Happy Tuesday, peeps ... and it's another edition of New Releases Tuesday, though it's been some time since I've done one.  I gravitate back and forth between doing these posts and not, mostly because in my review of site traffic these don't get a lot of traction.  Still, there are a few of these hitting shelves today that I thought worthy of a mention ... so sit back, buckle up, and enjoy the data.

Candyman (1992): "The Candyman, a murderous soul with a hook for a hand, is accidentally summoned to reality by a skeptic grad student researching the monster's myth."  (IMDB.com)

Lifeforce (1985):  "A race of space vampires arrives in London and infects the populace, beginning an apocalyptic descent into chaos."  (IMDB.com)

Passengers (2016):  "A malfunction in a sleeping pod on a spacecraft traveling to a distant colony planet wakes one passenger 90 years early."  (IMDB.com)

RoboCop: The Series (1994):  "Alex Murphy is RoboCop, a cybernetic policeman. A creation of a vast corporation, he fights crime and occasional corporate conspiracy in the near-future of Old Detroit."
(IMDB.com)

• Watch this space, readers, and I'll be reviewing this release of RoboCop: The Series along with some individual episode reviews in the days ahead!

​Studio 666 (2022):  "Legendary rock band Foo Fighters move into an Encino mansion steeped in grisly rock and roll history to record their much anticipated 10th album."  (IMDB.com)

The Batman (2022):  "When a sadistic serial killer begins murdering key political figures in Gotham, Batman is forced to investigate the city's hidden corruption and question his family's involvement."
(IMDB.com)
​

• Yes, I'm on record as being no huge fan of The Batman.  Sorry, folks, but it is what it is.

​Trekkies (1997):  "Denise Crosby takes a first look at the huge fans of "Star Trek" and how the series from around America has affected and shaped their lives."  (IMDB.com)

X (2022):  "In 1979, a group of young filmmakers set out to make an adult film in rural Texas, but when their reclusive, elderly hosts catch them in the act, the cast find themselves fighting for their lives."  (IMDB.com) 

Happy shopping!

-- EZ

Honestly, I’ll go to my grave insisting that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not the cinematic catastrophe most people allege it to have been.
 
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m old enough to have seen this one on first run in the theaters back when it premiered in 1979.  Truth be told – if circumstances had worked out perfectly back in the day – I could’ve been one of the very first to have seen it a few days before its general release to mankind: I think it was either Burger King or McDonald’s that was running a contest for customers, and I remember receiving the letter confirming that my entry had been drawn from the box of submissions.  (I’m sure that there were more than just mine in there, but I did my part to stuff that ballot box, I did.)  Alas, I lived in downstate Illinois and the showing was set for the greater Chicagoland area, so I had to surrender my seats to someone who could make the trip.  Yes, yes, and yes: I was devastated as a little guy … but I got over it.
 
I did get to see Star Trek on the silver screen when it premiered the very next week in my hometown, and I’ve no problem confessing that I saw it several times, even multiple times on the first Saturday.  Me and my friends had a habit of buying a ticket for the first daily showing; if it was something we liked, then we’d sit through it twice, as we rarely had anything to do in our one-horse town.  I think we repeated the experience for the next two Saturdays, as well, as The Motion Picture was something that certainly made an impression on our young minds.
 
Having been born in the mid-1960’s, the television show was a bit out of my intellectual reach.  I’ve mentioned before (in this space) that I do distinctly remember being sat down in front of a set and shown an episode of the program; I know this because I can recall vividly being fascinated with Spock’s ears.  Which adventure was it?  Oh, that is lost to the ages – I’ve no recollection of the storyline – but that image of the singular Vulcan was seared into my young mind.
 
Like so many, I had the good fortune of discovering Trek in TV syndication, and my parents responded in kind, gifting me a few of those popular Mego action figures for either a birthday or Christmas.  For a time, my Kirk and Spock went with me everywhere … until I came home from school one day to find the family dog had chewed off a leg.  (I think it was Kirk’s, actually.)  I made do the best I could with them in the Enterprise playset … damn that dog.
 
Being the age I was, Star Wars naturally became the next big thing in my life, but I never set aside my love for the Gene Roddenberry property.  Though Luke, Han, and Leia were fun to cheer along with, I still believe that Kirk was the better hero.  He never relied on the magical powers of the Force, but he could always count on his crew – the people he had chosen to surround himself with – to brave the Final Frontier, face any challenge, and stand tall against any adversary.  As fun as that galaxy far, far away was, it just never had stories like those that the Enterprise crew faced; and – even as a young one – I was always fascinated more with stories than I was with visuals.
 
Believe it or not, I was a bit hesitant when I heard the news that producers were working to transition Star Trek from the small screen to the silver one.  Sure, I was excited to see the original crew return to action – no die-hard Trek enthusiast worth his or her weight in gold would turn down the chance for more adventures in Starfleet – but I just felt they were going to – ahem – screw it up.  Everything was going to have to be remade for the big screen, and the story was going to have to be a bit more epic: gone would be the intimacy of those weekly procedurals, and – in its place – there would have to be some yarn larger-than-life.  (My two cents?  On TV, the acting can be larger-than-life.  Not the stories.  ‘Nuff said.)  That just wasn’t the way Trek explored strange new worlds and new civilizations, so I feared the worst.
 
Lo and behold, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was everything I hoped it would be.
 
Now, I’m not going to get into the endless arguments are pacing.  Nor am I going to debate anyone over the film’s decidedly more adult tone.  I’ve long said that folks showing up for a Star Trek movie expecting Star Wars action were going to be disappointed as Trek was never about heart-pounding action or eye-popping special effects.  The show inspired scientists and astronauts – not swashbucklers and pirates – so anyone who bought a ticket thinking this was going to be some big budget space fantasy needs to get his head examined.  The series made its mark spinning morality tales … and so far as this longtime fan is concerned that’s exactly what producers delivered with TMP.  What else can you conclude in learning that V’Ger was – in fact – our very own creation – a future technological Frankenstein – that was returning home with the intent of causing our extinction?  Could there be a more cautionary tale in all of Trekdom?
 
But I do get that some folks just don’t like it.  They wanted something else.  They wanted something faster.  They wanted something maybe even hipper.  I still argue they wanted Star Wars, and I’ve made my piece with that.
 
My purpose for bringing this up is that yesterday I had the good fortune of taking in the Fathom Events screening of Star Trek: The Motion Picture Director’s Cut at one of the local venues.  This release is essentially meant to hype the upcoming home video release of the 4K version of the film, a process for which I learned that producers actually culled their way through an incredible 200,000 feet of film.  And the result is the film looks and sounds even better than it ever has!  Though I went in expecting a kinda/sorta more-of-the-same feeling to the affair, I was stunned by how incredible several of those longer effects sequences look with this restoration.  The detail is incredible, and anyone who considers himself a fan of classic Trek really owes it to the franchise to see this one on the silver screen if you can.  I think you’ll be glad you did.

Website: Fathom Events

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

-- EZ

Born in Seattle, Washington in 1946, actor John Aylward was a fabulous character actor whose career stretched just shy of one hundred different projects.  IMDB.com reports that, in 1973, he joined forces with others in his field to found the Empty Space Theatre in his hometown, though there's no other information regarding that entity's various dramatic endeavors.

​Though his first professional citation of record took place in 1976, it wasn't until nearly two decades later -- in 1993 -- that he stepped into the realm of cinematic Fantasy: cast in Stuart Gillard's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III -- the film that transported that fearsome foursome back into 17th century Japan -- Aylward filled the shoes of 'Niles' in the picture.

In 1998, the actor enjoyed exploring characters in the popular HBO miniseries From The Earth To The Moon (produced by Tom Hanks).  That same year also had the man facing an aquatic menace in the miniseries adaptation of Peter Benchley's Creature as well as turning up on the silver screen with a small role aboard Michael Bay's Armageddon.

In 2000, Alyward enjoyed a recurring role aboard the short-lived TV series, The Others, a procedural that dealt with a group privately confronting supernatural and paranormal events.  That same year, he paid a visit to another TV world, that of the short-lived Secret Agent Man from creator Barry Sonnenfeld.

As you can guess, other opportunities continued to appear on his horizon.  Fans were able to enjoy his work in such properties as 3rd Rock From The Sun, HBO's Carnivale, The X-Files, Surface, Stargate SG-1, Alias, The Crazies (2010), Fringe, and American Horror Story.

Alas -- as they say -- an end awaits us all, and word has reached us this week that the actor passed from natural causes.  Thankfully, we'll always have the work he did so well to appreciate the time he spent entertaining everyone.

Thoughts and prayers are extended to Aylward's family and friends.

​-- EZ

​Speaking only for myself, I’ll admit that it’s sometimes difficult to find something relevant to say about movies and television shows of a bygone era.
 
Unlike today, there’s a vast library of broadcast programming out there that wasn’t written to spur audiences to activism.  Production executives weren’t always interested in representing key demographics or minority groups with members of their cast.  More often than not, storytellers were merely working to sling words together on a page – giving it a serviceable beginning, middle, and ending that could fit within an episode’s budget – so trying to affect the viewers’ minds about some controversial or timely topic of dinner table conversation was likely backburnered as a network priority.  Instead, the focus was on telling a good story – maybe even a damn good one – and leave the lesson planning to the teachers.
 
In fact, even the commentary track on the 2018 Kino Lorber release for The Outer Limits: Season 2 suggests just how different the network shenanigans back then differ from today.  Film historian and author David J. Schow provides the reflections specifically to “Soldier” as well as some insights into the show’s behind-the-scenes pressures, and he remarks how the network suits demanded monsters to appear every so many minutes in each typical one-hour installment.  (Apparently, these folks had done their research, and their findings convinced them that audiences only wanted monsters.)  Story wasn’t all that important … so long as it provided a greater context for monsters.
 
Well, “Soldier” has a monster.  Of a sort.  If you can believe it, we’re the monster.  Man.  All of us.
 
But I’ll get to that in a moment.
 
The point I raised in this article’s outset remains: because yesterday’s entertainment largely lacked the complex ideological agendas that today’s purveyors of media typically embrace, I’m occasionally flummoxed over having something to say about a show that, frankly, hasn’t been said already in the decades since its original airing.
 
This isn’t to say that Ellison didn’t have a ‘moral to the story.’  He did.  (Well, I’d like to think he did.)  His anti-war stance was, likely, plain as day back then as it is now.  Also, one could argue that the screenwriter gave a pronounced and favorable nod to the benefits of the nuclear family – were one so inclined to interpret those 51 minutes in such a way.  Heck, a case could even be made that “Soldier” suggests the care and evaluation of returning soldiers should be placed in the hands of independent, unbiased, non-governmental mental health and wellness providers – scientists well outside the military industrial complex of that era – if you’re watching closely.
 
As is often the case, we take exactly what meaning we want from art, but I’ve long argued that shows from yesteryear left room for folks of all political stripes – not just the institutional Right or Left, the Liberal or Conservative – to find commonality, a sentiment I fear lost on today’s scribes.  Thus, “Soldier” represents the very best of us – a desire to seek and find answers even to life’s most daunting challenges – as much as it represents the very worst of us – a demonstrated proclivity to wage war, even if the combatants cannot articulate what they’re fighting for.
 
As Quarlo Clobregnny, the great Michael Ansara played a soldier wrapped up in a very different kind of war than the one for which he was originally trained: a survival beyond the battlefield.  It would appear no thought was ever given to what an existence outside of bloodshed might be.  Ellison’s total immersion of this warrior into the (somewhat) peaceful past – into an period devoid of legitimate physical aggression for his outlet – creates an all-new and insurmountable conflict.  Without the preparation for setting aside his bloodlust, Quarlo cannot relate in any useful way upon arrival; and – depending upon one’s interpretation, again – he succumbs to his original programming in the hour’s final moment.  Violence remains his “true north” – if you’re familiar with the expression – as well as his last resort.
​

Quarlo’s society – presumably a future version of us – never prepared this man for anything else, clearly building a wartime Frankenstein that’ll likely be beyond its control in times of peace.
 
So … we made the monster, and the monster is us.
 
Dare I suggest this isn’t likely the “monster” the studio executives were anticipating?
 
Ultimately, what I find so impressive about “Soldier” is the choice of protagonist.
 
It’s a matter of public record that Ellison’s short story – “Soldier From Tomorrow” – was first published in the October, 1957 issue of Fantastic Universe.  For those who’ve missed ‘50’s and early ‘60’s television, the going trend leaned heavily on Westerns, private detectives, cop shows, and the like; so adapting a somewhat cerebral tale focusing on a philologist thrown into a conflict between two enemy combatants likely gave some network executives pause.  The typical heroes of this era weren’t so much revered for their brains as they were their instincts, and they often packed heat (carried guns) or had to pass regular physicals to keep their employment.  Lloyd Nolan’s ‘Tom Kagan’ comes across far more grandfatherly than he does anything resembling a stout authoritarian, and he solves the world’s problems with his mind.
 
Having watched as much older Science Fiction as I have, I can assure you that, typically, scientists have enjoyed a myriad of depictions.  There have been good ones, and there have been bad ones.  Indeed, they’re probably shown to have caused as many problems as they’ve solved, and the Atomic Age certainly presented these brainiacs with an all-new set of experiments to perform.  On film, some of them unleashed giant insects that went marauding across the amber waves of grain while others went about using new these forms of energy to reanimate the dead.  Imagine my surprise to find out that somewhere out there might be a fellow like Kagan – a guy whose chief motivation is that he, simply put, just cared?
 
In many ways, “Soldier” ends as it began: two men are thrown together in mortal combat.
 
Sides don’t matter.  Stakes are never discussed.  Objectives never come into discussion.  This is a world of kill or be killed, and these two are functioning at peak condition.  One smokes a cigarette in a moment of calm while the other sucks medicine (drugs? liquid smoke?) from a handheld device.  All they know is violence.  All they serve are their respective masters.  Science may’ve played a hand in their training and even in their unintentional trip through time, but it was raw human savagery – and the working end of a laser rifle – that defined their final moments alive.  Whether or not Quarlo matured in some way, discovered his latent humanity, and sacrificed his life protecting the Kagan family is a question we’ll never answer definitively, certainly not with the evidence as presented.
 
As I said above, we take what messages we want from art, and I suspect you’ll have to do the same here.

​-- EZ

Take note, readers: I've said it before and I'll say it again but everyone who is anyone wants to -- somehow, some way, sometime -- be in the business of Science Fiction and Fantasy.  That's been my position as long as I've been a consumer of media, and I give you my word that I'll remain true to it until my dyin' day.

As long as there has been stars over our heads, mankind has looked at them and wondered what it would be like to travel out there, into the distant black, to visit new worlds and to explore new civilizations.  Kirk and company certainly went about their business on the immortal Star Trek; and since those days -- if not before -- storytellers have been only too willing to keep fueling our imagination by rocketing us into that Final Frontier.  There has always -- always -- been a market for quality (and less-than-stellar) Science Fiction ... and there always will be.

That said, I'm thrilled this morning to report that the good people over at Film Movement has decided it's time that they launch their own efforts to capitalize on those weird, weird tales from yesteryear: starting this month, they've incorporated not one ... not two ... but an incredible array of two dozen cinematic gems from days gone by into their own online streaming platform.  (Interested parties are encouraged to check out their full line-up -- not just these adventures -- at their website right here.)  There are a few in this bunch that I've seen -- so I'll likely be ponying up on my MainPage some refurbished reviews with some updated thoughts in order to help promote their streams -- and I encourage folks to be watching for them.

Also, I'm going to do the polite copy-and-paste of their press release (and related information) before.  Seriously, folks, there's a lot of screen magic in here: I know not everyone is as fascinated by these older entries as I am, but there's something to be said for expanding one's horizons when the movie houses are still a bit s-l-o-w since the days of COVID to get back up to speed.  Why not make a small investment for the summer days, stay out of the heat, and curl up with some true originals?  This gets my highest recommendation.

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

-- EZ
​

New York, NY (May 20, 2022) – This May, look to the sky, as Film Movement Plus is invaded…by the genre gems of yesteryear! Beginning Friday, May 20, the SVOD platform will welcome two dozen “Retro Drive-in Classics” spanning the thematic categories of “Aliens”, “Space”, “Beasts”, “Monsters” and “Mayhem (The Films of Ed Wood)”. Utilizing the best available elements and transfers, these unforgettable classics hailing from the Golden Age of Cinema have never looked better!
 
Spaced invaders and giant alien brains are on tap with the first wave of the invasion featuring “Aliens” and “Space”, and includes such unforgettable drive-in era shockers as THE BRAIN FROM PLANET AROUS, DEVIL GIRL FROM MARS, THE COSMIC MAN, DESTINATION MOON, THE PHANTOM PLANET, ROCKETSHIP X-M and more! Not since “War of the Worlds” sudden terrifying Martian invasion of Grovers Mill have there been so many aliens in one place, so grab a tub of popcorn and a vat of soda and strap in for a trip to the outer reaches – and beyond!  
​

ROBOT MONSTER (1953)
Starring George Nader, Gregory Moffett | Directed by Phil Tucker

Proudly hailed as one of the worst movies ever made, Robot Monster is an apocalyptic scenario in which space invader Ro-Man is sent to Earth and destroys all of humanity, except for band of survivors. The bigfoot-like creature attempts to dispatch the remaining survivors one at a time, but falls in love with one of the women, drawing the ire of his superior, the Great Guidance. (62 mins | B&W | USA)
​

THINGS TO COME (1936)
Starring Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, Cedric Hardwicke & Ann Todd | Directed by William Cameron Menzies
A landmark science-fiction film that examines mankind’s capacity for peace and scientific progress and also for tyranny and destruction. As war rages, civilizations fight endlessly until little is left. Later, a warlord claims the remaining vestige of civilization until he learns of a new, more advanced and peaceful civilization elsewhere in the ruins of the world and views them as a threat. They invade and liberate the hapless subjects of the warlord. In the future, a technologically superior and peaceful civilization emerges, but still there are agitators who seek to disrupt peace. (109 mins | B&W | UK)

​
About FILM MOVEMENT PLUS
 
FILM MOVEMENT PLUS (www.filmmovementplus.com) opens up a world of provocative, compelling and award-winning films from Film Movement’s singular library. Priced at $5.99 per month with a free 14-day trial, the SVOD subscription service, currently available on Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Android TV, mobile (iOS and Android), and Chromecast, offers consumers immediate access to over 400 festival favorite feature films and 100 short films, including: THEEB, the 2016 Academy Award® nominee for Best Foreign Film; AFTER THE STORM, a powerful family drama from 2018 Palme d’Or winner Hirokazu Kore-eda (Shoplifters); HUMAN CAPITAL, a political thriller from Paolo Virzi (The Leisure Seeker) that was Italy’s Best Foreign Film submission for the 87th Academy Awards® and MY LOVE, DON’T CROSS THAT RIVER, an unforgettable documentary about true love that transcends generations and cultures and is South Korea’s most successful film of all time. Classics from the Film Movement catalog include Bille August’s PELLE THE CONQUEROR, an Academy Award® winner for Best Foreign Language Film in 1996 and much more. 
​

Folks, you know me -- some of you know me by name -- and throughout the (roughly) ten years I've been doing this whole 'entertainment blog' shtick I've been asked to pass along all kinds of stuff to my growing readership.

Honestly, there's a fair number of inquiries to my site that just doesn't quite hit the genre nail that I keep in supply.  Monthly I have to do like many in this humble business do and clean up the spam (you'd be surprised the number of companies that try to park adverts within my various pages).  Occasionally I'm contacting by people who seek to promote a product or two in this space, but I've honestly tried to avoid that stuff; it would require me to set up some kind of fee schedule -- the likes of which I've no way to figure out logistically -- and it would open the door understandably to more of the same.  So I toil away -- still in obscurity -- hoping to maintain my focus on the kinds of content I believe you'd like to see.

Every now and then, though, something does come across the transom that does tickle my fancy, and -- lo and behold -- it happened just earlier today.  The kind peeps over at HotDog.Com reached out regarding their latest creation: it's a fabulous accounting of Horror movie fascination broken down by state!  What with Halloween not all that far around the corner, I thought it would be an interesting feature to share, as we're all in the market for a good scare every now and then.

For those who don't know, I'm in Arizona, and the demographics of our state have decided that our top thriller chiller is ... is ... Night Of The Comet (1984)?!?!

Folks, I'm packing up and moving back to Illinois ...

No, wait ... wait ... wait ...

Illinois' top Horror movie is ... is ... I Walked With A Zombie (1943)?!?!

Nope.  Nope.  Nope.  I'm staying right here.

In any event, I scanned through the entertaining piece and got some chuckles over it -- along with their methodology -- and I thought that this was definitely in our sphere of influence.  I'd encourage all of you to do the same, share and share alike, and find out what your neighbors think is scaring you silly.  I suspect you'll be as surprised as I was.

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

​-- EZ

Now I ask you: which among us can't appreciate a good monster movie and -- HOLY MOTHER DRAGONS?! WHAT THE HELL AM I LOOKING AT?!

I tell you: I love my job.

​Being on the cutting edge of modern entertainment has taken me years and years of building up relationships across the Information Superhighway, but I'd like to think I've expended my blood, sweat, and tears for the benefit of all mankind.  That's why I do get particularly thrilled when I can bring you some late-breaking announcements involving some upcoming fare that treads near-and-dear to things that go bump in the night.  Always remember: I'll do the research so that you don't have to, and we're bound to always come out on top together.

So in this spirit I'd like to bring a little something something titled The Prey: Legend Of Karnoctus to your attention today.  This looks to be a debut feature for screenwriter and director Matthew Hensman -- sometimes that bodes well, sometimes not -- and it stars just genre regulars as Danny Trejo, Adrian Paul, and Nick Chinlund.  And as monster movie promotions go, the movers and shakers aren't afraid to conceal this little ditty until the last minute: you'll find the creature playing prominent in the coming attraction for this genre gem that drops on demand in June.

I'll be copying and pasting the particulars below.  Readers are encouraged to check them out at your leisure.  I'll be reviewing this one in this space in the not-too-distant future, so keep your eyes peeled.  It looks to be a doozy.

-- EZ
​

Good morning and Happy Wednesday to all of SciFiHistory.Net's readers!

One of the things I've always wanted to do is -- ahem -- catch up on my viewing of classic Science Fiction and Fantasy television.  As I've mentioned many, many, many times in this space, I grew up in the small town that -- so far as you know -- is about as geographically as close to 'Hell On Earth' that one can get on this side of existence.  As a consequence, our humble little television set received only a smattering of broadcast channels, the most of which were middle American affiliate stations that couldn't afford a major line-up of shows in the evening.  I won't trouble you recounting what shows were heavy in rotation, but suffice it to say it really wasn't much by way of stuff that would interest audiences today.  Rest assured: we had the three major networks of their day to keep us captivated after supper ... but -- as your parents and grandparents can assure you, kids, you either watched what they gave you or you didn't.

So I missed out on the two big shows so many were able to digest frequently: I could just never find The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits in syndication.  When it was on, it was generally aired late at night -- I think rural stations thought it might be a bit 'heady' or even 'daring' for younger viewers, so I chucked it up as more adult fare.  By the time I got into high school, shows like Star Trek (syndicated, of course) and the PBS runs of Doctor Who kept most of my TV interest, so the classic anthologies just never quite fell onto my radar.

Now that I'm older -- and definitely wiser -- I'm trying to make serious efforts to correct this, and I recently picked up the Second Season of The Outer Limits to digest as time permits.  Why the Second Season first?  Well, I've done some reading, and -- depending upon how one might interpret the critical assessment -- the second had some meatier stories.  While I have seen snippets of a few first season entries, I figured I'd spend some time better understanding where the show went as opposed to just starting at the front and working my way to the end.

In this regard, I might be penning some episode reviews as well as making time for screencapping and whatnot.  I've always wanted to do more of that with SciFiHistory.Net; it's just that -- as you can imagine -- the investment in time will be phenomenal.  I can only squeeze these in when I have the legroom on my schedule (so to speak), and I just so happened to have a wee bit yesterday.  1964's "Soldier" is definitely something special, and thus I gave it a whirl.  Fabulous hour.  Fabulous cast.  And some fabulous screencaps were taken.

If you're interested, you can find it all right here.  If I get the spirit to fashion a review, I'll post that in this space as well.

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

-- EZ

Though I could be wrong on the timeline, I do believe it was the late 1970’s and early 1980’s that truly saw the emergence of the ‘slasher movie’ as a unique subset of the traditional Horror genre.
 
Fueled largely by the explosion of home video, any storyteller with a video camera could – with relative ease – string together a loose plot into something that could get financed, shot, packaged and marketed for mainstream consumption … and that’s basically what happened.  Killshots were filmed over and over for no other reason than delivering vicarious thrills.  Some of filmdom’s greatest Horror franchises came out of this era, including such juggernauts as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th, and Halloween.  Those tentpoles survive even to this day, though audiences have had to suffer through the inevitable reboot/retool/rehash as storylines shifted from the conventional to the bit eccentric.  Like Star Wars inspired a plethora of low-budget imitations, the growing slasher business was encroached by a whole host of lesser pictures, though the bulk of them had to struggle with whatever new ‘hook’ best positioned them to push audiences past their fatigue and into something just a bit fresh.
 
That pretty much brings us to where Girls Nite Out entered our collective consciousness.
 
As box office receipts had begun to recede, Girls’ producers needed to hype something different.  Audiences had lost interest in death, so the decision makers opted instead on a script that would mix traditional comedy with the celebrated bloodletting, hoping such an infectious combination would interest audiences of both types of stories instead of just the dwindling Horror participants.  (For clarity’s sake, the comedy here wasn’t parody – like the Scary Movie folks did much later – but it was more of an Animal House type of manic, larger-than-life characters.)  Though I’ve been unable to locate any definite profit analysis of the flick, I suspect it was met with dubious results, at best, some of which is likely owed to its uneven tone.
 
Alas, Hollywood, take note: humor ain’t all that funny when folks are dyin’.
 
(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 scavenger hunt game is planned one night for the Dewitt University sorority.  The game takes the girls from graveyards to bellfrys and from beds to bathtubs.  The terror begins as one by one, each girl is mysteriously murdered by a sadistic maniac …”
 
I can’t even begin to imagine the thought process that occurred behind-the-scenes on Girls Nite Out.  Who thought it would be a good idea to mix the campus comedy with a realistic slasher film – not a Horror flick grounded in comic elements but a crazy frat-style send-up celebrating quick, easy, exploitative, gruesome murders?
 
Therein lies the bulk of Girls problem.
 
Chiefly, most of the film’s first half is dedicated to allowing these typical college students to behave with the kind of naïve and somewhat harmless debauchery undergraduates have traditionally displayed on the silver screen.  They laugh.  They joke.  They tease.  They taunt, sing, fart, frolic, and boink with the best of them, all the while not having a care in the world.  Why should they?  Why would they?  They’re still kids, after all, so why not ‘get it on?’  Oh, sure, there are some minor bits of foreshadowing which involve some past tragedy might be coming to life again in the present, but they’ll never let that spoil a good drink-off, hook-up party, and scavenger hunt, now would they?
 
Tonally, this film’s two halves couldn’t be any further apart, and I think that’s what gives this story all the buoyancy of a lead anchor.  The set-up to the whole affair is a perfect grand college party – completing with booze and dancing – and the payoff is a growing pile of dead young ladies.  None of this was played for giggles.  None of this was played for satire.  All of it was meant to be part and parcel of a lesser local legend – structured to mimic the same reveal Hitchcock used in the vastly superior Psycho (1960) – but try not to notice the jokes, general apery, and downright silliness of the players!  They’re really just a bunch of developing upstanding citizens … well, upstanding until they’re dead on the floor, that is.
 
I ask you: would you knowingly and willingly set sail on a ship you knew was going to sink?
 
Also, there’s this little problem with the picture’s killer.  Were this a legitimate Horror/Comedy – one that kinda took the conventions of the slasher film and turned them on their head – then perhaps it wouldn’t seem unusual to have the slasher roaming around dressed as the school’s mascot.  Right?  The jokes about a secret identity practically write themselves when viewers are treated to the sight of this big, lovable teddy bear traipsing around campus with a set of steak knives sewn in his mitts.  But Girls wants you to take this seriously – especially in its second half – though none of these sorority ladies do when being approached.  I can’t believe anyone on the cast or crew failed to point out the disconnect here, though one of the secrets learned on the disc’s interview tracks is that – yeah – the producers thought the comic bits needed dialing back in the last reel.
​

Without belaboring the criticism, Girls frankly had too many girls.
 
It seems like this had a cast of thousands – well, dozens, at least – and no single character is ever really given any moment to shine in the way that would make traditional watchers care about them.  As an example, the kills of the first two Friday The 13th movies were celebrated because the victims met increasingly harsher deaths; this created a kind of narrative tension that helped to draw you in to the film.  Whether you knew it or not, you were caught up in the killer’s unintentional spell.  You wanted to know how Jason Voorhees was going to do it next.  And next.  And next.  You didn’t need to get to know his victims because you weren’t there for them; you were there for the kills.  But Girls’ deaths are, essentially, all the same; there is absolutely no novelty to any of them … except for the fact that they’re being committed by someone in a mascot suit.  Because no effort was made in the script to differentiate the ladies from one another, I just didn’t care that Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb had her throat cut.  If it wasn’t Sue or Jill or Laurie or Nancy or Barb this time, then sit back and wait  she’ll be next.
 
Girls Nite Out (1982) was produced by Concepts Unlimited.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the exceptional Arrow Video Films.  As for the technical specifications?  There’s a disclaimer at the front of the film which addresses some weathering the source material for this 2K restoration has gone through, but outside of an occasional line vertical line here and there I thought it looked very good.  Colors were bright, though a few sequences clearly photographed in heavy darkness leave a bit more to the imagination than was necessary.
 
As for the special features?  Once again, Arrow proves why they’re one of the top contenders these days: this collection provides a brand-new commentary track, several talent interviews, a collector’s booklet (with essay, cast info, and restoration notes), and the usual extras (trailers and such).  It’s a surprising thorough assortment for a rather forgettable yarn from 80’s pop culture history.  Nice work, Arrow.
 
Mildly recommended.
 
In perfect honesty, I’m not a huge fan of traditional slasher films to begin with (so please take all of this with a grain of salt).  Occasionally one will tickle my fancy just enough that I’ll venture out into these waters once more, which is essentially how I can across this copy of Girls Nite Out (1982).  My issues with it relate entirely to the fact that it kinda/sorta straddled two (if not three) different narrative types – Comedy, Horror, and Drama – when it didn’t need to, almost behaving like it didn’t know what its writers wanted it to be when it grew up.  There’s nothing wrong with mixing genres – I’m a huge fan when it’s done right – but, here, it felt like a lame gimmick, meaning not enough laughs to make it a repeat viewing and not enough bloodshed to make it endorsable.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Girls Nite Out (1982) 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

People just don't understand me, even when I think I couldn't be clearer.

A few years back, I got into an online debate with someone over what she insisted was a lack of quality roles for women in Science Fiction and Fantasy television shows.  You know what my response was?  I remember it perfectly.  I said -- exactly -- "There are plenty of great roles being written for women.  The problem is that they're all being played by Tatiana Maslany."

Get it?  Funny?  Right?

Well, she didn't get it, but (again) I thought I was spot on the money.  Look at all of the quality roles Maslany played in one single show -- Orphan Black -- and you get my point.

Right?  Get it now?  Funny, right?

Well, I thought so then, and I still think so now.

But as I always point out, I'm not really a Marvel guy.  I don't dislike the properties; rather it's that they just don't connect with me on a personal level the same way many of the DC Comics stuff does.  (Don't get me wrong: I still have complaints with a lot of the DC Movies, though I won't go into them now.)  Marvel's characters were just crafted with more sass than they were motivation, and -- as a story guy -- I do tend to prefer a different narrative backbone to the stuff that rings my bell.

She-Hulk is a character I've never quite understood, though.  Yes, I've always dug it as being a kinda/sorta comic interpretation for the whole Hulk thing, but as a recurring character she just never meant all that much to me.  However, I'm a huge fan of Maslany, so I'm definitely far more inclined to check this show out for her participation.  The trailer doesn't do much for me -- she comes off more like the female Shrek than she does a bona fide hero here -- but I'll reserve judgment until I see the finished product.  Tatiana deserves, at least, that much from a fan.

In any event, trailer is below.  You know you want to watch it, so have at it.
​

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

​-- EZ