Continuing the work of keeping SciFiHistory.Net's readers informed with the latest and greatest additions to the site, here's an announcement: Antonio Margheriti's The Wild Wild Planet is now showing on the corresponding page of July 10th!

Just for the record, The Wild Wild Planet (or simply Wild Wild Planet in some markets) enjoyed its silver screen premiere on July 10th when it played for audiences in attendance of the Trieste Sci-fi Film Festival in Italy.  Margheriti directed a script from Ivan Reiner and Renato Moretti, and the film starred Tony Russel, Lisa Gastoni, Massimo Serato, Carlo Giustini, and Franco Nero.  According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

"A deranged scientist is using his employer's top-secret bio-laboratory to engage in clandestine experiments. When he starts kidnapping leading citizens for use in his twisted tests, it's up to rogue cop Mike Halstead to come to the rescue."

From what I've come to understand, The Wild Wild Planet was the first of four films all centered around some adventures in space set aboard the Gamma One Space Station.  Utilizing one central setting allowed the four films to re-use some of the props, costumes, and settings -- thus keeping the budgets under reasonable control -- while bringing aboard different cast members.  The Wild Wild Planet (1966) was followed by War Of The Planets (1966), War Between The Planets (1966), and -- finally -- Snow Devils (1967).  The features were all produced by Mercury Film International and Southern Cross Feature Film Company while being released theatrically under the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) banner.
​

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

​-- EZ

The longer I do this -- meaning blog endlessly about Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror projects -- the more surprises I'm treated to from time-to-time.

For example, I know there's a reader out there who only checks in with the site once daily for the sole purpose of getting the straight skinny on genre films released on this day from history.  I know my collection is far from complete, but I'm suspecting this fellow might use the information he obtains to inform listeners of his podcast.  Who knows?  He could do a great deal more research on these films than I do -- that's not out of the question -- but it's reasurring to know that he's found a routine use for SciFiHistory.Net in his daily pursuits ... as that's always been my dream in creating and cultivating such information.

Because I know folks who do use this place with such specificity, I figured I might start doing a feature on the MainPage (here where you are) called 'Now Showing.'  This wouldn't be anything fancy: it's just a way for me to announce that I've found another flick that I've added to the appropriate internal pages.  This cannot and will not mean that I've covered all of the movie's release dates; however, it will mean that I've properly catalogued its very first exhibition -- be it silver screen, small screen, home video, or the like -- and it will be found on the corresponding Daily Citation Page.

Today's discovery: 1935's Night Life Of The Gods.

From what I've read, this Fantasy/Comedy enjoyed its first release (in the U.S.) all the way back on February 23, 1935.  Screenwriter Barry Trivers adapted the Thorne Smith novel -- "The Night Life Of The Gods" published on March 2, 1931 -- for Universal Pictures.  Lowell Sherman directed a cast that included Alan Mowbray, Florine McKinney, Peggy Shannon, and Richard Carle.  According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

​"A scientist named Hunter Hawk invents a device that can turn flesh to stone. While celebrating his discovery he becomes involved with a half naked leprechaun. On a trip to New York, Hunter and Meg (the leprechaun) decide to go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and turn all of the Statues of Greek Gods into people. What follows in a drunken romp around New York with Medusa's severed head still in Perseus' hand."

Drunken romp about New York City?  With a severed head in hand?  That sounds like a loud of laughs, indeed!

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

​-- EZ

Ach.  Some days these announcements just hurt.

Bernard Cribbins was born on December 29, 1928 in Oldham, England, and he found success not only in his acting but also with his singing.  Though it appears (in a bit of research) that the #1 hit single spot eluded his best efforts, it still bodes well that he topped out with a solid #9 spot with "Hole In The Ground."  And it's Cribbins himself who insists that the acting bug truly took hold on January 4, 1943 when he was offered a job with the Oldham Coliseum.

IMDB.com reports that he amassed an incredible 122 different screen credits across his storied career, but perhaps the one that matters most -- so far as this consumer of media is concerned is his time in the wide, wide universe of Doctor Who.

Some may have missed the fact that Cribbins is the only actor to have appeared in both the Doctor Who screen incarnations as well as the relaunched series on the BBC.  In 1966, he joined the great Peter Cushing (as the Doctor) aboard Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. only to be called back into service an incredible four decades later during the time in which David Tennant kept the keys to the TARDIS.

Alas, none of us lasts forever, and the media reports that he passed at the ripe old age of 93.  I'm not seeing any mention of the cause of his passing, but I am aware that there have been stories about his having to excuse himself from projects citing poor health.

May he forever rest in peace.

Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family and friends of Bernard Cribbins.

​-- EZ

During my college years (many, many moons ago), I did an incredible amount of reading on the works of Orson Welles.

Initially, I had wanted to study film -- perhaps in preparation for being a film critic or, more likely, a film historian -- so the motion picture that beckoned to all of us in those days was the 1941 Drama/Classic Citizen Kane.  I had seen it a few times on television (this was well before the days of home video and streaming), and the professors in the media department often encouraged me to not only read up on it but also to write about the flick.  At each opportunity -- whenever a media class involved crafting a termpaper as a requirement -- I'd come up with yet another angle with which to (you guessed it) read up and talk even more about what made this particular film so ground-breaking, so inspiring that it was still talked about and highly regarded some four decades later (at that time).  I wrote about the cast.  I wrote about the sound.  I wrote about the film, its edits and dissolves.  I wrote about its script.  Most importantly, I wrote about its message ... but I won't bore the usual readers in this space as Kane is certainly no Science Fiction and Fantasy property.

I bring it up to make a point about Welles' wider reputation: why is it that he's not regarded as one of the greats of classic Science Fiction and Fantasy?

​The answer is rather simple: no one around these days knows anything about his dalliances in these areas, and that's why I wanted to suggest that he's owed a measure of respect from fans.

Chiefly, most folks know of Welles' entry into genre properties by way of his participation in the radio adaptation of its day: H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds as part of the Radio Mercury Theatre on the Air on October 30, 1938.  History reports (ahem) that the 'shocking' and 'alarming' broadcast created a national panic; listeners tuning in late may've been confused by the drama's structure, resembling a traditional news broadcast frequently interrupting a musical performance to hype (ahem) a 'developing news story,' namely the crash of a Martian spaceship on Earth.  I threw in a few ahems (for those who noticed) because there's been some serious investigation into just how panicked this alleged 'national panic' truly was; suffice it to say, perhaps some newshounds of that day were making a mountain out of a mole hill?  Strangers things have happened.

So, yes, Orson's direction of that Fantasy program definitely puts him on the genre map ... but the truth is I'd first come to know of his work in radio as the voice of Lamont Cranston -- aka The Shadow -- in that popular adventure show from yesterday.  But I don't want to stray from The War Of The Worlds just yet ...

​In fact, that War went on to win the 1939 Hugo Award for 'Best Dramatic Presentation.'  Of course, securing a big win like that arguably was a breakthrough for any young artist of Welles' clout ... but did you know who his competition was in that same year?

Why, it was none other than Orson Welles himself!

As fate would have it, Welles was up for not one, not two, not three, but an incredible four nominations in that category.  For the record:

• Welles and John Houseman were up for the writing and direction of the episode "Dracula" for the Mercury Theatre on the Air.
• ​Welles up for the writing and direction of yet one more Mercury Theatre on the Air production, this time his adaptation of Jules Verne's epic adventure "Around The World In Eighty Days."  Granted, that may be a bit of a stretch to consider it Science Fiction or Fantasy, but many in high places have often suggested that it falls very close to Fantasy more than any other genre.
• Lastly, Welles served as the writer and director for The Campbell Playhouse radio adaptation of the Charles Dickens' holiday classic "A Christmas Carol," a work that definitely dabbles in the realms of the imagination if there ever were.

Did you catch that?

One year ... one record year ... and Orson Welles received four nominations for the Hugo Award in the seminal category of 'Best Dramatic Presentation.'  He won for The War Of The Worlds.  Some might argue that the deck was stacked in his favor, but I'd argue that's talent on full display.

So I ask again: why is it that he's not regarded as one of the greats of classic Science Fiction and Fantasy?

Food for thought ...

-- EZ

Believe it or not, I was recently asked about the ongoing maintenance of the site.

The question came from a person who curates her own site on the far side of the world from where I reside, and her inquiry was really centered more around whether or not SciFiHistory.Net accepts submissions (of a curious sort, but I won't go into those details).  Though I've answered this before (both directly and indirectly), let me sound off again as it has been some time.

Kids: dad doesn't call himself 'the hardest working man in Science Fiction' without having good cause.

Maintaining the Date Pages -- the true intestinal fabric of SciFiHistory.Net -- is a process in and of itself.  It doesn't just mean I have to keep abreast of the birthdays and whatnot: it's a constant daily re-examination of each page (usually done in or around its anniversary) to spot spelling errors, chronological errors, graphic errors, and the like.  All kidding aside, you'd probably all be godsmacked at the amount of time I'm working behind-the-scenes on this lifelong project ... and I can only hope that my love of genre entertainment shows each and every time you arrive on the site.  I'm that committed to making this a useful, daily stop for each and every one of you.

Because I've been encouraged to do so, here's a general 'how does it work' synopsis as best as I can provide those interested.

Take this morning: by doing just a bit of research, I stumbled across a film that I was completely unaware of -- a little something something titled Decoys 2: Alien Seduction (2007) from Alian Girls Films and Decoys Production.  My first step is just checking as to whether or not I've highlighted the film's existence, and that starts on its release date: on March 6, 2007, Decoys 2 spawned on home video.  So I check my corresponding page (March 6) to -- lo and behold -- find that I've never cited it, causing me to begin scouring the web for graphics so that I can add it in the proper format.  As you can guess, that takes a bit of time -- not much, really -- but it still has to be done.  Then, I consult all of the film's release schedule -- as provided by IMDB.com -- and I then put myself reminders in each and every one of those upcoming day catalogues that I keep.

Now, there are other steps I take to prepare myself for those citations, but I don't want to bore you to tears with the minutiae of running the site.  Essentially, the point of this post was to educate readers that, yes, this place is always growing ... and -- so long as I have the means to do so -- I'll keep updating it with details at every opportunity.  Looking at my collection of additions I'm wanting to make to today -- as an example -- my July 27th file has an incredible 66 items just waiting for me to create graphics for, write entries for, add to the corresponding sections (birthdays, movies, TV shows, books, etc.) ... and that's what I mean when I say it takes t-i-m-e.  Lots of it.

So, yes, SciFiHistory.Net is always growing.  I may not tweak the format all that much -- I'm kinda/sorta used to how it all looks -- but it's always growing.

Thanks for asking!

​-- EZ

I have nothing but high regards for folks who traffic in independent features.
 
This doesn’t mean I’ll always recommend them.  As one who has watched a fair share of genre entries from indie storytellers, it just ain’t easy to always ‘get it right.’  The ones that do typically start out with a very strong story – or an easily-relatable central thread – and then stick as close to that road as is humanly possible.  Straying from that central path typically introduces a handful of variables that not only test the limited financing but also the audience’s patience: viewers will only suspend disbelief so far, and some risky secondary plots should really be avoided at all costs.
 
And independent Horror?  That’s an even harder sell.  While the major studios can throw all kinds of money into effects both digital and practical, those who shirk away from bigger production houses in favor of more creative control really need to up-their-game with a vital winning concept – i.e. a truly inspired story.  If they don’t, then they run the risk of alienating not only anyone who inevitably purchases a ticket but also the investors who shared in that original dream.  You lose both crowds, and you’ll likely never film a picture in this town again, a harsh truth indeed.
 
At the very least, 2010’s YellowBrickRoad swung for the fences (if you get the baseball analogy).  While the screenwriting and directing team of Andy Mitton and Jesse Holland may’ve had to settle for a base hit (at best), they still crafted a little something something that occasionally impresses.  Sadly, those big ideas failed to reach an equally big destination – so far as this reviewer is concerned – and those muddled last images likely didn’t endear audiences to let them try again.
 
(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 product packaging:
“In 1940, the entire population of Friar, New Hampshire abandoned their homes and walked up a nearby mountain path, never to be seen alive again.  Seventy years later, a team of researchers intent on solving the mystery find the long-forgotten trail marker and embark on a journey along the same cursed road.”
 
Meaning absolutely no disrespect to anyone involved with YellowBrickRoad, but haven’t we seen this film before?  Any time there’s a local legend involving some tragedy that’s gone unexplained for years, then somewhere sometime someone is going to go looking into what happened, only to come face-to-face in the same dire predicament with the same bad ending?
 
Yes, yes, and yes: I suspect each of us has seen some variation on this classic form, but I’d still encourage film students, horror fans, and like-minded folks to invest 100 minutes of their lives in what might be the best education possible on the best ways to make use of creating a creepy atmosphere on a super-affordable budget.  Storytellers Mitton and Holland do certainly get their money’s worth in that regard: they take a brilliant conspiracy set-up (reminiscent of the kind of thing The X-Files did only a weekly basis) and transform a nearby woodland into a menace as compelling as Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, and Michael Myers put together.  But this indie Horror really runs out of steam for no other reason than we’ve seen it all before … and at a much more palatable length.
 
YellowBrickRoad’s greatest drawback is that – unlike The Wizard Of Oz, from which their script draws obvious and clever inspiration – it ultimately ends not long after it starts: the events spiral predictably into chaos the audience easily sees coming and, yet, its characters march blissfully onward.  Players in even cinema’s biggest Horror franchises have been screamed at by audiences for decades – don’t open that door, don’t look under that bed, don’t go into those woods alone – and somehow it just hasn’t helped scripts grow any smarter.  In the event that not everyone reaches that fateful destination (duh), there still must be some reward for those that do … but we’re not even given legitimate closure on that level when this flick’s Emerald City only offers up what looks to be more of the same … meaning nothing more than perhaps an insult slung by the filmmakers: “you’re only watching a movie, doofus.”
 
To the film’s credit, YellowBrickRoad scored a bit of praise from the film festival circuit, and why shouldn’t it?  To some degree, independent features – more often than not – are made exactly for audiences that go to film festivals.  It’s the kind of inventive thing they eat up at each and every opportunity.  While that doesn’t detract from the film’s strengths – I guarantee you no hiker should look at the average trail the same way after watching this (and, yes, I consider myself a hiker, thank you very much) – it still limits the scope of influence into corners where regular folks just wanna be entertained for 90 minutes.  On that regard, YellowBrickRoad could’ve used more traction.
​

And I’ve never laughed so hard at a scene of a woman losing her leg … especially when that wasn’t the filmmaker’s intention.  As much as I love the work of Cassidy Freeman – Smallville and Longmire are TV favorites of mine – not even her undisputed beauty could distract me from this awful, awful practical effects failure.
 
YellowBrickRoad (2010) was produced by Points North Films.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the folks at Lightyear.  As for the technical specifications?  Again, I’m no trained video expert … but while I had no problems with the nature of the video quality I’d have to confess this has to be one of the worst sound mixes I’ve had the misfortune to sit through.  That isn’t owed to the bizarre nature of the story; rather the recording levels were set so inconsistently I had to crank this thing all the way up in order to even understand most of the spoken words … and still there were a lot of unintelligible sentences.  On one hand, the dialogue isn’t as key to the story being told, but that it makes the experience more than a bit uneven at far too many times.
 
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you’re in for a treat.  This Updated Special Edition collection includes:

• A director’s commentary from Andy Mitton and Jesse Holland;
• A few newly-produced behind-the-scenes ‘making of’ featurettes; and
• A nice collection of interviews with cast and crew looking back on the experience of making the feature film.

 
Mildly recommended.
 
Generally speaking, I’ve always been a fan on indie Horror, but YellowBrickRoad really tested my sensibilities in a few ways.  See, I can look past an inferior effects sequence.  I can forgive a weak acting performance.  I’ll even overlook the undercooked blemish here and there … but what’s the point of it all if the trip essentially takes you nowhere?  If the final destination raises more questions than the film ever asks, was the journey worthwhile?  In that regard, it’s hard to enthusiastically recommend a feature I wanted to like but found, ultimately, incomplete, sometimes inaudible, and inconsistent.  It feels more experimental – or maybe a benign flick for students to study how to accomplish some things on-a-budget – but otherwise?  Meh.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Lightyear provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of YellowBrickRoad: Updated Special Edition 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

While it's very true that one doesn't think of the name Paul Sorvino when considering some of the biggest names in Science Fiction, but I'll challenge you to keep in mind that it isn't every day that one of the biggest names in Hollywood can stand toe-to-toe with the Federation's only Klingon officer!  That's why I'm sure the casting director went after such a strong character actor to bring a bit of gravitas to a guest spot on the fondly-remembered Star Trek: The Next Generation outing "Homeward" in 1994.

Always a critical favorite and he just seemed like a nice, approachable guy when I saw him in interviews, Sorvino was born in Brooklyn, New York back in 1939.  It wasn't until 1970 that the acting bug really sunk its teeth into the talent, and a wealth of quality projects soon followed.

As for his genre appearances?

• In 1973, he found the silver screen opposite the great George C. Scott in the oft-overlooked SciFi/Drama The Day Of The Dolphin for AVCO Embassy Pictures.
• In 1977, he shared the screen with no less than John Denver and George Burns in the popular Fantasy/Comedy of its day, Oh, God! for Warner Bros.
• In 1985, the bizarre works of genre great Larry Cohen found its influence on the man's career, and he joined the cast of the SciFi/Horror The Stuff for Larco Productions.  That same year, he also enjoyed a guest spot aboard one of Wes Craven's forgotten telefilms, Chiller.
• In 1990, the Walt Disney Company cast an incredible ensemble of big names to bring their screen incarnation of Dick Tracy to life, and Sorvino rounded out the players in the guise of 'Lips Manlis.'
• In 1991, he joined another Walt Disney adaptation: The Rocketeer sought to bring Dave Stevens' comic book here into the lights and shadows, and Sorvino was cast as 'Eddie Valentine.'

While that list is not all-inclusive, it certainly highlights many of the bigger properties, and all of them -- to a letter -- clearly benefitted by having Sorvino's gifts along for their respective rides.

Our prayers are extended to the family and friends of the late Mr. Sorvino.  May be forever rest in peace.

-- EZ

I do say this with nothing but love, respect, and a whole lot of admiration: I really hope you young pups do appreciate those acting giants you meet along the way -- even if only on the silver screen -- while they're with us.

​See, I know I'm not as young as many who read from this space, and that's perfectly acceptable.  I think a blog -- a good one -- really needs to speak to many folks and not just people of a certain age.  But because I'm a bit 'long in the tooth' as they say, I'll occasionally try to impart of bit of good-natured wisdom I've amassed on my own journey ... and it's growing harder and harder.  The older you get, the more you have to kinda/sorta sit on the sidelines and watch those who've brought great joy to the various works in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror as they slip away -- gracefully or not -- into the Great Beyond.

Because so many of you are like me, I'm sure you've got one of those flicks in your library that may be from your youth or from some other seminal period in your life that you've watched so many times -- even in bits and pieces -- over and over and over again.  Back in my earlier days -- when we didn't have home video and could only rely on pay cable for some unedited joys to play in repeat engagements -- one of the very first films I devoured over and over and over again was Nicholas Meyer's fantastic 1979 Time After Time.  Honestly, the thing played damn near endlessly on HBO (then known more as Home Box Office than anything else), often times playing multipe times on the same day.  And, yes, I can't even begin to imagine how many times I sat through it.

​For those of you who don't know it, it's a fairly straight forward Science Fiction and Fantasy Romance.  Meyer tweaked a story idea originally credited to Karl Alexander and Steve Hayes that saw novelist and forward-thinking H.G. Wells using the time machine he created to chase Jack The Ripper into (then) modern day California.  The great Malcolm McDowell played Wells, the always lovely Mary Steenburgen played his love interest 'Amy Robbins,' and nobody other than the perfect David Warner could bring the duplicitous cunning that was Jack to life as he did in the flick.

As we fans tend to do, I watched for anything that was casting this brilliant actor in a role; and, thankfully, his work made such a huge impression he gravitated to many great projects over the years.  Time Bandits (1981) remains a delight to this day, much of its comic genius owed to Warner's incredible performance as the evil genius.  In 1982, he took on an even larger role in cinematic villainy as the 'Master Control Program' in Walt Disney's TRON.  1983 saw him prove he was capable of delivering some laughs as well when he joined Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains.  1989 saw him enter the world of Star Trek with a role in the oft-maligned Star Trek V: The Final Frontier for Paramount Pictures; and he even returned (in a different role) in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991).

Seriously ... there is so much, much more that the man has done in the world of genre entertainment.  He leaves behind a resume rich in over two hundred different screen roles; and I've no doubt that many of them are well worth the time to appreciate a true talent who always seemed like he was at the top of his game.

Prayers are extended to the family and friends of Mr. Warner.  May he forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

​While I’m no expert on the whole Giallo film phase, I have seen a few that I’ve enjoyed quite a bit.  They do tend to lean more heavily in Horror and gore – as opposed to some of the steamier dramas – but I’ve always been open for anything.
 
That’s why I leapt at the chance to take a gander at Arrow Films’ latest release, Giallo Essentials (Black Edition).  This three-film set includes the titles Smile Before Death (1972), The Killer Reserved Nine Seats (1974), and The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive (1972).  All of these come with Arrow’s typical high-end treatment, meaning viewers get a great handful of supplemental materials that help both round out as well as deepen the experience.  I’ll be viewing them separately and responding to them in this space over the next few days.
 
Next up: writer/director Francesco De Masi’s The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive … a title that describes the deductive reasoning used by the film’s chief detective.  In his pursuit to solving this somewhat lurid crime, he’ll risk even his heart if that means he can bring the elusive killer to justice … for all the marbles!  (Trust me: that’ll make more sense once you’ve seen the picture.)
 
(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 product packaging:
“A young priest, Don Giorgio, is secretly engaged in affairs with two women – Orchidea and Giulia.  Not long after attempts to break things off with both women, he is found stabbed to death in his church.  Police commissioner Franco Boito arrives to investigate, only to embark on an affair with Orchidea himself.  As more victims meet their end at the hands of the killer, could the wide-eyed young boy who lives at the local convent hold the key to unlocking the mystery?”
 
Audiences have long lover the mystery surrounding any police procedural.
 
There’s usually a body, sometimes more.  A motive is required, and the means with which to carry it all out is a bare necessity.  So why not, simply, give a film such a title?  That appears to be the chief saving grace to the easily dismissible The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive, a collaboration between director De Masi (shown as ‘Francesco Mazzei’ on IMDB.com) and the team of Marcello Aliprandi, Mario Bianchi, Bruno Di Geronimo, and Vinicio Marinucci … a pretty big assortment of writers for what ended up being an absurdly predictable but only occasionally gruesome romp.  Given this one is billed as a giallo film, I expected even more blood than delivered.
​

Maurizio Bonuglia plays the insanely handsome priest, looking more like a misplaced underwear model than anything else.  His scenes are few – obviously in the story’s set-up – but it’s pretty clear he’s fallen pretty far ‘from the cloth,’ as they say.  Renzo Montagnani investigates the man’s murder, and he brings along a respectable charm as the detective not all that concerned with ruffling the church’s proverbial feathers when it appears they’ve mucked up the scene of the crime.  Bedy Moratti gives prime suspect Orchidea – the scorned woman with porcelain features – a passionate portrayal: jilted by her lover as well as the female half of a loveless marriage, she’ll all-too-quickly jump in bed with the policeman if that means getting some much-needed carnal attention as well as throwing his suspicions elsewhere.  Eva Czemerys rounds out the adults in the cast as the amorous tarot card reader also romantically linked for priest Giorgio.
 
Though The Weapon does muster a bit of heat in the arena of romance, it really does little else.  The investigation is all conducted by-the-numbers, meaning there’s little room for shock or surprise except for the fact that there’s a bit of a ‘time change’ that factors into the equation once everyone remembers that the trains ground to a halt for an hour.  But if that’s the best that be marshalled to give this lukewarm potboiler a simmer, one has to wonder what all of those scribes were doing in the writing room instead of cooking up more intrigue.  There’s also a clever twist involving a restaurant apparently popular with the locals because it offers up a spare bedroom for lovers who want to take their midday delight to the next level, but even that comes off as fairly benign when it could’ve, should’ve and would’ve been a revelation.
 
Still, there’s an infrequent good use of the church settings, along with a pretty incredible belfry-style location for the flick’s orphaned boy to rummage around.  It’s creepy in ways one wouldn’t expect from a house of God.  Nice touch.
 
The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive (1972) was produced by Julia Film.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the exceptional Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights and sounds to be very high quality from start-to-finish, though there are a few scenes with the customary grain associated to some of these older productions.
 
As for the special features?  Well – as mentioned – this is Arrow Films we’re talking about, and they usually stop at nothing to put forth a quality package.  For the record, this collection boasts:

• The aforementioned fact that this is an all-new 2K restoration;
• English subtitles paired to the original Italian soundtrack;
• An audio commentary from author and critic Alexandra Heller-Nicholas;
• An interview with actor Salvatore Puntillo;
• An image gallery; and
• A collector’s booklet with production information and essay from Barry Forshaw.

 
Mildly recommended.
 
Alas, there’s not all that much to crow about with The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive.  It’s a rather routine police procedural set against the backdrop of a fallen priest, the ladies of a convent who may or may not be involved, and the church’s closet social circle.  Though a few of the shooting locations have some great character, I found the central plot all-too-predictable despite some good work from leads Montagnani and Moratti.  Disappointing … but not awful.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray set of Giallo Essentials: Black Edition (Smile Before Death; The Killer Reserved Nine Seats; and The Weapon, The Hour, The Motive) by request for the expressed purposes of creating this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Sigh.
 
Having penned my very own vampire-style novel, I’m a huge fan of these horrific bloodsuckers.  Honestly, they’re one of the few true movie monsters that lend themselves to a wealth of potential plotlines.  Equally tragic and romantic, they appeal to the very best and the very worst in us as fallen angels, and I suspect the silver screen will continue to draw blood from a stone in the years ahead when it comes to putting them up in the shadows and light for future generations to appreciate at least as much as what’s come before.
 
Because vampires are possible in any era, they’ve also been used in practically every genre.  Horror isn’t they’re only playground as vamps have staked out territory in comedies (1979’s Love At First Bite and 1992’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer comes to mind), high drama (1994’s Interview With A Vampire or 2008’s Let The Right One In), and romances (2008’s Twilight or 2013’s Only Lovers Left Alive).  They’re immortal flexibility – that comfort and ease to fulfill practically any storytelling need – means that, as characters, they’ll outlive us all in ways more than one … though we already knew that going in.
 
Still, is it wrong of me to suggest that I see them poorly used in film probably as much as I see them used effectively?  Though I suspect this’ll pain some of you, one of my worst experiences with them was the much beloved Near Dark, which sprang from the fertile mind (in part, anyway, as she shared screenwriting responsibilities with Eric Red) of award-winning director Kathryn Bigelow fairly early in her screen career.  Perhaps therein lies the problem: as this was early in her storied career, maybe she couldn’t tell a good idea from the bad?
 
Whatever the truth may be, I’ll forgive her – if you’ll forgive me – while I tell you why this flick just never worked for me.
 
(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 small-town farmer’s son reluctantly joins a traveling group of vampires after he is bitten by a beautiful drifter.”
 
In Ben Mankiewicz’s introduction to Near Dark from a recent airing on Turner Classic Movies, the host talked about how writer/director initially wanted to craft a vampire Western in the creative build-up to the project.  However, Westerns (in particular) had fallen to the wayside at studios – meaning she had difficulty securing any financial interest in the affair – and this forced her and screenwriting partner Eric Red to reconceive the script much more as a conventional Horror story set against the backdrop of rural America (presumably in the South) where they could perhaps more easily blend the old with the new (or, at least, “modern”) in the mid-1980’s affair.
 
It was during this rewatch that, yes, I could see some influence of those traditional oaters playing out with characters as brought to life by Adrian Pasdar, Lance Henriksen, and the always appreciated Bill Paxton.  (Paxton’s character ‘Severen’ even wears a pair of signature spurs that he uses to cut the throats of his victims rather cleverly in a key film sequence.)  Rather easily, I could sense how this ‘roving band of outlaws’ was likely originally imagined to be terrorizing the small towns of the vast and unforgiving prairies, but parts of their modernization came off feeling more clunky instead of organic.
​

While Henriksen and Paxton have built careers on making the most of characters in even small moments, Pasdar seems ill-equipped to do more than gawk wide-eyed and open-mouthed at the camera – apparently his sole expression for fear, disgust, and distraught at the time – and his cheap Southern accent kinda/sorta seems to come-and-go a bit too easily when consistency matters (yes, even in a Horror picture).  Jenette Goldstein – who proved herself a Latino force to be reckoned with as ‘Vasquez’ in James Cameron’s Aliens (1986) – is largely wasted here as the ‘mother hen’ of the bloodthirsty band, never quite mustering the menace required to be part and parcel of a genuine gang.  Joshua John Miller completes the dastardly roll call: his not-as-young-as-he-seems ‘Homer’ occasionally chews scenery, but far too many of his moments seemed like stock footage meant to take advantage of his youthful face contradicting his learned threats.
 
The sublimely photogenic Jenny Wright – one of Hollywood’s greatest disappearing talents – earns points as the small-town beauty queen who’s somehow found her way amongst the undead.  (We do learn that it was Homer who found and turned her into a vampire.)  Her scenes with Pasdar are good; they share a youthful energy, and it’s clear that she’s not quite bought into the whole ‘life everlasting’ scenario (especially with this violent lot), so her continued unwillingness to truly push her new love into the ultimate darkness is one of the film’s best characterizations.  It may not lift the project to untold heights, but it works when needed … and that gives Near Dark its best moments in the light.
 
Still, the film’s inability to follow the established canon of vampire lore weakens what should and could be a stronger entry.  See, vampires are supposed to feast directly from the body of their victims, but Bigelow’s creations can apparently drain their victim into even beer steins and guzzle when desired … and, to this purist, that ain’t kosher.  This lot is also capable of openly bleeding … while anyone who knows anything about a vampire is certain that – if the heart isn’t pumping – then the blood isn’t … well … bleeding.  I’ve read that, again, all of this was a deliberate stylistic choice on the director’s part; but if you didn’t want vampires to be vampires, then why make a movie about vampires?  Why not come up with something all of your own – something fresh and new – instead of pilfering just what works and forcing a square peg into a round hole?  Seizing half of what makes them unique while ignoring the rest is a glaring inconsistency, and inconsistencies do not make for good storytelling.
 
In fact, I’d argue that the only salvageable scene in all of Near Dark is its high point: the vampires take brief refuge in a tavern on the edge of town, and they spend the bulk of this sequence brilliantly terrorizing the locals one-by-one until there’s only a single man left standing.  It’s written exceedingly well, staged brilliantly, and rendered damn near flawlessly by everyone involved … including those cast bit players who get a line here and there.  Those scenes are the stuff of screen legend; and they’re likely the source of Dark’s enduring reputation.
 
Otherwise?  It’s a bloodless affair … though with a pair of transfusions that miraculously (and magically) save the day, ignoring vampire lore in the last frame.
 
Like I said above: sigh.
 
Near Dark (1987) was produced by F/M and Near Dark Joint Venture.
 
Still … it’s recommended.
 
Near Dark is a film I should probably like more than I do … but regular readers in this space know all too well that I’m not really one for always ‘doing’ what it’s in my best interest when it comes to liking genre films.  While I think its cult sensibilities are definitely in the right place, its narrative drawbacks are just huge problems for me.  But that bar scene?  If you watch anything in it, then make it the bar scene.  It rather deftly brought vampire Horror into the late 1980’s with just the right mix of humor, pathos, drama, and terror.  That, my friends, is movie magic.

​-- EZ