Well, well, well ...

First up: Happy Thursday, peeps!  You know what that means?  It's Thursday, and Friday is right around the corner ... meaning that we've just about made it through another hectic week.  So let's be thankful for that as much as is possible today.

Second up ...

​Earlier this morning I happened across a little something something that's coming down the pike compliments of Amazon's Prime Video in late July: they're streaming an adaptation of Brian K. Vaughn and Cliff Chiang's Paper Girls, a comics property that ran from 2015-2019.  Honestly, I'm entirely unfamiliar with the franchise -- that's not as huge surprise as I haven't followed comics all that closely in the past fifteen years or so (with a few exceptions) -- but I've read it's being billed as a 'coming of age' story set in suburban America with the backdrop of otherworldy mysteries ... so color me intrigued.  IMDB.com reports that the show was developed for television by Stephany Folsom (she's also linked to the tepid Star Wars: Resistance cartoon as well as Amazon's Tolkien series The Rings Of Power), and it stars Fina Strazza, Camryn Jones, Sofia Rosinsky, and Riley Lai Nelet.

After a scan of the Information Superhighway, I'm not seeing an awful lot of information about the series.  Again, I don't find that at all alarming; Amazon is likely keeping as many secrets under wraps as they can at this point, hoping that maybe they've tapped an all-new vein of adventures for genre fans.  I'm happy to post the trailer below, and I'll keep an eye out for any new information I can find as this one's debuting on July 29th.
​

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

​-- EZ

Well, well, well, I guess you really can learn something new each and every day ... so long as you go looking, that is ...

Why, just this morning -- in my daily round-up of research -- I stumbled across the fact that there was yet one more incarnation/adaptation of H. Rider Haggard's immortal novel She.  I'd long been aware of both the 1968 version (The Vengeance Of She) and the 1984 version (She, starring the lovely Sandahl Bergman.  In fact, both of those I've kinda/sorta considered guilty pleasures of a sort; neither are particularly good movies, but they possess that old world cinematic charm in the way they handle their respective storytelling sensibilities -- along with an interesting emphasis on production details -- so I'm naturally a bit tickled to find out there was an even more current revisitation.  Who knows?  Maybe I'll seek it out and pen a review, should time permit.

Adding the 2001 version didn't take all that long: IMDB.com reports only a scant three noted airings, so it was just a matter of throwing some graphics together and visiting the corresponding dates for updated posts.  It's been added ... so there's that.

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

"Leo Vincey receives a map from his late father, leading him to the legendary city of Kor in search of an explanation for his mysterious ancestry. He is accompanied by his girlfriend Roxanne. He discovers that he is the only descendant of an Egyptian priest who had been executed for the crime of falling in love with the Egyptian Princess. The ruling queen Ayesha, or rather She, is the same Egyptian Princess of centuries ago, her beauty and youth look being preserved by magic. She becomes convinced that Leo is the reincarnation of her former lover, and wants to kill him. Leo and Roxanne will have to fight against surprise attacks on them, but survival in that foreign land with strange customs, is difficult. Leo is terribly attracted to She's beauty, but at the same time he fears for her obscure spirit, and finally he must take a decision - to run away from her, or to love her and die."

For what it's worth, it doesn't appear as if this adaptation has struck a positive chord with critics and viewers.  It presently retains a rating of a mere 3.4 (ouch!) on IMDB.com's 10.0 scale (out of an total 163 votes) ... so maybe it's best we all consider this a case of "buyer beware."

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

​-- EZ

You know, wouldn't something that's been extinct for millions of years be showing signs of fatigue by this point?

It's a question worth asking, especially given the climate of today's box office.  Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) certainly didn't quite have the roar of the original Jurassic Park, but I suppose -- on some levels -- it's a perfectly adequate popcorn movie.  I know that's about the best that I can say for it; we saw it, I penned a quite review recently, and I'll likely never watch that one again.  I guess it worked perfectly well enough to make it a guilty pleasure, at best, though it's always interesting to see how long tentpole pictures have legs at the box office ... and T-Rex's front legs are always kinda short.

In any event, the competitors never miss a beat, and The Asylum certainly knows a thing or two about tapping a vein when it comes to hinting cleverly enough at what's hot at the movies and delivering a modestly-sized alternative.  I read word earlier in the week that their latest and greatest attempt at dino resurrection -- Jurassic Domination -- is going to enjoy a very, very, very limited release (as in "only a few key cities"), and I'm happy to copy and paste those particulars below for those who might be local enough to catch it on the silver screen.  Alas, it's scheduled nowhere near me, so I can't help you in that regard.

Also, I've combed the offramps of the Information Superhighway a bit on this point, but I'm coming up short on a plot description.  That's not all that uncommon with these limited release titles -- studios like to keep their cards close to the vest, as they say -- but should I find something at a later date I'll update this post with those particulars.  In the meantime, the trailer (and located details) are below ... and you know what to do about that.
​

July 1st limited engagements:

• Laemmle Town Center 5 – Encino, CA
• Hickory Ridge Cinemas – Brunswick, OH
• Trylon Cinema – Minneapolis, MN
• O Cinema South Beach – Miami Beach, FL
• Aurora Cineplex – Roswell, GA

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

​-- EZ

Good day, faithful readers, and here is today’s history lesson.
 
The character of Ilya Muromets – occasionally known as Ilya of Murom or Ilya Murometz – is a knight of old drawn from a Russian fable (or ‘epic poem’) in Bylinas.  (Think of him like Sir Lancelot from the Arthurian legend or perhaps even Achilles from Homer’s Iliad.)  Like any mythical character, scholars have long tried to establish a link back to a living person whose life may’ve served as inspiration; but – for all intents and purposes – no true connection exists for this person.  This isn’t to say that a noble life lived doesn’t need further examination; rather, it’s only meant to clarify that the proof remains elusive and perhaps it’s best to look on him and his deeds as motivation for you to follow in his legendary footsteps.
 
Still, not all was good as gold for the man of conscience.  Initially, his was a life of some suffering as he spent the better part of three decades largely paralyzed; it wasn’t until a dying knight by the name Syvatogor possessed the young man with superhuman strength that his epic adventures truly began, eventually ending up on the road to the city of Kiev where he was ‘knighted’ by then Prince Vladimir.  Even though their relationship was fraught with some controversy, Ilya – always considered a man from the people – pledged to defend that adopted city as if it were his very own.
 
So far as literature is concerned, Ilya was always a bit larger-than-life.  Described as being the mountain of a man, he’s more revered culturally for things he stood for: integrity, faithfulness, and dedication.  His word was his contract, and he always kept up his end of a bargain even if he was failed by royalty or the church.  As a role model, he inspired those around him to be of service, and he never backed down from a fight, especially when that meant standing up tall and proud on behalf of Mother Russia.
 
Face facts, folks: the world has always needed heroes, and that’s the cloth from which Ilya was cut.
 
As you can imagine, his journeys are precisely what filmdom does well; and they are indeed a bit of visual legend in 1956’s Ilya Muromets: The Sword And The Dragon.
 
(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-fee, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for my 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 mythical knight goes on an epic journey and fights barbarian hordes in an ancient land.”
 
It might help modern audiences to think of Ilya Muromets as the ‘Conan The Barbarian’ from your grandparents age … well, that being if your grandparents are of Russian descent.  This 1956 film captured the hero’s somewhat legendary journeys in suitably epic fashion for the era, employing what I’ve read was a cast of over one hundred thousand extras as well as over eleven thousand horses.  I’ve no way to know whether or not that’s entirely accurate (keep in mind that the former Soviet Union has a history of – ahem – fudging numbers from time-to-time), but I will say that some of the flick’s impressive visuals certainly give producers a cause to boast.  Its battle sequences are quite respectable, and I’d argue that they can stand alongside anything I’ve seen out of Hollywood from the era.
 
It's still a bit hard to dismiss some of Ilya’s campier sensibilities as they relate to storytelling from a bygone era.  Screenwriter Mikhail Kochnev – this being his sole IMDB.com credit – layers on the fairy tale atmosphere a bit too thickly at times, so much so in places that it’s hard to imagine precisely what demographic he and director Alexsandr Ptushko thought they were satisfying.  Some sequences hint very strongly of bedtime parables (the kind told to very young children) while others require a greater maturity to grasp the nuance.  Again, I don’t offer that observation to insult; it’s just that I’m not so sure the young’uns in the audience would’ve appreciated the bigger action sequences that better move this story along to its big finish.
 
But about those action sequences?
 
If there’s any compelling reason to digest Ilya’s 90-minute tale it’s arguably for those moments as they’re when much of this truly works as a completed whole.  Though some of the effects are more charming than they are effective, they still convey the sense of scope I’m sure these producers were trying to capture on film in the mid-1950’s.  Even the quieter moments look good, but nothing really shines as much as big action on a grand scale, and I give the film’s latter half high marks in that respect.
 
Also, there are some very gifted craftsmen and women who helped create an incredible number of props, costumes, and set pieces.  Nowadays, a fair amount of this background, supportive work is accomplished via CGI; while that may save a bit from the budget, nothing replaces (for this viewer, anyway) the reality of physical detail given to the swords, shields, tapestries, spears, helmets, armor, and the like.  These are the kinds of extras longtime movie fans love to get their hands on – either on studio tours or celebrity auctions – precisely because they visually help transport us to another place and another time … so it’s fabulous to see so much artwork on display in this film.
​

The downsides?
 
Well, as a 90-minute feature, this one covers an awful lot of ground.  Imagine trying to compress Peter Jackson’s deservedly revered adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings into one 90-minute film, and you get the idea.  Ilya’s adventures cover decades – though we don’t see his youth (remember, he spent it mostly immobile), his life and love and marriage and rise and fall and rise again moves by in the blink of an eye – and I can’t help but wonder whether or not Ptushko’s version ended up being exactly all he’d hoped for.  Indeed, the dreaded dragon doesn’t show up until very late in the picture and gets dispatched with relative ease; that trial alone could’ve made for a protracted finale, but it gets short shrift here … and I, for one, would’ve loved to have had more.
 
Also, I think it’s kinda/sorta safe to suggest that the picture in several speeches feels a bit like a Soviet/Pravda production.  Ilya gives a fair number of speeches meant to both establish him as a character as much as he’s showing his dedication to his country.  These are moments when he wanted those around him to see what he was doing as a personal sacrifice for the good of the city (i.e. the nation, the state, etc.).  Knowing that this project was shot during the Cold War, I couldn’t help but wonder if fostering a sense of ‘national pride’ was part of their agenda.  It certainly felt a bit overboard at times, and – though I’d never fault any storyteller for attempting to shape a public narrative – one wonders if these were sentiments organic to the tale or were they ‘requested’ from superiors and studio top brass.
 
Lastly, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention some of the particulars that have been passed along to me via the folks at Deaf Crocodile.  What I had the good fortune of seeing is a full 4K restoration of the motion picture, complete and uncut for the very first time in the United States.  I’ve only seen snippets of the original footage here and there, and I’m thrilled to say this looked and sounded incredible.  I have read some additional details on the web regarding the scope/scale with which the film was originally shot; I only bring this up because there were a couple of places where players did appear somewhat distorted (either squashed slightly or elongated).  Thankfully, that effect was limited to a few places, and I don’t believe it’ll affect anyone’s enjoyment of the experience.
 
Ilya Muromets: The Sword And The Dragon (1956) was produced by Mosfilm.
 
Recommended.  Though I’m not a huge fan of fables, Ilya Muromets: The Sword And The Dragon certainly hit a lot of good notes, perhaps feeling like both an all-too-faithful adaptation of the Russian folk story as well as a bit-too-obvious helping of – ahem – state-sponsored propaganda.  At times, it’s visually infectious, though no single actor or actress truly breaks through the noise with any singular moments.  There are a few musical-style numbers: while I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the traditional musical, these small sequences didn’t bother me.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Deaf Crocodile provided me with a complimentary streaming link for Ilya Muromets: The Sword And The Dragon (1956) 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

Ay carumba!  It looks like somebody's gonna feel that burn!

Those of us who follow media know that -- ahem -- society can be unkind to some movies, and it looks like that might be the case with the 2022 reboot of Stephen King's Firestarter.  After a wealth of bad reviews, this one came-and-went pretty quickly from the box office, and -- so far as I could tell -- there really was no critical consensus regarding exactly why it was so -- erm -- undercooked?  I do recall reading some remarks attributing some of its lackluster pace to Zac Efron, but as I often point out actors can only do the best they can with what they're given.  Perhaps it was best to leave this one untouched?  Was a reboot really all that necessary?  Honestly, I don't recall the 1984 original being all that good.  Perhaps King himself went pushing for a revisitation?  Who can say?

In any event, Box Office Mojo reports that this thing only managed to eek out an astonishingly low $15 million globally.  Dayam!  Talk about your burn!  I've no idea what it was budgeted at, but I can't even begin to imagine that Blumhouse Productions can be happy with that take.  I guess they needed to dump it on home video as quickly as possible in order to stir some embers, and I'm showing that it's available for purchase today.  Can't give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, though, peeps, because I've never seen it.  Just didn't interest me.

Still, kudos for the attempt, I guess.  Maybe in thirty years they'll give this one another dust-off and finally get it right.  Don't they say that the third times a charm anyway?

Amazon.com link for purchase

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

-- EZ

Folks, I am already on record as to my thoughts about coming attractions: though I used to -- in my youth -- be a pretty big fan of them, I've grown very disillusioned with them as the years have gone by.

I think the central issue is that far too often the trailers just don't say enough about a film's central story.  While they're occasionally very flattering about its premise, I just think the studios big and small (and even the indie outlets) have tried to keep so many secrets hidden that we, as a society, have lost our way in crafting truly great promos.  Instead, the contemporary thing to do is to meander around a point, promise a bit of action or violence, and then hope to put butts in the seats for the inevitable full show.

Sigh.

In any event, I'm still willing to pass along such notices when I find 'em, and that's the case right now: a little something something called The Summoned seems to have enjoyed a positive festival screening in early June, so much so that it was picked up and rushed into digital distribution scheduled for July 7th.  Such a move certainly bodes well for the picture; but -- as I've implied with my two cents on trailers -- this one is a hard match for me.  I can't tell if it's truly supernatural or if it's just a conventional slasher pic given a healthy dash of the otherworldly in order to increase an audience's interest.

Double sigh.

Here's the premise as listed on IMDB.com:
"Two high profile couples are forced to examine the cost of success when they're invited to an exclusive self-help retreat where their ancestors sold their souls generations prior."

Now, that certainly sounds a bit more metaphysical than the traditional Horror feature, so let's hold out hope that it's closer to the truth than is its ambiguous advert.  I'll post the YouTube.com trailer below, and you folks know what to do about that.
​

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

-- EZ

​As I’ve said before, I’m quite smitten with the world of noir, loving it for a whole lot of reasons but one in particular that I often share: noir is a black-and-white existence populated with broken people who make up ‘monsters of a sort,’ which is why I occasionally cover them in this space when I get the inkling. Such is the case today as I was provided a pretty interesting Blu-ray two-fer: 1947’s The Guilty and 1947’s High Tide appear as part of a dual-format edition from Flicker Alley.  I’ve had the time to take in High Tide this morning, and I wanted to pen some thoughts for interested readers.
 
(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 my 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 reporter hires a bodyguard to protect him from a gang boss he has been investigating.  After a car accident traps the two of them inside the car with the tide coming in, the reporter recounts for his bodyguard the circumstances leading up to their predicament.”
 
I’ve discussed many times that – as I’m no noir scholar in any measure – I don’t always see eye-to-eye with the more learned opinions of such films, and I’ve no problem saying right up front that I found High Tide a bit quizzical.  Some of my reservations revolve around the structure – it’s told almost entirely in flashback, and I’d question how both men can collectively recall events neither were present for in real-time – but my chief grief with it is that I don’t quite see it as a legitimate noir.  Yes, it has obvious noir leanings – the cinematography is a bit bland, but there are clear visual indications – though it’s razor-thin plot doesn’t quite rise to the expected level of shifting allegiances and/or nefarious shenanigans.  And just because something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn’t mean it isn’t a duck impersonator.
 
As the lead, Don Castle (as Tim Slade) isn’t nearly as convincing much less notable as the reporter-turned-bodyguard.  Slade is hired by Hugh Fresney (played by Lee Tracy) based on their past relationship, but theirs is the kind of friendship never quite shown on film, which means we just have to accept that they’re good buddies at face value.  (FYI: that’s usually a bad thing to do in any noir – good or bad – giving much of the tale a bit of predictability, too.  Almost like you’re forced to sit and watch the tide come in …)  Occasionally, Castle musters the confidence to seem as if he has a solid grasp of unfolding events here – a trait needed of any leading player – but yet the overall plotline from Robert Presnell Jr. and Peter Milne (as adapted from a story by Raoul Whitfield) just never quite makes sense.
​

This is the big city, see?  And that means it’s populated by ne’er-do-wells who’ll stop at nothing in their personal pursuits of power.  Alas, the pursuits within aren’t documented all that well visually – we’re told more than we’re shown in this film – and that’s a big weakness.  Otherwise, there’s a somewhat crimelord we spend no real time with (so how is he important); there’s a police detective who’ll stop at nothing (though he never spends all that much time investigating); and there’s a power shift at the newspaper once a key death takes place (yet it gets little coverage); but what does it all mean?  How does it all add up?  And why does it all feel so unimportant?  Even worse is the fact that I’m never given reason to care.  Who’s making the move on whom is kept in the dark for too long, and – like Castle – I didn’t get much sense of clarity until late in the last reel.  By then, all that’s left is for me to feel sorry for him; as I wasn’t given enough to care for him to begin with, I ended up being a bit nonplussed as things work out.
 
Still, Tide’s script does occasionally crackle with some smart dialogue, the kind of which one expects from the darkest and the most desperate among us.  But that and the confusion of a romantic subplot which never quite materializes (nor has the kind of depth traditionally tied to its characters) left me questioning whether anyone had any real allegiance to anyone else in here or were they all just players in search of an ending.  A tighter story – along with more defined characters – would’ve given this one the chance to be a contender, if even only a small player on the big stage.  But … as is?  Sigh.
 
There just wasn’t enough for this viewer to sink his teeth into; having nothing to chew on, I’m equally left with not much to digest.
 
High Tide (1947) was produced by Monogram Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable Flicker Alley.  As for the technical specifications?  The packaging materials state that the film was restored from a 35mm nitrate composite fine-grain master; and – yes – this looks and sounds exceptionally well given the flick’s age.  As for the special features?  High Tide is only one film in a two-film package from Flicker Alley, so some of the listed items below might pertain more to the second picture as opposed to this one, but here’s what this dual-disc set includes:

• Introduction to The Guilty and High Tide by noted author and historian Eddie Muller.
• A documentary exploring the works of producer/director Jack Wrather.
• A documentary exploring the life and works of author Cornell Woolrich.
• A documentary exploring the life and works of director, writer, and producer John Reinhardt.
• A featurette exploring the career of actor Lee Tracy.
• A commentary track for The Guilty conducted by author and scholar Jake Hinkson.
• A commentary track for High Tide conducted by film historian Alan K. Rode.
• Lastly, a collector’s booklet with poster, artwork, stills, and a related essay.

 
Mildly recommended.  High Tide appears on a recently restored collection alongside The Guilty; and – of the two – The Guilty is much stronger, though not by much.  Tide’s characters are all just a bit too bland, giving the ensemble the undesirable effect of blending together so much that they’re just not all that distinct.  When everyone’s a bad guy, then is there true evil much less an act of villainy worth celebrating all of its own?  I would think that if you wanted to seize control of a small media empire that there are easier ways to concoct a plan that ultimately gets yourself killed, so I’m at a loss to understand what all of the fuss is about in this one.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Flicker Alley provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of High Tide 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

As I mentioned recently, I enjoyed a brief few days away from all the fuss that the Information Superhighway typically brings to these pages, and I took in the great outdoors over that vacation.  It’s always great to take time to refresh and rejuvenate one’s mind and bones … but, lo and behold, what intruded on my time-off but Hulu itself!  As fate would have it, the AirBNB we frequently offered up their subscription to the streaming platform, so I was able to take in the first three episodes of Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville: New Horizons.  As time permits, I’ll get up the reviews in this space.
 
The show’s creator and runner – Seth himself – offered up an interesting observation (of sorts) in the build-up to this new season: his unique take on the experience is that Season 3 should be essentially viewed as ten mini-movies instead of series’ episodes as these new adventures have been given that much creative attention.
 
Hmm.
 
Well …
 
After having already gone on record that I found Season 3’s premiere “Electric Sheep” to have some good ideas handled a bit too choppily, Episode 2 – “Shadow Realms” – is a bit more straightforward in presentation, feeling less-and-less like a mini-movie and more-and-more like your standard run-of-the-mill outing for any traditional TV space saga.
 
Here’s the premise as provided by IMDB.com:
“The Orville explores a mysterious region of space.”
 
Yes, it’s a fairly bare bones outing, one that feels extremely derivative of a handful of like-minded fare, putting The Orville very much thematically on course where many, many shows have boldly already gone before.  The alliance with the Krill open up new areas of the universe for exploration, and – as you can guess – this leads to a very dark ‘First Contact’ encounter with a species that infects other lifeforms only then to transform them genetically into bug-like drones.  Think ‘the Borg’ if the Borg assimilated others via a virus, and you get the point.  While the idea might seem fresh, it truly goes already goes back to the days of 1956’s Invasion Of The Body Snatchers quite easily, instead making Seth’s mini-movie feel more like an homage than it does anything else.
 
This isn’t to suggest that the hour was inferior.  What Shadow Realms does well is kinda/sorta fleshes out Dr. Finn’s character further – the story explores a history never discussed before – and the practical effects crew come up with some wonderful monster moments (for which I’m always a fan of).  There’s a respectable amount of tension – much of which I’ll credit to longtime director Jon Cassar’s work – along with some spooky atmospheres required to sell the overall sizzle when the shinola hits the fan (as they say) once the dire predicament is revealed.  The hour moves easily and efficiently.  It’s part Aliens (1986) mixed with part Event Horizon (1997), all achieved on a solid TV budget, so kudos to all involved there.
 
And yet …
​

The Orville’s biggest asset is that it taps heartily into that aesthetic vibe created largely by Star Trek: The Next Generation.

​That show uniquely well transformed audiences from their living room into the rooms, corridors, and sections of a fully-staffed spaceship.  Whereas that ambiance gave the Starship Enterprise 1701-D the authentic ‘feel’ like a living and breathing machine, The Orville – with the exception of its engine room, bridge, and the cafeteria – largely feels empty.  Its hallways – vastly more expansive than those on the Enterprise – are often vacant and hollow, so much so that I kept wondering in this hour where all of its crew were.  Had they gone into some kind of security lockdown (owed to the circumstances), or was everyone just sleeping through this adventure?
 
Now, some of this is owed to the ‘haunted house’ gimmick of the episode.  Under this infectious procedural, the ship is without power and struggling to stay afloat (to a degree), so it wouldn’t quite serve the narrative to have folks out-and-about when what was truly happening was that producers were creating this empty, soulless space for which man-sized bugs would be jump-scaring you into oblivion.  But at a time when a ship’s crew would’ve, should’ve, and could’ve been actively trying to save the spacecraft, it seemed curiously like only the bridge officers were on duty.  It seemed repeatedly like only bridge officers could handle any and all activity that came up … and that was a narrative miss, if not a narrative mess.
 
Also, I always personally struggle with stories that clearly pose jeopardy to the nth degree when you know that it’s extremely unlikely any major players are going to be killed off.  (Dare I suggest that maybe we don’t always dial things up to eleven?)  The actors and actresses are contracted to appear in X number of episodes, so crafting yarns with the implicit ‘they’re not going to survive this time’ dynamic can be a tough sell.  Do it too often, and you become the boy who cried wolf.  Everyone watching knows this already, and that’s why thinking men and women don’t buy into the hyperbole, no matter how well it's conceived or executed.  While I have no problem with the exaggerated suspense here, I’m just hoping this doesn’t become a trend going forward.
 
Lastly, Shadow Realms felt a bit too incomplete as a one-off adventure.
 
Though we get a new species introduction, there’s no true resolution.  (There is a face-off between the good guys and the bad, but there’s no authentic solution to all of this.)  The best hours of any show – in my opinion – do deliver a final message, and this one feels a bit listless, a bit insufficient.  Because of this obvious missing link, it’s hard to quantify the ‘moral to the story,’ that old school storytelling technique Seth and company are quite fond of.  It’s so obviously misplaced that I can’t help but wonder if a sequel installment was already on the drawing board.
 
I guess time will tell.  

​-- EZ

Many moons ago, I was called a racist for saying that subtitled comedies typically are not a fun experience.

True story.

It was in an online forum, and there was a general back-and-forth over comedy films.  Clearly, one of the persons in the room was very well acquainted with some Korean flicks -- a few of which I'd seen -- and I explained that something can get lost in translation when an import gets subtitled as opposed to dubbed.  Whammo!  Someone -- I forget who -- immediately played the race card, trying to imply that I had something against the great Korean people.

Now -- because it's in my nature -- I tried to slow that roll down, you know?  I restated what I had originally said -- copied and pasted it, even -- and then I asked, "Where oh where did I ever say or even suggest Korean people aren't funny?"  As carefully and as cautiously as I could, I further explained that watching a joke performed versus reading a joke (as one would have to do in most cases with a subtitled movie) are two very different experiences; one is organic, and one is a learned process.  Naturally, I couldn't talk any sense into this person, and he or she inevitably left the chatroom, encouraging others to follow the lead.

Again -- and stop me if this doesn't make perfect sense -- humor on the written page tickles a completely different kind of fancy than watching a performance does.  They are two separate entities, both founded on either the absurd or the sublime, and it's difficult to make a seamless transition between the eyes and the ears.  Yes, both instances might be funny, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the delivery is going to produce the desired response.  It can happen, of course ... but it's a delicate balance.

That's the spirit in which I'm sharing this trailer that was passed along to me via an email for the Norwegian SciFi/Comedy Blasted.  It looks to hit the streaming behemoth Netflix on June 28th, and it's a winning enough combination of performances and ideas that I felt a post here would be a nice gesture.  Again -- bear in mind that if you don't speak Norwegian that you may be reading some of the jokes ... and try not to call folks 'racist' just because you think it's the trendy thing to do.

Here's the film's premise as provided by IMDB.com:

"When a former childhood friend crashes Sebastian's bachelor party and makes it all about himself, only an alien invasion can make them put aside their bad blood and reunite as the kick-ass laser-tag duo they once were."

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

-- EZ

Peeps, do you know what?  I seriously have the hardest time getting up the motivation to pen reviews for most mainstream movies.
 
As I’ve always said, what’s out there in the mainstream gets covered to infinity and beyond on so very, very, very many entertainment websites and blogs.  Many celebrities even chime in from time-to-time via Twitter, Instagram, and/or Facebook about what they thought of the biggest blockbusters.  Because there’s an abundance of opinion on tentpole pictures, I do sit back and think about a flick before I sound off on it, if for no better reason than I’d like to have something fresh, original, or different to say about a project.  I’d rather not echo the sentiments of popular opinion.  Sometimes, still, that’s very difficult.
 
Today’s evidence: 2022’s Jurassic World: Dominion.
 
Yes, yes, yes.  The wifey and I took it in with a family friend just this week.  Honestly, the saga – and the way it has progressed “logically” – meant that this far and wide away from being something we’d pay money and brave the crowds for in its opening weekend, so we waited a bit.  I guess it’s safe to conclude that – as popcorn flicks go – it’s suitable entertainment, though methinks it’s a far cry from even the guilty pleasure that was Jurassic World (2015).
 
IMDB.com credits the original screen story to director Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly.  Their plot actually is the convergence of not one, not two, but three separate storylines that inevitably come together at about the film’s midpoint.  And in a stroke of marketing genius, the whole shebang even managed to wrangle in the original Jurassic Park (1993) regulars of Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Satler (Laura Dern), and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), bringing the entire saga to a kinda/sorta conclusion but with still plenty of legroom for someone else to pick up the ball and run with it.
 
Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard return as the franchise’s biggest action stars, and this time they’re jetting around the world to find two kidnap victims: Blue’s baby velociraptor Beta (played by pixels) and Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon).  As fate would have it, these two captured characters are apparently bearers of the genetic secret to fixing all that ails anyone and everything in Jurassic science and beyond, so it’s only natural that scheming evil scientists would have their sights set on them.  Once these ideas all converge, the action rarely relents, thrusting the audience through one visual rollercoaster ride of excitement after another … though it all grinds to a halt occasionally to give Goldblum a chance to deliver his trademark Goldblumisms.
 
Because the established cast filled up so much of the film’s available screen time, the new additions are, sadly, given largely stereotypical treatment.  Campbell Scott seethes politely and professionally as the script’s central villain Lewis Dodgson – a cinematic reimagining of Apple CEO Tim Cook.  (It’s really sad how all these storytellers just loathe capitalism, isn’t it?  And, yet, they exist to make blockbuster movies?  Oh, the irony!)  DeWanda Wise breaks barriers as a former Navy pilot turned independent contractor Kayla Watts whose allegiances shift to the benefit of the good guys once we learn that she really does have a heart of gold.  And Mamoudou Athie is essentially wasted as Ramsay Cole, a top Biosyn employee who is secretly working to see these dinosaurs kinda/sorta freed from their oppressive overlord Dodgson … or so it would seem.  None of them really have any breakout scenes – a dinosaur movie will always be highlighted by dinosaurs, after all – but they still manage to slip easily into the narrative glove offered, but it would’ve been nice for them to feel like legitimate creations instead of carbon copy players.
 
And – dare I say it? – even the dinosaurs reeked of a bit of fatigue in this go-round for a saga that built its audience up by admiring these creatures long thought extinct?  Jurassic Park – the first and the best – tapped into the visual wonder of science re-engineering whole species; the shock and awe of that experience resonates on screens big and small even today.  Jurassic World rather respectfully fleshed out that original vibe for its commercial exploitation, effectively mirroring that script’s focus of finally seeing that dreaded theme park to life.  But in Dominion the human/dino interaction has become almost commonplace; removing that singular magical undercurrent was a huge mistake as director Trevorrow really has no other choice at that point but to make them monsters no different than Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, and Jason Voorhees … albeit much, much larger.
 
So, yeah, I was disappointed in Dominion … but I still had a bit of fun watching it all unroll.
 
Like the most successful summer spectacles, it establishes its own parameters and pretty much sticks to it.  Though nothing new is brought to the table (or even hinted at), the formula still works when it’s tried, leaving the entire cast to coast on autopilot even though they’ve spent a fair amount of time warning us that the stakes have never been higher.  And, yes, even though I didn’t feel the story made the best use of them, the cast from the original had an ample opportunity to re-unite in a few feel-good moments, a lesson that the knuckleheads who ran the Star Wars franchise into the ground might take notice of the next time they’re asked to reimagine an Empire.

​-- EZ