summer.  I’m at the height of my teenage years – not too old but just old enough, you know – so hanging out with friends and catching the latest hits at the box office was all there was to do in our one-horse town.  Like so many men of a certain age, we naturally gravitated toward Science Fiction and Fantasy films – Starlog was in publication, and it was practically required reading amongst my social set – and we’d risk our hard-earned cash on any flick that looked like it had even the most modest opportunity offered.  With those few qualifiers, you can trust me when I say we saw just about anything.
 
Now, I can’t say if it’s uniquely common or not amongst all American towns and American youths, but after taking in a particular stunning piece of silver screen glory my group might spend the better part of an afternoon dissecting it.  We’d talk about the actors, the actresses, our favorite sequences, etc.  We’d spend a bit of time trying to figure out what worked and what didn’t.  We weren’t budding filmmakers of any type, but having seen so many flicks together I think we figured we were just as good as anyone at figuring out what could make a production work.  As you might imagine, such energy made for what we deemed pretty fascinating debate.
 
Maybe not all that surprisingly, we agreed more than we disagreed.  Oh, we may’ve squabbled over essentially minor issues from time-to-time – such is the nature of life, after all – but being of the same age and similar mindset pretty much insured that we saw the world through a fairly common set of small-town eyes.  If anything, casting issues were the most contentious confrontations; though we may’ve disagreed over a Tom Selleck lead – always preferring Harrison Ford when given the chance – we still tried to see past those faces to appreciate whatever goodness we could find in any individual motion picture.
 
Alas …
 
There was one film where I found myself far outside the group.  Oh my God, they loved this one particular flick; and – for the love of Pete (whoever that is) – I couldn’t bring myself anywhere near the same level of adoration.  Mind you, I didn’t hate the picture; I just didn’t and couldn’t see it the same way they did, namely being one of the very best escapist journeys our small group had ever seen.
​

As I said, it’s 1982.  Spring.  And the film was Albert Pyun’s The Sword And The Sorcerer.
 
Forty years later: now that I’m much older and vastly wiser (less hair, though), maybe I’ll concede that I was a little hard on the feature.  I still have some issues – ones I’m more than happy to discuss in a moment – but for now I’m willing to admit to any one of the friends of my youth still reading that, “Ok, you were right.  I was wrong.”
 
(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:
“Meet Talon, a daring mercenary who conquers castles and dungeons alike with his lethal three-bladed sword.  But when Talon learns that he is the prince of a kingdom controlled by an evil sorcerer, he is thrust into the wildest fight of his life.  Can Talon rescue the beautiful princess and slay the warlock, or will he fall prey to the black magic of medieval mayhem?”
 
Alright, let’s get this straight right up front: it’s entirely inaccurate to say I never liked The Sword And The Sorcerer.  Simply put, I’ve always found it passable fare.  Not great.  Not awful.  An interesting cast.  A mediocre story.  I would argue that it’s probably the best genre director Albert Pyun has ever done – certainly the most fulfilling visual meal – a B-Movie feature that never quite revels in its excesses mostly because it doesn’t have them.  All one need do is look at its sets, props, and costumes to know that it was a modestly budgeted affair, a film that possibly could’ve delivered even more if it had a little extra in the spending tank.
 
My issues with the film have always been (and remain today) some of its stylistic choices.  Storytelling considerations.  Casting missteps.  Those kinds of drawbacks.  And I’ll try to iron them out as specifically as I can … once and for all.
 
First, it’s important to put Sword in its proper historical context.
 
Pyun and company were smart to get the thing into theaters when they did because 1982 saw the emergence of big Fantasy on the silver screen with not only their feature but also John Milius’ adaptation of Robert E. Howard’s titular character Conan The Barbarian.  1984 would offer up the vastly inferior sequel – Conan The Destroyer, a bit of a cinematic tragedy by my estimation; and 1985 served up another slice of cheese from the Howard library – Red Sonja – with Arnold Schwarzenegger involved in a smaller, secondary role.

Certainly there were a few others, but those were, indeed, the big ones from the period; and it’s clear that comparing solely these titles alone that Sword comes in easily in last place with respect to its sets, props, costumes, etc.  This is not to suggest that all films must begin from the same starting point: I offer it up only to underscore how in my mind it just wasn’t given ‘the goods’ to compete alongside like-minded fare.  While even Red Sonja doesn’t near the visual clout reserved for the two Conan films, it still retains a decidedly cinematic flare that Sword lacks.  While some might argue that’s picky on my part, I’d counter it’s still a weakness Pyun and his backers needed to overcome.  In short, they didn’t.
 
Second, it’s important to examine just how much story needed to be told.
 
From a narrative point of view alone, Conan The Barbarian and Sword tell nearly identical tales.  (Again, that’s not an insult; it’s just an observation.)  Both films present a parentless youth forced to grow up surrounded by hardship, and both men are rewarded with larger-than-life careers once their respective backstories have been dispensed.  But a significant difference between the two is that Sword also traffics heavily in parallel journeys, namely the villainous undead Xusia (Richard Moll) and royal baddie would-be-king Cromwell (Richard Lynch).  In contrast, Conan’s Thulsa Doom’s screentime is mostly limited to his experience with the film’s hero; but Sword invests several scenes and sequences with its rogues much in the same way the Tim Burton Batman films serve almost as ‘origin stories’ for the Dark Knight’s arch enemies.
 
Now, to a point, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this.  Audiences can be drawn into any good yarn by ample exploration of multiple characters: my issue with the protracted time spent in Sword is that nothing new is learned from it.  What Pyun’s script (the director collaborated with Tom Karnowski and John V. Stuckmeyer on it) does – to its detriment – is merely re-establish who the bad guys are even though it had already been established.  While some may chalk this up to ‘world building,’ I see some of it as redundant, meaning that I’d question why any storyteller felt it necessary to remind me.
 
Also – and this has always been my sticking point – it’s very clear early on that Pyun and his partners had crafted a wide, wide world for which all of these characters were to come into conflict.  Similar to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings (but not nearly as expansive), there are multiple kingdoms and multiple dynasties at play in the political and social structure.  Though I’ve never plotted it out on paper, I suspect if I wanted to there could be enough material crammed into the film’s twenty-minute set-up – Talon’s youth – that another complete film could be spun off!  (FYI: Sword ends with the promise of a follow-up, so I’ve no doubt this team crafted their own fictional universe to play in.)  Because I had some trouble following these various relationships, I see this film individually as ‘biting off more than it could chew’ in a few critical areas.  (Sometimes less is more.)
 
Lastly, it’s important to consider Lee Horsley as the lead.
​

I grew up as a fan of Peplum features.  Such swords-and-sandals pictures were heavy in TV syndication markets of a certain era, and I’ve probably seen more of them than any person should.  The singular uniting similarity to almost all of these is that the hero – the swarthy man among men sent out of his heroic quest – was almost always a beefcake.  (Sad, but true.)  He was the big, hulking, musclebound brute who would rescue the damsel and slay the dragon without so much as breaking a sweat.  Though the Sinbad pictures tend to get wrapped up in discussion of Peplum, I always saw them as a bit inferior, mostly because the lead was less a tough guy and more of a swashbuckler.
 
Sword’s Talon comes off more as Sinbad than he does Hercules.  (Hell, even David Whitaker’s score reminds me of pirate epics!)  Again, this isn’t a bad thing, but when we’re given his backstory – that being one structurally similar to Conan – then why doesn’t he look the same?  Talon only dressed bigger-than-life – with shoulder pads stacked up by various animal hides – but once you see him in his sweaty glory he’s a relatively average.  Tall, yes, but otherwise pretty average.  (Sorry to any of the ladies – or the men – who feel otherwise.  I realize the actor did some modeling work, but I gotta call it how I see it.)  Sure, he’s athletic, but he definitely doesn’t carry the same physique Schwarzenegger brought to his films; given the similarities between the characters, I’ve never been able to quite reconcile those two disparate forms.
 
Now … here’s where I’m willing to eat a bit of crow.
 
After watching it last night for review … I kinda/sorta liked it a lot more than I ever recall.  Due to ownership issues, it’s a title that’s been very short in supply.  A few years back, I remember picking up what I was told was the best release (a foreign cut), and I was decidedly underwhelmed.  While much of that experience was owed to the fact that I found the transfer disappointing, it was still hard to ‘get into the spirit’ of adventure while wading through so much grain.  But Shout Company’s excellent 4K Bluray really took me back to the days of my youth; instead of tossing and turning over the storytelling shortcomings, I dipped into B-Movie waters and had a great swim.  My issues were still there; I just set them aside and enjoyed the action … camp and all.
 
In fact, I’m looking forward to spending some more time with it as it’s loaded with some extras.  I might even pen a follow-up or two once I’ve digested them all.
 
In the interests of fairness … no, no, no!  I purchased this one all of my own, peeps.  Though I’ve tried to get into Shout Factory’s good graces, I’ve yet to be offered any complimentary screeners from them.  This one was all my doing … and I’m glad I did it.

​-- EZ

Well ... at the risk of sounding remotely sexist, if it stars Elisha Cuthbert -- good or bad -- then count me in!

I remember reading a clickbait article a few years back regarding the actress in her early projects, and the author contended that she was "difficult" to work with.  There really wasn't much substance to the piece -- heck, I even did a search for it a few minutes ago, and I can't seem to find the original text any longer -- so maybe a wise editor finally had it pulled down.  Generally speaking -- when I see articles like that -- I pass them up, but this was during the zenith of Fox TV's stellar action series 24's popularity ... and I couldn't resist.  Kim Bauer (played by Cuthbert) was a poorly developed character -- no fault of the actress -- and kudos to the various screenwriters who tried to find something to do with her.  Alas, methinks she ended up being little more than eye candy -- and she deserved better -- but them there's the breaks in serialized storytelling, I've been told.

In any event ...

I'd seen some minor reportage regarding 2022's The Cellar earlier in the week (or maybe it was late last week), so I'd done some searching for it and came up short.  If I remember correctly, it has screened at South By Southwest (film festival); it didn't exactly create a buzz based on the articles I've read, but who among us doesn't appreciate even a mediocre haunted house story from time-to-time?  Well, if you don't, then you've no business hanging around these parts, as I'll shuck them when I see them on SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage for good measure.

This one is written and directed by Brendan Muldowney, and it looks to be his first legitimate genre entry, though I could be wrong on that point.  His previous works do appear to have some solid reviews via IMDB.com, which bodes well; given that The Cellar has only screened for festival audiences, I'm not inclined to make too much of those write-ups ... I rarely agree with festival folks.  The film stars Cuthbert, Abby Fitz, Eoin Macken, and a few others; and here's the plot summary as provided by the aforementioned IMDB.com:

"Keira Woods' daughter mysteriously vanishes in the cellar of their new house. She soon discovers "there is an ancient and powerful entity controlling their home that she will have to face or risk losing her family's souls forever."

I finally found a trailer for the release, though I'm still not seeing any specific U.S. date attached to the materials I've reviewed.  Let's hope it comes out sooner as opposed to later, eh?
​

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

​-- EZ