Crafting a season-long mystery requires delicate balance.  Delicate balance, indeed.
 
Reveals have to be carefully staged, and they should both serve the narrative as well as obviously increase the show’s popularity.  (Serialized television is still a business, after all.)  In the process, characters cannot be ignored: one or two may need to be shelved for a bit, but the relevant ones need to have their time in the limelight as well.  While it’s important to keep pushing the mythology (as it develops), audiences hate to get bogged down with unnecessary exposition, especially when and if serves no understandable purpose.  The truth is viewers are very kind: we’ll suspend disbelief so long as we trust you’re taking us somewhere special.  But it has to be somewhere special.  And they better not all be dead when we get there.
 
Like baking a good cake, the baker must include the proper ingredients in all the right measures, lest he (or she) be willing to simply chuck it all out at any point and start all over.
 
That said, I thought “The Loss” – episode four to Outer Range’s first season – was more than a bit muddled.  Or should I say ‘underdone’?
 
Hear me out, haters.  (I said what I said, and I’m not sorry.)
 
Being fair, the program has dealt with a reasonable amount of set-up.  Showrunner Brian Watkins (along with screenwriter Zev Borow) has introduced a good-sized cast, and he’s rather deftly managed to give each of them his or her own ‘corner’ of this world.  (If there’s anyone who hasn’t been clearly established in my eyes, then it’s the youngest player – Amy Abbott – but I’ll get to that in a moment.)  These people have been given their ‘beats’ and backstories that help viewers define them, what they stand for, and what purpose they may serve in this grand puzzle.  We’ve seen how they fit in with one another, and we’ve been set on a trajectory wherein we can both recognize and maybe even anticipate how they’ll inevitably collide and conflict with one another.  It may not have always been perfect, but it’s been exceedingly well done.  So … hats off!
 
“The Loss,” by comparison, covers an awful lot of ground … so it’s a good thing there’s so much land available (pun intended).
 
Audiences are introduced to Patricia Tillerson (played by Deirdre O’Connell) – the matriarch of the opposing ranch family – and she’s given the dramatic ‘first blush’ only a true mover-and-shaker has earned: she’s whisked in by helicopter to deal with the unexpected loss of her son.  In the scope of this sixty-minute episode, she essentially takes charge of the Tillerson narrative, damn near usurping the law’s authority involving the investigation and pronouncing one of the Abbott’s as being guilty at the near immediate funeral.  (Erm … didn’t we just find this body?)  For a show that’s established itself as a slow burn, we’re suddenly sprouting flames everywhere as “The Loss” continues to pile on these develops with no rest for the wicked.
 
And about that funeral?
​

Outer Range is clearly a show about characters with ‘quirks,’ as opposed to one with ‘quirky characters.’  Each has their respective hang-ups, but the Tillerson family now appears to be overloaded with extras from Twin Peaks.  The funeral scene (by itself) felt reminiscent of the same scene involving Laura Palmer’s burial, wherein the ridiculously overcome with grief Leland Palmer leapt onto the lowering casket, seemingly hoping to go into the afterlife with his dearly departed daughter.  Billy Tillerson uses the public affair to stage his own karaoke performance while his family watches on without so much as batting an eyelash.  While it was a bit delirious, it defied a bit of reserve the program has shown up until this point.
 
And so long as we’re throwing subtlety out the window?
 
Viewers are treated to Royal Abbott and Autumn Rivers facing-off yet again – this time over poker – (didn’t they just make peace in Episode 3?) as the tension in their relationship continues to boil over.  (Seriously, I thought they made peace.)  Royal risks it all (or does he?) in one hand of the game in order to obtain a crystal the young lady wears around her neck; the significance of the piece remains understandably elusive … but it’s a development that unlike their other confrontations has finally felt more than a bit ‘staged’ in more ways than one.  The show’s been a bit more nuanced about its interactions up until this date: “The Loss” – perhaps spurred by the hour’s central loss – ladles it on rather heavily and not without a bit of excess.
 
Still, O’Connell’s screen-chewing introduction serves as a high point in an otherwise clumsy affair.
 
But as this mystery evolves, I can’t help but wonder why Amy has been pushed to the background.  Though I could be wrong, I’m starting to wonder if her fate might be tied a bit more closely to Autumn than has been suggested … that perhaps they’re the same person?
 
There have been plenty of indications that the Abbott’s hole-in-the-ground is a portal to different times.
 
For those not paying as close attention, Royal’s journey through tossed him two years into the future (or, at least, that’s what was said, so I’m inclined to believe it).  Could it be possible that a trip through might go the other way?  Into the past?  We’ve also been treated to sights of the wandering buffalo (bison?) simply lolling around the plains with arrows from Native Indians stuck in its hide, which leads me to believe the past can come into the present.  (Episode 3 also explored this idea with the story involving the mastodon.)  So … could Autumn actually be Amy?  Could Amy have been thrown into the past – say ten or so years – only to eventually make her way back to the ranch as the young adult Autumn?  It would possibly explain why her background is a mystery: she could be concealing it for reasons we simply cannot yet know.
 
Though “The Loss” was fun, perhaps giving the cast and characters the chance to blow off a bit of steam, maybe even let their hair down, I’m hoping for a return to form next week.  I’m okay with a bit of eccentricity, but ‘weirdness for weirdness sake’ has its storytelling limitations.

-- EZ

Well, I guess it was bound to happen.

In these occasionally smaller featurette articles I pen titled "Because You Asked," I do try to address smaller issues -- related to genre but sometimes in lesser ways -- that might come across my desk.  And because I'd recently addressed the issue involving Will Smith and Chris Rock at the Oscars (link) a casual fan wanted to know what I thought about the whole Johnny Depp and Amber Heard fiasco.  We had a brief back-and-forth via email -- I needed to clarify why the reader thought this involved SciFi and/or Fantasy, and I wanted to make sure it was a legitimate query -- so I figured I'd put-up-or-shut-up a few words in this space.

To be as specific as possible, my take on the Smith/Rock affair really was trying to push back against what I felt was some weird politicizing of it.  Ultimately, I felt that folks were using it to push an agenda about how Rock got what he deserved for delivering what may or may not have been an inappropriate joke, so I spoke up on that point.  As to whether or not it was all deserved?  Pffft.  I don't know, and I don't care.  I just didn't see it as an indictment regarding free speech, so I did my part to throw a monkey wrench into that dialogue.

Because these two actors do have a presence in genre entertainment (he in a whole lot of projects and her in the Aquaman franchise), I suppose it's legitimate to sound off ... but, again, I don't feel any major attachment to either of them for what they've done in any of their films.  I realize that Depp has a following -- I think it's probably dipped somewhat over the years -- and perhaps he's deserving a bit of a respite from all of the bad publicity ... and, still, those things really don't involve me, you, or anyone else but Depp.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying he earned this.  I feel for him and what he's going through.

This is the consequence of decisions he's made, at least in part.  It's sad, yes, but they're private lives don't involve you or me, so I do try to leave those things out of what I cover on SciFiHistory.Net.  I know other sites will dabble in this stuff -- I think they do so largely because it gives them clicks and whatnot -- but the most I do is the occasional barb thrown into the Daily Pages when I might dunk a bit on an actor for his politics or on an actress for a curious choice she's made.  Their private lives?  That's their stuff.  That requires their attention.  It neither involves nor interests me.

As a consequence, I really haven't followed this court case.  Sure, I've read some headlines, and I listened to a few snippets of testimony that made the rounds on the Information Superhighway.  It's funny, in some respects, and it's certainly salacious.  But bad relationships have been a part and parcel of Hollywood and beyond since the dawn of Man, so I take it all in with a grain of salt.

I suppose -- if I had to express an opinion -- I'd conclude that both of them made some bad decisions, both of them reacted poorly, and both of them probably have a bit of shame of their faces over this coming out publicly the way it did.  While it's no tragedy, per se, I do think that we as a society could spend our time on vastly more interesting things -- I'm not sure what lessons can be learned from all of their dirty laundry (including the crap-stained pillows) except to say that whom you love is an important decision, kids.

Wouldn't we be much better off reading a book than following this travesty?

And, no, I'm not talking about the inevitable novelization of the entire trial ...

​It is what it is.  I'd say more about it, if I really cared that much.

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

​-- EZ

Well, well, well ...

I've mentioned before that I do tend to think of myself as one of the web's oldest fans of DC Comics' Batman character.  I read my first comic book circa 1970/1971 -- indeed, a Batman tale -- and I was hooked as a young guy.  I read the Batbooks fairly regulary for quite some time, but the rising costs of the multitude of titles eventually pushed me out of collecting, though I do still pick up the occasional graphic novel.  I could probably pen a piece or two about how the evolution of storytelling eventually drove me (and countless others) away from that industry, but I've really no interest in such cultural examinations.  What matters really is that the character endures -- the caped crusader continues to resonate with audiences in any medium he inhabits -- and I still think that's grand.

In any event ...

I saw The Batman on the silver screen.  I mentioned what I thought was good about it and what I thought was bad.  While it wasn't my cup of tea (surprised?), I did think that it was finally one of the versions to truly get the world's greatest detective proper for the movies.  In fact, I believe I wrote that the first 15-20 minutes of the flick are damn legendary ... but then I thought it devolved rather quickly into an emo-based yarn that spent too much time in endless subplots that ultimately didn't make as much sense as the central premise ... and I got bored real quick.

I know, I know.  I hear you out in cyberspace crying, "Dammit, do you like anything?"

Still, I am surprised by the flick's ongoing business at the box office and beyond.  DC titles are thematically vastly different from Marvel's, and I didn't think audiences would embrace it the way they have ... so go figure.  I'm glad they did because it was announced just yesterday that Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson will be returning for a theatrical follow-up, though I'm really unclear on the dates.  (2024 would seem to be the most reported year, but some folks are speculating the change in ownership at Warner Bros. and the continuing search for a head executive behind the DC properties might prove otherwise.)  I'll be watching, and I'll happily report more details as they become available.

So even though The Batman wasn't the film I thought it would be, I do think it makes for a great experience.  It's just too long and too unfocused in its second half for my tastes.  I applaud the effort, and I'll sit through a sequel.  Here's hoping the second go-round surpasses the first.

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

​-- EZ

As I mentioned yesterday (link), on the ever-reliable Twitter I've found myself -- as the steward of SciFiHistory.Net -- part of a string of tweets promoting folks who either love Science Fiction and Fantasy and/or various related and asundry podcast properties.

Essentially, the purpose behind the Tweet is to do a bit of promotion for folks who do speak their mind, generally across the podiverse with any number of topics.  Folks like me who dabble in the alternative media?  Well, we don't have a lot of money with which to advertise our wares and bring folks to our outlets, so Tweeting has become a cost effective way to increase the likelihood that we'll eventually find riches, fortune, and fame somewhere along the Information Superhighway.  Since I don't pod (though I am thinking about it), I thought I'd do my part to promote these folks in this space -- with some SciFi ShoutOuts, much like I've done with indie authors -- with the hopes that maybe they'll throw out a casual mention on their shows about my site.

In any event ...

Today's SciFi ShoutOut goes to the Science Fiction Remnant podcast, which can be found online right here.  Very likely, it's available in other locations; I'm just plugging the one I've located.  If I'm reading it correctly, it looks like the team is into their second season of discussing any number of SciFi and Fantasy properties from television to movies.  The wonderful thing about their programming is that its available for you to scroll through, find something that interests you, and give it a listen.  I've waded through their talk about The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: being somewhat unfamiliar with it personally, I found it chocked full of facts and trivia that make for a good experience.

Highly recommended!

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

-- EZ

​Stories built around central mysteries run the risk of trying the patience of their viewers.
 
ABC TV’s Lost is probably the defining example, at least so far as the current generation is concerned.  The serial came from a team put together by – ahem – wunderkind JJ Abrams, and it ran on the network for six seasons between 2004 and 2010.  Over the course of its life, the cast grew and changed just bit – central players remained, however, up until the end – and, along the way, audiences were introduced to a smothering layer of mysteries, so much so that methinks everyone knew there was no way a single answer would ever account for every possibility.  Eventually, a finale was delivered – one not without a wealth of controversy – and many of the show’s essential questions remain unanswered (yes, depending upon your perspective).
 
When asked about the gaping holes in their narrative, Lost’s showrunners insisted that viewers never turned in for the mysteries; rather what kept bringing people back – in their opinion – were the characters.
 
Huh.
 
I bring this up today not to throw a bucket of cold water on Amazon’s Outer Range.  For clarity’s sake, the program is only in its third hour – this one titled “The Time” – and we’re still being modestly introduced to many of the players.  We’ve only really spent time with Josh Brolin’s ‘Royal Abbott’ and his family, though there have certainly been sequences with the Tillerson family and a few regulars from the Wyoming town.  But showrunner Brian Watkins (this is his very first property according to IMDB.com) has rather deftly begun moving around the various pieces tied to his central mystery … that being little more than a magical hole in the ground in the Abbott’s west pasture.
​

Essentially, I think it’s safe to say that not a lot happens in the first half of “The Time.”  In its opening shot, we’re greeted to what may be the least appetizing shot of beloved ice cream possibly ever captured on film – for what it’s worth, it looks more like cow manure than it does a sweet confection – with Royal spooning a bit for himself out of the carton.  He’s shortly interrupted by Amy – she can’t sleep – and the two share a rather sweet moment between a grandfather and a granddaughter that’s entirely authentic.
 
Lo and behold, the hour also ends with the two of them (along with the rest of the Abbott family) in the same kitchen: Amy’s returned quickly from her daily hike with news that she’s discovered the body of Trevor Tillerson dead on the trail.  Royal makes the best logical move possible, calling the sheriff and reporting the find, which has the end result of casting ever more suspicion on the family to begin with.
 
In between the opening and the (modest) cliffhanger, the forty-five minutes bends and weaves in some predictable ways.  Perry Abbott finds a bit of redemption on the back of a bucking bronco when he achieves a new record time at the rodeo.  Deputy Sheriff Joy makes a bit of progress in the investigation of Trevor’s disappearance, only to lose a critical piece of evidence by way of kinda/sorta mishandling it.  Cecilia Abbott begins to confront a ‘loss of faith’ in her spiritual life, casting her perception of reality into a bit of disarray.  And Royal and Autumn Rivers attempt to restart their tenuous relationship, an event that just might make a mole hill out of a mountain.
 
Yes, as the show has demonstrated in hours one and two, there are a few oddities that take place – a convenience store thief seems awfully invested in disappearing people; a rancher wants to know what the sheriff’s going to do about magical mastodons; and just where did that mountain in the west pasture hide away for a few seconds – but it’s difficult to make anything of these events.  Much like the aforementioned Lost, freakish happenings take place … and the showrunners (in the end) insisted they weren’t important (what mattered was the characters) … so I’ve learned not to invest all that much in said freaking happenings.  Sure, they’re cool … but, in the end, they may mean nothing.
 
But in the meantime, Outer Range continues to plug along like any good procedural, giving these actors some great small moments to cement their territory into a lasting foundation.  These players are all very, very good at what they’re doing … so let’s keep our fingers crossed that Watkins knows exactly where all of this is headed.

​-- EZ

I’ve often remarked that after watching Ridley Scott’s seminal Blade Runner (1982) in theatres, my friends and I left the place more than a little disappointed.
 
It’s hard to transport myself back to those days oh so many moons ago and explain exactly what it was that failed to inspire us to rave about the film – the way we did – as we munched pizza and drank sodas afterward.  Arguably, the story is vastly deeper than other fare that tickles the fancy of some teenaged minds; and Scott’s visuals – no matter how grand they were – can only carry any flick so far.  At some point, we felt, there needed to be a more compelling central story – or, perhaps, some more compelling circumstances – to draw folks in; and we just didn’t think (in our youth) there was enough there.
 
Years later – and with a helluva lot more life experience under our belts – I’m more inclined to suggest “we get it now.”  The script’s ruminations of existence and what that means to each of us just didn’t connect with the young Turks back then; I suspect we were so full of “piss and vinegar” that Roy Batty’s trials and tribulations registered as only a clever idea, not a premise with the kind of sticking energy young minds aspire to.  Now, most of us view the story as a deserved classic it’s become, and I just like to think we took the long road to that conclusion.
 
2022’s Expired (aka Loveland) tries to hit a lot of the same thematic notes (to a degree), but it’s even more languid by comparison and lacks a performance to ground viewers ‘in the moment.’  Suffice it to say that – although I’ve always liked the work of Ryan Kwanten – he’s no Harrison Ford or Rutger Hauer.
 
(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 citation:
“In an uncharted future, two hardened souls meet and confront each other with the things they have done and what they have become.”
 

More than any other genre, Science Fiction and Fantasy often benefit thematically from serving audiences up a look that isn’t way, way, way off into our distant future but instead they shine just a little bit of light on what’s right around the corner.  These films tend to be a bit predictive – in a good way – about the psychological challenges awaiting ‘the common man’ with all of our fast-changing technology.  While some features do it big – I’m thinking the Jurassic Park series is probably one of the grandest of this type – others take an up-close-and-personal look in more reflective ways – the aforementioned Blade Runner comes to mind, as does Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) or maybe even Christopher Caldwell and Zeek Earl’s Prospect (2018).
 
These films tend to be more about character, thus the special effects – while impressive – tend to get pushed a bit into the background so that audiences get the full measure of a man against the evolving complexities of how science might push us to become different.  We’ll have to adapt.  We’ll have to make concessions.  We’ll have to decide what’s truly important and what matters.  Will we want to get ‘microchipped’ to embrace this brave new world or will we cling to our bibles and our guns (as Barack Obama once famously chastised middle Americans)?  Will it be out with the old and in with the new … or vice versa?
 
Writer/director Ivan Sen’s Expired (2022) (aka Loveland) tries in some small way to tap into that whole ‘Tech Noir’ vibe created at the cineplex back in the 1980’s when James Cameron took audiences on a wild ride with his The Terminator (1984).  The film kinda/sorta remains a highwater mark on the subject of how machines and humans might inevitably come into conflict; and Expired turns the screw a bit further as it postulates the character of Jack (played by Ryan Kwanten) to be a kinda/sorta next level of evolution of our species (or, at least, an obvious by-product of genetic tinkering).  Science has finally found a means to do away with those pesky emotions; and it’s even postulated that removing them from our make-up might very well put us on the road to immortality.
 
However, Jack’s problems truly begin when the questioning of his own existence (and its intrinsic value or lack thereof) introduces hormones into his body, an act which begins to deconstruct that which he has become, along with his all-too-human flesh.  He’s begun to see life and his actions differently, and he’s even lowered some defenses to the point that he’s started falling in love with April (Jillian Nguyen), a very special kind of ‘companion’ whose services he buys.  All of this forces him to seek out the advice of famed scientist Dr. Bergman (Hugo Weaving), who just might hold the key to Jack’s future in his private research.
​

​There’s a subplot or two strung loosely throughout Expired that tries very hard to give more credence to the film’s climax; but – for what it’s worth – so little time is spent on them I didn’t feel they had the resonance Sen reached for.  Instead, the director has front-loaded his picture with some impressive visuals, most of which push the film in a direction too similar to Blade Runner for its own good.  (Trust me when I say that aesthetic cannot be achieved on this budget.)  The nameless Chinese city also appears a bit too contradictory here – at times, it’s teeming with people, while other clips make one think the future will be fairly sparsely populated – so perhaps less focus on special effects trickery was needed with more attention given to narrative specifics.  In one sense, it’s hard to decide what to make of all of this unevenness, and the slow, slow, slow rhythm to each performer’s vocal speech patterns might end up being more sleep-inducing as opposing to highlighting some earth-shattering relevance.  There’s virtually no conflict here – along with no sense of urgency to anything transpiring – and Kwanten occasionally sounded more like he was falling asleep than he was losing the weight off his soul.
 
As can happen when films take themselves and their “message” too seriously, Expired expires fairly quickly, and that’s unfortunate.  I wanted to like this world and its people.  I just didn’t know what it was they were really trying to tell me, and the final reel might have some folks wondering what really happened after all … and that’s never a good place to end a story.
 
Expired (2022) is produced by Bunya Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Lionsgate.  As for the technical specifications?  Rest assured that all of this looks and sounds very good (though Kwanten’s speeches do get hard to hear at times).  As for the special features?  Meh.  A trailer and a brief making-of short were a bit undercooked, if you ask me.
 
(Mildly) Recommended, but take note: Expired is really only for die-hard Science Fiction and Fantasy purists as methinks casual viewers aren’t going to know what to make of it … and, honestly, I doubt the die-hard variety will make much more from this laconically paced and staged dramatic musing on eugenics and love in the near future.  Performances are occasionally interesting, but as the central plot remains a bit muddled – as does what audiences are to make of it all in the closing moments – I can’t see this one building much of a following over time … but stranger things have happened.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lionsgate provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Expired (2022) 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

Hey, folks!  Happy Monday!

How's everybody doin' today?  Obviously, it's the start of a brand-new week, and -- just like January 1st is the beginning of a whole new year -- I hope you can treat today similarly: reach out and seize the day, make it your own, tame the beast, and run with it!

OK, on the business ...

As I said somewheres in this space earlier this year, I'm trying to up the MainPage posts through a variety of means, one of which is to give 'SciFi ShoutOuts' to like-minded folks.  In some respects this means I'll be giving props to folks in SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror, but I've always tried to remind readers that I consider myself a bit eclectic, I have interests beyond genre projects, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

In the last few weeks, I've found myself part of a circle of peeps on the ol' Twitter who've been doing their best to promote podcasts.  Again, these recommendations are not limited to any particular type of programming but they're willing to push and promote darn near anything ... and that's anything in a good way, not corrosive or corrupt.  Though I don't pod as do others, I have gained a handful of new followers from such exposure, and I've decided to return the favor in the way that I did ... that being SciFi ShoutOuts.

This morning, I gave my first listen to the 'cast 'This Blonde Can Talk About Anything' put out by Mellanie (yes, with two L's but maybe I have the other letters wrong).  She opined about the entire Will Smith situation at the Oscars, making her obviously trendy (a good thing), giving it her own moral and cultural spin (again, a good examination); and I thought she presented her arguments in a relatable and cogent way.  Anyone willing to step up to the microphone with a desire to present entertainment news with a perspective -- open and honest -- deserves a bit of discovery (so far as this knucklehead is concerned).  I decided to give her a ShoutOut for SciFiHistory.Net's readers.

I found her program with here.  Any and all readers are encourated to check her out.

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

-- EZ

Every now and then, I, too, get caught asleep at the wheel, peeps.

Much of this is honestly owed to the fact that I'm always reading -- I'm always surfing -- trying my damndest to give you only the most usable up-to-date information on what's available in genre entertainment.  A lot of what I check out just isn't what I personally term as relevent for SciFiHistory.Net -- I typically ignore announcements about projects just going into production because too many of them either get changed, get dropped, or completely disappear from the Information Superhighway before coming to fruition -- and I don't like having space committed to something that never truly transpired.  Also, I've really no desire to be like so many of those other sites -- the ones that just endlessly hit you with information to the point that it's either overkill or overload: I'd rather focus in on what I think I do best ... and, sure, that may change from time-to-time, but it'll always be delivered with the dedication I think you deserve.

In any event, I wasn't even aware that a remake/reboot of 1976's The Man Who Fell To Earth was even on any immediate drawing board, but -- lo and behold -- one is dropping on Showtime just this weekend.  I read a quick review of it over on The Wrap (link).  While that one starred the impressive David Bowie, this one is bringing the star power of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bill Nighy, and Naomie Harris to the forefront.  Also, this one is being presented in episodic (aka serial) format, which means that the alien's central journey will likely evolve -- perhaps change significantly, for all we know -- over the course of successive installments.

Ugh ... 

The downside?

Well, this incarnation is being brought to the small screen by way of Alex Kurtzman.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the name, Kurtzman was largely introduced to fandom by way of the insufferable JJ Abrams (sorry, kids, but I'm not a fan).  Under such stewardship, the Star Trek franchise has -- depending upon your perspective -- been largely destroyed with a growing assortment of bad writing (again, kids, my site, my opinions) that embraces ideology whereas the original Trek embraced ideas.  Not content to stop there, Kurtzman also practically destroyed Universal Studios' latest attempt to refashion its Movie Monsters Universe with -- cough cough -- The Mummy, a gobsmackingly awful film on so many levels.

Now, this isn't to suggest in any way that I think Kurtzman should be drummed out of the business.  A compelling argument could be made that he's earned a place in television production -- one need only understand that, despite quality, his several versions of Star Trek continue unabated -- and just a lowly web scribe such as myself has no place pronouncing judgment over his wares.  Paramount has placed their faith in the man, and no matter what the rest of us think they've undeniably blessed his -- cough cough -- "vision" as being one worth fostering.  He's done some great work in the past -- TV's Alias and Fringe benefitted from his collaboration -- and he'll likely continue to craft stuff for years to come.

I guess my only two cents at this point -- keep in mind that, no, I haven't seen The Man Who Fell To Earth as it hasn't aired -- is that I don't hold out much hope for it being all that interesting.

Let's see if Kurtzman can prove me wrong.

The Man Who Fell To Earth premieres Sunday, April 24th, on Showtime.  Check your local TV guides for specific info.

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

-- EZ

Honestly, I didn’t have all that grand of a childhood.
 
Now, I’m not complaining.  Rather, I’m only trying to give a bit of context for a memory.  My parents weren’t around an awful lot when I was a young’un, and they’d often leave me in front of the television set when they had other things requiring their attention.  (Again, this is not a complaint.)  This never bothered me as it gave me ample opportunity to develop a love for film, and – like so many – I’ve probably seen and forgotten more flicks than I’ll ever recall.
 
Anyway, they were on their way out the door one Friday or Saturday night I believe it was, and they were entrusting me and my two sisters into a babysitter’s capable hands.  As usual, I was on the couch, the television was on, and a commercial promotion came on advertising that evening’s primetime movie was going to be a little something something called The Abominable Dr. Phibes.  I’m pretty sure it was mother who noticed me inching forward in my seat, and she turned to me with a warning: “I do not want you watching that picture.  It’ll give you nightmares.”
 
So … I had no choice.  I turned the channel.  I did try later to go back to it, but the babysitter had overhead my mother’s words, stopping me short of a few scenes.
 
I did see it later – I don’t remember when or how old I was at that point – and I remember deciding that my mother didn’t know what she was talking about.  Phibes wasn’t all that scary.  Sure, it had its moments of tension, but it was tame by comparison to other things I squeezed in when she wasn’t watching.
 
(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:
“Horror legend Vincent Price plays a diabolical doc seeking the ultimate in revenge with precision creepiness and surgical wit!  After a team of surgeons botches his beloved wife’s operation, the distraught Dr. Phibes unleashes a score of Old-Testament atrocities – from a plague of locusts to an attack of rats – on his enemies that climax in what may be one of the eeriest endings on screen record!”
 
More than anything, Phibes is a revenge picture.
 
There’s no denying that James Whiton and William Goldstein’s script mixes elements of Horror, Comedy, and the household Melodrama all for good measure.  Heck, depending upon what one makes of the doctor and his assistant Vulnavia’s relationship (she’s played by Virginia North), one might argue there’s an undercurrent of unrequited love possible woven into the picture’s visual spell.  But at its core, what makes the clock tick is Phibes ongoing quest to see those who participated in any way with his wife’s failed surgery pay an equally steep price – namely, it’s an eye for an eye in some of the more creative deaths emerging from this era of film.
 
Director Robert Fuest explores methods to deliver the madness without all that much bloodshed.  In fact, only a few sequences show any blood at all, as the narrative technique here is far more nuanced than what’s come from traditional European Horror features, which for a time kinda/sorta reveled in excess.  In fact, some of Phibes’ creative kills made me wonder if folks who created the cinematic universe of the Saw films might’ve drawn a bit of inspiration; granted, their deaths are vastly more elaborate, but I can see some thematic similarities from the old to the new if even in small ways.
 
Still, it’s hard to grow offended by the doctor’s ongoing quest.  He’s on his own personal ‘mission of justice,’ and he’ll stop at nothing, drawing inspiration from the Bible for the manner in which he’ll vanquish his next mortal foe.  Price – though cleverly limited from showing us the range of his gifts vocally – performs admirably as the tortured soul who misses his dearly departed.  Though he’s never afforded the opportunity to chew scenery the way he’s done in previous films, he shoulders the good, the bad, and even the goofy elements of perhaps the screen’s oddest antagonist, camping it up like some demented Phantom of the Opera (sans the opera but with the pipe organ).  He properly mugs it up at every chance, showing audiences to true gift of expression even if only with his wide, pensive eyes.  It's a masterful performance deserving of some praise.
​

​Phibes’ script is more than occasionally inconsistent.  Costume changes occur when characters have not been given clearly enough time, and (logic be damned!) some of the manners of execution push the limits of what viewers might believe possible, much less plausible.  Props and needed technology tend to appear out of thin air in the doctor’s lair more out of script necessity than out of pure acceptability.  Why would any villain require a mansion with the level of theatrical sophistication Phibes has built unless he knew exactly what everyone in this world would do when poked or prodded?  Why a golden ax?  Even worse, why a golden telephone?  Even more worse, why a golden telephone in your crypt?  Why a menagerie of mechanical musicians?  Any attempt at rational thought fails here, as much of this simply defies any conventional explanation.
 
In the end, perhaps it’s best to bear in mind that this isn’t a film that’s watched and appreciated for what it does so much as it is how its results are ultimately achieved.
 
The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) was produced by Amicus Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the very reliable Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  While there’s no mention of the disc being the beneficiary of any new scans, whatever master was used is fabulous: colors definitely pop – the flick makes great use of darkness and shadows along with a fair amount of ambient light in places – and everything sounds fabulous.  As for the special features?  Ahem.  There are the obligatory adverts that tend to go hand-in-hand with most releases these days, but the real extras here are two different commentary tracks.  Director Fuest appears alongside a host, and – if I’m being perfectly frank – it’s a difficult experience in part because Fuest (who passed in 2012 at the ripe age of 84) certainly sounds aged; as a consequence, his recollections are few, many of them pleasant, but he’s a bit hard to hear as his speech is a bit broken.  (Age gets us all, my friends.)  The second commentary is from Justin Humphreys – a Phibes ‘expert’ – and he provides a fascinating exploration of some of the major and minor facts that went into launching this small franchise.  Some of what he details doesn’t quite align with what Fuest says on his track, but I’m going to chalk it all up to a few flawed memories.
 
Highly recommended, but … recommended for whom?
 
One of the kinda/sorta charming qualities of The Abominable Dr. Phibes is that it’s a Horror film that defies all of the conventions of the genre while still honoring them, and yet it’s also a Comedy that shouldn’t logically work but somehow still manages to effectively.  In fact, Phibes – abominable it may be – is that rare visual specimen that resists being categorized into any single field or genre because it so effectively mixes, matches, and even mocks everything that makes it one type of flick or another.  It’s a motion picture made for no particular audience and yet has found one – largely cult – with incredible crossover potential from fans of practically any group or sub-group.
 
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 Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) by request (as part of their ‘Two Films By Robert Fuest Double Feature’) 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.

​(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 citation:
“A scientist trains a man with an advanced telepathic ability called ‘scanning,’ to stop a dangerous Scanner with extraordinary psychic powers from waging war against non scanners.”
 
Honestly, I’ve had this love/hate thing with director David Cronenberg his entire career.  (Don't worry, Dave: it's me, not you.)  In short, I’ve never much cared for his original works.

​While they’ve occasionally had some inspired ideas, I just haven’t been all that smitten with anything beyond the look and, sometimes, the practical effects work that’s matched his various visions.  Some of it I find just plain confusing – Videodrome (1983) started out as a unique Horror procedural but then morphed into an experimental piece with some macabre visuals – while others I ended up being bored silly over – Dead Ringers (1988) was a particular snooze.  I will say I’ve enjoyed his adaptations of other peoples’ idea better than extrapolations of his own – he directed the earliest version of Stephen King’s The Dead Zone (1983) which I’d argue is still the best King book-turned-film as well as a heart-wrenching incarnation of The Fly (1986) – but otherwise I guess I’d conclude by suggesting his original stuff just hasn’t been for me.
 
1981’s Scanners is a film that, arguably, put Cronenberg on the entertainment map.
 
It was both written and produced very quickly in late 1979 (1978?) in order to take advantage of some Canadian tax benefits; and – from what I’ve read – it was a bit of a chaotic shoot, often times with the writer/director crafting scenes quite literally the morning before they were shot.  As a consequence, the narrative was naturally tweaked a bit – not unheard of in the creative process – and the end result is a tale that feels part like it was a Horror-inspired yarn that somehow turned the corner into a government conspiracy potboiler.  Sadly, the elements of the mystery – there either is or isn’t a global cabal behind scanners and, depending upon one’s interpretation, they either seek to harness their power or wipe them out – end up being exposed in information dumps delivered more like afterthoughts than anything intended originally.
​

Lead star Stephen Lack (as Cameron Vale) capably handles the emotional weight of this film on his shoulders.

​Though he’s positioned as little more than a vagrant in the story’s opening moments, we eventually learn that he’s lead the life of a transient somewhat by design: Scanners have been monitored for years, though exactly how and why this has been done is kept concealed until later in the picture.  He, in particular, has been kept 'in the shadows' and disallowed to live a normal life.  We watch in this set-up as he uses his powers against those who would judge him, and it’s easy to identify with his struggle to just make ends meet, even if that means pilfering a leftover sandwich from an abandoned lunch tray.  Under his stewardship, Vale is likeable and relatable, so his evolution from wayward lost soul to the film’s potential hero works.
 
As his nemesis, genre great Michael Ironside (as Darryl Revok) has likely forgotten more about chewing scenery than most actors ever learn, much less master.

Though the actor hasn’t always played ‘the heavy,’ I can say with conviction that, when he has, he’s remembered for it.  (Hell, he might even be revered for it.)  Genre fans have enjoyed his abilities in such projects as television's V, Spacehunter: Adventures In The Forbidden Zone (1983), Total Recall (1990), and Terminator Salvation (2009).  His IMDB.com profile is fast approaching 300 different screen roles.  He’s that rare talent who inhabits those dark elements and brings them to the surface with practiced ease.  His early scenes here are laced with an undercurrent of evil; we see him watching developments from afar and, in some cases, tinkering in these events, all seemingly intent on capturing Vale before … before … well … before …
 
Therein lies the crux of my problem with Scanners: it holds far too many of its secrets back until its last reel when Revok and Vale’s true identities are finally revealed, as is the role others have played in this grand Machiavellian drama.  The imperfect structure of this plot – the who’s, the what’s, the why’s – end up being reserved to the point wherein the audience can’t truly appreciate the earlier drama except to conclude that it’s all well-done, well-captured, and well-intended.  Having the logic to understand some of these characters’ motivation earlier would likely have bridged the gap otherwise created here, and I can’t help but wonder if this was a consequence of not having a completed script before all was said and done.  The true cores of characters played by Jennifer O’Neill and Patrick McGoohan end up feeling lost in the shuffle to craft a narrative in progress, and even the late McGoohan is on record as not knowing what this was all about while it was in production.  Dare I say, it shows?
 
Setting those quibbles aside, Scanners feels more and more about a few impressive action and effects sequences than it does the investigation of its proposed dark cabal and their nefarious eugenics.  Lack and Ironside make for great polar opposites in this world of evil and (maybe) good (maybe just lesser evil), but this particular story only gave them a single big scene together … and I would’ve loved more.
​

I’ve watched enough Cronenberg to know that – as a storyteller – he likely knows what he wants when he sees it, and this film is no different.

​The flick is understandably revered for its showdown and – even more so – its incredible head-exploding sequence; the director employed some of the best effects people of the era to get those scenes ‘in the can,’ and it shows.  (Industry legend Dick Smith essentially pioneered a whole new bladder system for this film and others, and the genius of putting it on display here shows.)  But all of the whizzes, booms, and bangs without greater narrative context (or emotional resonance) genuinely robs these characters of the requisite impact, leaving Scanners a bit listless … and some of us with headaches all of our own.
 
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties if I failed to point out that Scanners is not without its ardent supporters.  It started a franchise – I believe there were two sequels, though I’ve not read anything all that complementary about their quality – and something indeed needs to be said for that.  Also, I know I’ve read about a potential reboot not once but twice (even a television version has been talked about, I believe); and I’d heartily encourage someone to dust off the property and give audiences another go-round.  There’s potential for more journeys into this universe; I just hope the next visit doesn’t go up like a skull under mental manipulation!
 
Scanners (1981) was produced by Canadian Film Development Corporation and a few other participants.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) was coordinated by the reliable Criterion Company.  As for the technical specifications?  Well, you’ll believe a head can explode!  The sights and sounds are fabulous from start-to-finish.  As for the special features?  This 2018 release offered up a new restored 2K transfer supervised by Cronenberg himself, and it certainly looks fabulous.  While short a commentary track (gasp!), there are a few other items worth your time, including:
​

• The Scanners Way – a documentary examining the film’s special effects;
• Mental Saboteur – an interview with Ironside;
• The Ephemoral Diaries – A 2012 interview with Lack;
• The Bob Mclean Show – a brief interview with Cronenberg;
• And a few additional niceties.  It’s a great collection fans will appreciate.

 
Recommended.  While imperfect and not always entirely rational, Scanners is still recommended viewing, especially for students of the 1980’s, horror aficionados, and (definitely) Cronenberg purists.  I’m hardly the auteur’s biggest fan – just hasn’t struck a chord with me as he has so many others – but the film kept my interest; and – when it was over – I wished a bit more time had been spent with story as opposed to spectacle.  Rewatchability is good … but I’ll bet whoever picks this one up for a reboot will bring more depth to its mystery.

​-- EZ