Once more, I think it goes without saying or even suggesting that Paul Reubens was any kind of force within the wider world of Science Fiction.  That said, I'll always argue that -- as far as creative geniuses go -- he was a Jedi Master when it came to incorporating a level of childlikeness into some of the best big and small screen works of Fantasy.

I say "childlikeness" because I can't quite find a better word. 

​Back in the day of Pee Wee's Big Adventure and maybe even some of his work on television in the 1980's, fans and friends would've called him "childish," but I always pushed back against that.  Some of his behaviors definitely harkened back to how the youngest among us act, although I don't think he ever overtly pushed that edge too far for those of us watching him closely.  He was an adult child -- with a wide-eyed sense of imagination -- who embraced the magical and mystical and the mysterious in ways that propelled him onto a career path that delighted and inspired so many.  That is no small thing, folks: the older I get, the more I come to grips with just how exceedingly rare authentic talent of his type is, and I'll forever miss that spark of joy he brought to probably every project he completed.

​Because I do make it a habit of trying to celebrate some of the diversions every smiler featured In Memoriam has contributed to pop culture entertainment, I did want to give a rundown to some of his more prominent forays in Science Fiction and Fantasy.  Clearly, this guy was well known beyond such pursuits; but that's what I do 'round here, folks, and I suspect Mr. Reubens would even appreciate my sticking to those facts.

In 1981, he enjoyed a guest visit to the world of TV's SciFi/Sitcom Mork & Mindy with Robin Williams.

In 1984, he had a bit of screen time aboard one of that year's less inspired sequels: Meatballs II tried to introduce a bit of SciFi/Comedy to the summer camp scene, and it was -- ahem -- just an awful, awful experience.

In 1986, Reubens truly cemented himself into our realm when he provided the voice to Max, the talking spaceship computer at the heart of Walt Disney's popular Flight Of The Navigator.

​In 1987, the Walt Disney parks got into the Star Wars business with the introduction of Star Tours.  In that production, Reubens provided the voice to the droid RX-24 ... a character that returned to the wide, wide world of that galaxy far, far away in a 2014 episode of Star Wars: Rebels ... which Reubens also voiced.

In 1992, the actor appeared aboard Tim Burton's Batman Returns, playing the father (in flashbacks) to the character of the Penguin.

Also that year, he bared his fangs at no less than Buffy The Vampire Slayer in the silver screen incarnation of the hot, young vampire hunter.

​In 1999, he broke wind -- all in pursuit of justice -- in the role of Spleen aboard the Superhero/Comedy Mystery Men.

In 2005, Reubens provided the voice to a guest character aboard Tripping The Rift, an animated SciFi/Comedy.

In 2007, the actor made an appearance aboard two episodes of the popular Fantasy serial Pushing Daisies.

During the 2012-2013 TV season, he built an incredible voice performance as the character of Pavel aboard the somewhat cult(ish animated TRON spin-off, TRON: Uprising.

In the 2016-2017 TV season, Reubens appeared as Elijah van Dahl aboard the Fox television Superhero/Drama Gotham.

It would seem that the superhero realm wasn't quite done with the man yet: he enjoyed a five-episode run aboard The CW's DC's Legends Of Tomorrow for good measure.

​Rounding out the actor's commitment to Horror/Comedy, he also paid a visit to FX's What We Do In The Shadows.

While there are a few more (voice acting, largely, in animated productions and/or video games), I'll leave it as these remain the big ticket items that I think demonstrate that his was a gift that definitely made an impact on screens big and small; and it'll always be great to look back and remember him with such work in the years ahead.

Our deepest thoughts, prayers, and sympathies are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Paul Reubens.  May he forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

I forget why exactly, but I wanted to see Nefarious during its original theatrical run in theaters.
 
I recall some minor advertising for it online, and I think it even enjoyed a small feature on my local theater chain’s website, though that might be wrong.  But like many small, independent features, it only appeared on a single screen with some wildly inconsistent and/or inconvenient screening times.  When every other screen is trying to cram the latest Jurassic Park or Fast And Furious down society’s throat, where can we turn to in order to find a purely human drama?  Despite having more options for one’s entertainment choices available than ever, sometimes it still seems like good stories can’t find a place, and that’s a damn, dirty shame.
 
So, yes, we missed seeing this one in theaters, but on Saturday night the wifey found it finally making the rounds (affordably, too) on Amazon Prime.  So we took it in and were glad to have done so: it’s a spectacular performance piece – in many ways like a great stage play – featuring two winning performances, a premise worth thinking about, and a script that knew when was enough.  That’s a rare formula to achieve, and I think all involved deserve a bit of praise … though they’ll likely never get it.
 
Why?
 
Well, Nefarious touches on themes that – for lack of a better word – Hollywood finds taboo.  (Can you imagine that?  Can you imagine Hollywood – with all of its scandals – finding anything taboo?)  Though things like good and evil have a place in most productions, such players like God, Jesus, the Devil, and angels?  It would seem those topics are mostly off-limits; and that’s probably why this one never found the wide release it deserved.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“On the day of his scheduled execution, a convicted serial killer gets a psychiatric evaluation during which he claims he is a demon, and further claims that before their time is over, the psychiatrist will commit three murders of his own.”
 
A number of years back, a few smilers on the ever-reliable Facebook took me to task regarding a question I raised about demonic possession.  Flatly, they dubbed me a bit of a social stooge for ‘believing’ in such a phenomenon that stemmed from the Dark Ages, and they flatly kept hurling insults at me for even asking a question.
 
Now – for the record – I was in no way, shape, or form suggesting that I believed in it.  Merely, demonic possession was front-and-center the topic of a film I had just watched; and I had a question regarding something that this particular script had said was a long-established tenet of the phenomenon.  Having never heard of this rule, I went online into a forum that both stated they were new member friendly and inclusive about the topic, only to be rebuked in such a fantastic fashion by the group’s most vociferous participants.  Mind you, none of them even addressed the point of my query … but I guess that’s the breaks in the wide, wide interchange that is the Information Superhighway.
​

Still, demonic possession persists – at least, so far as books, movies, and television programs go – and it’s again found itself front-and-center on my mind with Nefarious (2023), a surprisingly good and well-crafted paranormal thriller that sprang from the writing/directing team of Chuck Konzelman and Cary Solomon.  In the film, convicted serial killer Edward Wayne Brady (played convincingly by Sean Patrick Flanery) and his newly assigned psychiatrist Dr. James Martin (Jordan Belfi) undertake a moral sparring match meant to ascertain whether or not Brady is fit to stand for his execution scheduled only hours away.  Instead, what transpires is a bit of a dramatic upheaval wherein Martin begins to question the very nature of evil’s perpetual existence as Brady – who chiefly answers to the name ‘Nefarious’ or ‘he who is Nefarious’ – might just be a legitimate force of darkness from beyond whose reach seemingly knows no bounds.
 
From what I’ve read, Nefarious created a bit of controversy during its original theatrical run, and – having finally watched it – I can understand why.
 
Hollywood and many of its intellectual elite have long suggested that religion and/or religious ideas are the true source of evil in our world because applying a moral barometer requires making judgments on the behaviors of so many.  When our cultural betters have produced so many who have engaged in what’s been openly suggested as – ahem – bad behaviors (i.e. Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Joss Whedon, James Franco, Kevin Spacey, Louis C.K., etc.), then it’s only natural that – in order to defend their own – they need to dismiss any and all explorations of morality, especially those with strong links to Biblical ideals.  Nefarious’ central theme discusses the long-standing war for the souls of men (and women) – the God and the Devil might never let it end, you know – and many of its exchanges delve into the kinds of subjects regular folks – like you and me, to a degree – have already made up our mind about.  Hollywood resents us for it and paints us a simpletons who’ll believe in anything.  Nothing could be further from the truth, but we’ll leave them to their wicked ways.
 
However, Nefarious never really damns anyone in its exploration of what good and evil mean.  Instead, the script serves up one meaningful exchange after another performed wonderfully by the leads, and I think it’s all intended to give viewers something to mull over.  Rather than pronounce guilt, the dialogue is structured in such a way to both define these polar opposites – Brady (as Nefarious) believes in the beyond whilst atheist Martin chooses science as his foundation – never cheaply impugning the other though implying the occasional insult.  This is, clearly, a performance piece; and – on that front – its players excel.
 
In particular, Flanery does a wonderful job.  (FYI: the actor has been on my radar all the way back to his days as no less than Indiana Jones aboard The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.)  Torn between two identities, he manages to bring some peculiarity to each of them: his take on Brady shows us a timid, broken character who can’t quite grasp all of the particulars that’s led him to such a dire predicament while Nefarious grimaces, twitches, and frowns at nearly every opportunity.  This demon – or demonic entity, depending upon one’s interpretation – clearly looks at mankind with contempt, and he’s obviously grown more than a bit weary with having to occupy a ‘meat suit’ not befitting his stature.  In a sane world, Flanery’s work here would draw a bit of acclaim, but such taboo subject matter will likely relegate this one to cult status at best.  (And, frankly, even ‘cult status’ would be deserved, at this point.)
 
Of course, the downside to masking a film with such obvious Biblical implications in a Horror feature such as Nefarious might kinda/sorta lead many consumers to pass it up, deeming it to be little more than a theatrical exercise using popular ‘salt of the Earth’ themes to dupe audiences when nothing could be further from the truth.  There’s a real exercise taking place here – there’s a cogent battle depicted for the soul of man – and this one deserves being seen.  Though it might use a few of the usual tropes of the genre to make score points, Konzelman and Solomon have delivered the goods in a way that leaves them open for discussion without casting stones at anyone who might “believe” otherwise.
 
Out here where regular folks exist, Evil is real.  Giving it such a human face might not be the bold experiment Hollywood approved, but that makes this one no less compelling.
 
Nefarious (2023) was produced by Believe Entertainment.  The film is presently available via streaming on such platforms as Prime Video, Vudu, and Apple TV (per a Google.com search).  As for the technical specifications?  The film looks and sounds exceptional from start-to-finish.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
 
Highly recommended.
 
Nefarious (2023) will not be to everyone’s liking, and I find that very sad.  Essentially, this is a performance piece that delves into the greater nature of Good versus Evil (yes, Biblical ideas included); and I think it might be the kind of film that spurs constructive discussion in lieu of lesser films that reach only for easy solutions.  Set aside your comfort factor and take a chance on its 100 minutes.  Leave your preconceived judgments at the door.  Watch what two performers can do with a thoughtful rumination.  It likely won’t make a believer out of you, but it might have you asking the right questions.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I watched Nefarious (2023) all of my own accord (via a purchase on Amazon Prime), so this review is beholden to no one … well, other than myself, of course.

​-- EZ

A number of years back, I worked with a fellow who was convinced that once Stephen King’s The Gunslinger series was made into a movie it would eventually go on to become one of the greatest motion pictures in the history of all of filmdom.
 
The reason he felt this way was, largely, because he personally loved the book; and he had read an interview (he insisted) wherein the author King himself had stated that it was his personal favorite of all he had ever written.  (I’ve never read such a statement, but I had no reason to doubt the guy.)  Because King was so invested in it and because he felt the story was just so incredible, no audience could or would pass up the chance to see something so monumental on the screen.  If made – and if made correctly – he just felt it would transcend anything that had come before; and this work would go on to be the defining picture, especially for fans of King as well as Science Fiction and Fantasy projects in general.
 
Now … ahem …
 
2017’s The Dark Tower came and went from the silver screen pretty quickly; and – though I can’t speak to it as I’ve never seen it nor had the inclination given the weaknesses of the published reviews – I know that it was a project that mostly fizzled with audiences.  It made no negligible mark, and I don’t think I’ve heard of any single person clamoring for a follow-up or a continuation.  I did read not all that long back that someone somewhere expressed an interest in turning it into a TV serial, but I’ve no information where that particular project could possibly be at this juncture.
 
My point in publishing this little bit isn’t to shame anyone for thinking and/or believing in the strength or promise of any individual intellectual property.  As I’ve always said, each of us likes what we like for our own reasons; and I think these preferences to feed into our expectations, especially when we see high profile names attached to them in production.  I’ve always cautioned, however, never to invest too much in things in-progress because movies, TV shows, miniseries, and the like have a million (if not billion) moving parts.  The rarity of any single production congealing into the best thing to happen to movies since ‘sliced bread’ is exceedingly rare.  Given that there are vastly more outlets for entertainment than there were even a few short years ago only increases the odds that a project will more likely fail to build a long term audience than it will survive and thrive; again, that’s not a cheap shot, folks … it’s just the reality of today’s volatile entertainment industry.
 
Simply put: audiences have more choice today than they’ve ever – EVER – had before.
 
As I’ve often said, back in my youth I grew up in a household that had anywhere from six to nine television channels.  Only a handful of decades later, I have – literally – hundreds of channels.  On top of that, I have movies at the multiplex.  I have hundreds if not thousands of YouTube.com channels.  There are an incredible number of streaming outlets and/or APPs for those of us who both have the time to research them and the money to invest in them.  On top of that, there are platforms specifically built for crowdfunding avenues and the like.  And – to ice the cake – I have the technology – however modest – to go out and make my own damn stuff and watch that, if that’s ultimately what I’d like to do.  This is our present state of affairs when it comes to an entertainment diet … and I’ll argue that Hollywood can no longer effectively compete with that.
 
So …
 
When you ask me why a business like Walt Disney is failing at the box office the answer both is simple and complex.
 
It’s simple in that Disney has functionally both rejected and turned away from what made it into the entertainment juggernaut it once was: families could count on the Mouse House to keep politics and/or political indoctrination from its shows and movies.  Yes, yes, and yes: there may’ve been small messages baked into something here and there, but it wasn’t out front and obvious, not anything like it is today.  Think what you will, but parents do like to keep their kids as kids for as long as they can.  The reasons for this are many, but essentially it does boil down to giving these young minds the time to develop before the stark reality overcomes those fragile brains.  Disney’s CEO Bob Iger – many years back – instead decided to go all-in on changing the culture instead of representing cultural values – there is a big, big, big difference – and that’s when the decline began.
​

Like my friend whom I mentioned at the outset, when you allow your personal preferences to overtake a reasoned mind, then you’ll begin to see what only you want for or wish for instead of making a logical argument that others might agree with.  There’s nothing wrong with hoping for the best for any property, but if you allow personal or political desires to overcome the rational mind then you’re going to eventually fail because not every person alive wants what you want in a story.  To put it another way: not every Tom, Dick, or Harry wants to be read a story from a drag queen.  They’re not saying a drag queen can’t read a story; rather, they have no interest in hearing a story in that format, thus – from the outset – you’re entering the territory of diminished audience which leads to diminished returns.  It’s just simple math.
 
Furthermore, Hollywood has never undergone a serious course adjustment to the chaos they’ve caused in creating a marketplace wherein entertainment is available on demand.
 
With there being so many choices right there right now – be they conventional TV, movies, streaming, or whatnot – Hollywood has entered deep into the arena of true salesmanship.  Back in the days when I was involved in selling, everyone was chiefly taught one defining construct, namely you can offer something to a buyer with two out of three traits: good, fast, or cheap.

• If you want it good and fast, then it won’t be cheap.
• If you want it cheap and good, then it won’t be fast.
• If you want it fast and cheap, then it won’t be good.

 
There is no provider out there who can guarantee all three of these traits to any transaction all of the time.  It defies logic, and it defies our potential to be operating at peak efficiency 24/7.  While an exception to the rule might happen here and there, this trinity choice has always and will always exist.  I encourage you to think about it within the context of any entertainment option you have or think you can provide; and I strongly believe you’ll see it’s the only logical definition with which to evaluate any human endeavor.  This is just the way things are – it’s the way things work in a capitalist economy and beyond – and Hollywood has always tried to break this fundamental rule.
 
Studios have damn near always been robbing from a current project to pay for the last one.
 
In Biblical parables, this is called “robbing from Peter to pay Paul,” and for far too long this is how Tinseltown has financed damn near everything and anything they touch.  It’s why budgets have spiraled out of control – they need more effects or a bigger marquee name for a certain project in production, and that means they have to spend, spend, spend well before they sell, sell, sell – and when something inferior inevitably arrives – something as tepid and uninspired as Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny (2023) – then executives finally realize that they’ve invested far more capital than they can ever recoup.  Long ago, this was dubbed ‘Hollywood math,’ and – check your sources – it’s killed many a good studio.  The Walt Disney Company is just the latest – and perhaps the largest – to confront its wild and crazy spending, but trust me when I say they’re not alone in this respect.
 
Again, this is a topic I think many of us who’ve been around for a few years could wax on and on and on over, mostly because we’ve seen it ruin a great many studios along with a good number of careers.  Many a blogger and vlogger have been sounding off on this suggesting that it’s something unique to Disney, but I can tell you that it isn’t.  It’s merely the reality of economics that have never been confronted logically, and – in many ways – it’s chiefly what has led into both the writers’ and actors’ strike playing out in the arena of ideas even right now.  This ‘new norm’ isn’t new because, frankly, it’s been the norm for quite some time; alas, no one with a sense of reality wanted to sit down and discuss it like adults, and now you see where it’s taken an entire industry.
 
It was eventually going to get here, and it’ll get here again because that’s just how Hollywood works … all of it is fiction.
 
But fictional math?
 
That’s Hollywood’s biggest, boldest creation.

​-- EZ

At some point, each and every film fan comes to grip with the reality that there are rarely -- rarely -- perfect films.

In our youth, we wonder just how and why every feature production escapes perfection.  It may even be something that a few of us write about or debate amongst our friends and family.  We somewhat naively figure that with as much time, money, and effort that gets expended how could it possibly be that the end result could fall short?  It belies logic, and this conclusion perplexes us for a time.  Eventually -- as we mature and come to grips with just how rare true, authentic perfection is -- we do come to accept projects for what they accomplish instead of sticking to our own falsely created high expectations, and we find a way to live with the finished product as is.  We accept the good.  We embrace the bad.  And we might even celebrate the ugly.  If we don't, then will we ever truly like a flick just as it is?

That's my take on Waterworld, one of filmdom's most controversial blockbusters.  Throughout its production and well up into its release, industry insiders and media pundits were lambasting this -- cough cough -- waterlogged entity.  Without ever having seen a finished cut, they decried how much money had been spent on bringing this Fantasy world to live on screens; and they stopped at nothing to see the picture's "impending failure" around star Kevin Costner's ankles, hoping that the sheer weight of it would pull him beneath the surface.  And why?  Why was there so much vitriol and venom surrounding what looked to be a studio's tentpole summer release?  Well, who doesn't like being able to say "I said it would tank" well before it actually did tank seemed to be the only reasoning I could read from between the lines; and I think all of us deserved better critical analysis than what we got of the film.

Is it flawed?

Well, of course, it is.  As I said above, there are few -- very few -- examples of true perfection within any single person's life; and is there any greater folly than hoping against hope that one motion picture -- a wild mechanical beast with an astounding number parts at any given point in its conception -- would be perfect?  I think not, but -- again -- that's not a position I've always enjoyed.  What little wisdom I had -- even upon Waterworld's release -- told me that I needed to look at it for what it was -- a flawed collaboration -- and hope I could see past the imperfections to something I enjoyed.  And I'm happy to say, "Mission accomplished."

Are there things I'd change?

Well, again, good Lord, people!  Of course, there are!  I suspect that a great many number of people involved with the whole affair would say the same, be it a small effects sequence here or there all the way up to Dennis Hopper's over-the-top bravado that felt a bit misplaced more than once.  One needn't be a film scholar to see that this world-building could've used a bit more spit and polish in a few places, and perhaps leaving so many questions unanswered never served the narrative as well as a bit of tightening around the belts could have.

Still ... at the end of the day, I think more people hated the picture for the wrong reasons than ever praised Costner, his cast and crew, and its creators for trying to achieve something different.  Not every film has to be fashioned for every audience member; those of us who can still watch and enjoy Waterworld nearly three decades later -- even with its scars and warts -- might be small in number but we're big at heart ... and that's all that ever truly matters.
​

As tends to happen with projects of this sort, Waterworld currently exists in a handful of cuts.  Recently, the good folks at Arrow Films released a 4K pressing that includes, I think, three different cuts of the flick (the theatrical release and then two different TV incarnations).  That alone proves that there's some interest in the whole affair; granted, that number might not be all that large, but fans want what fans want, and I'm still hoping to get my hands on that limited edition release if for no other reason than to compare and contrast those other iterations against the one so fondly worn into my brain.

Also, if I may?  I think it was a bit of a creative miss to not have something in production as a follow up.  For the record, I'm not even remotely suggesting a sequel -- once was probably enough, especially given this one's expensive price tag -- but a follow-up novel?  Maybe an animated show?  A comic book or two?  Would that have been out of order to suggest?  Again, I realize that the audience for it may not have been as wide as Star Trek, Star Wars, or star anything: it's just that when creators go to such lengths to fashion a world as unique and different as this one was, it could've earned its sea legs by building a larger following over time with more material.

The Mariner deserved a chance to have a stronger legacy.  For now, we just have to accept this one for what it is ... an imperfect Fantasy gem.

I said what I said.  Deal with it.

-- EZ
​

Well, well, well …
 
Folks, you know me.  While I’m not above wandering into a bit of controversy, I do put a great, great, great deal of effort into keeping as much controversy away from these pages.  I think that there are bloggers and vloggers who – quite frankly – exist to either ‘stir the pot’ or ‘light a fire’ for the sake of both building an audience as well as seeking out clicks, Tweets, and Retweets.  There’s nothing wrong with that – to a degree – and I have a lot of respect for those who can do it and still maintain a modicum of decency about contentious subject matter.  That ain’t always easy to do.  One risks one’s reputation – both with the affected and the afflicted – and I’m perfectly okay sitting most fights out and watching from the cheap seats.
 
Still … when I’m asked and asked enough, then I sometimes will step out into the fray, as is the case this morning as I received my third request to say something about the – ahem – actor’s strike.
 
Look.  Anyone who’s ever been a part of a union?  They have the right to strike.  No, it isn’t like I read the other day – it isn’t a “God-given right” mostly because I think that’s a real bastardization of what the phrase “God-given” means – but it’s probably the single greatest and best mechanism for a great deal within that industry to be heard.  It’s sad that it might get to that point – having to go on strike, having to take that hit to one’s workload and income – but if that’s the consensus from the group, then who I am to tell them not to do it?  Like anything in life, striking will come with a whole slew of unintended consequences – for the actors, for the studios, and for the audiences – but at the end of the day it is what it is.
 
Now …
 
I will agree that perhaps some of the actors might wanna sit out the whole ‘making-of’ speeches.  I understand (again) that it’s a right they can exercise, but – speaking only as a completely uninvolved nugget of joy that I am – I think there’s something most definitely off-putting when, say, a man whose reported net worth is $50 million preaching that he’s as mad as hell and he’s not gonna take it any more (pun intended, for those of you who get it).  In fact, I’d say that it’s even sillier to have a talent whose net worth is almost a half billion getting up to malign the industry, its leaders, and their coffers.  Can they do it?  Sure!  Must they do it?  Maybe.  Should they do it?  Well … I’m inclined to tell a person who has built a nest egg that could fund a small town to maybe sit this one out.  Picket?  Sure!  Preach?  Erm …
 
I guess that depends on what message you want to send to anyone watching.
 
Having an industry juggernaut speak out against the evils of capitalism – the same person who has built a considerable fortune out of embracing the benefits of said evil capitalism – is incredibly hypocritical.  Regular folks – when we see this – do tend to grow a bit disenfranchised with all of you – not just the marquee talent – and this is where one opens the door to those unintended consequences I mentioned above.  It’s a fine line – one that should be kept in mind – but, again, to each his own.
 
I think what concerns me more – if I’m being perfectly honest – is the message that the actors and actresses are sending by striking at this particular time in history.  It’s something that plagued baseball – America’s pastime – when they opted to strike a number of years back; and there are those who juggle numbers that’ll tell you nearly a decade or two later that industry still hasn’t quite recovered.  Similarly, COVID decimated theaters and the entertainment business; and – now on the cusp of a very modest recovery – a strike by both the writers and the actors is going to have an increasingly detrimental impact on that economy as well.  Who knows?  I’ve read some suggestions that a protracted strike might force a national chain to, ultimately, shut down; and this’ll further reduce the outlets available to see both writers and actors gainfully working … but that doesn’t seem to matter to anyone.
 
Though I’m no big proponent of the – cough cough – curious political views of actor Mark Ruffalo, I do think he had a very good suggestion the other day.
 
From what I read – if this is incorrect, then sue me – he offered the idea that it would be grand for talent to band together and start a kinda/sorta limited talent-funded avenue for some of the projects they’d like to see accomplished.  Given the number of outlets hungry for new material – both network channels and streaming platforms – I’d applaud such a campaign.  While I’m not a huge fan of crowdfunding, even I’ll concede it’s a fabulous idea that would most likely fuel some good alternatives, especially given the fact that most major studios seem to have wholly given up on smaller, more intimate productions.  If nothing else, it might certainly demonstrate to those studio executives that talent isn’t beholden to them for everything; and the resulting renaissance might be a boon for some fabulous creativity.  Granted, there’d be a good deal of risk associated, as well, but that’s fundamentally no different than those of us who get up each morning and pursue the great American Dream experience each and every day.  The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.
 
So … I’ll ask forgiveness to those who might be offended by these few humble words.  As I said in the opening, I usually don’t wade into such turbulent waters, but because I’d been asked a few times I felt I had a responsibility as a low-rent pundit to put up or shut up.  I realize it may not have the nuance the most learned amongst us possess, but – as I said – it is what it is.  Striking brings with it an incredible gamble, and here’s hoping whatever industry survives from all this chaos can still keep all of you gainfully employed.
 
I suspect it won’t.  But that’s just me.

​-- EZ

Readers, I can say this most assuredly: even at my age, there are some films – however big, however small, however good, and however bad – wherein the nostalgia factor simply seizes control of the master brain switch and keeps the logic circuits firmly on ‘pause.’
 
Yes, yes, and yes: clearly some of this is owed to my age, and I admitted as such above.  Each of us no doubt will have a solid handful of films that – no matter how ill-conceived or poorly produced – will always mean something greater to us than does the sum of its parts.  Perhaps you saw this title when you were particularly low, and it somehow lifted you up.  Perhaps it was the first project you sat through with a significant other.  Or perhaps it’s one of the oldest formative experiences you enjoyed on the silver screen, and – despite a lackluster script or maybe even some fundamentally goofy performances – you simply refuse to see the grit from the grindhouse.  Whatever that core truth may be, these movies stay with you.  You cherish them for what they are.  And you really don’t give a damn what others say about it.  Such is just the nature of finding inner peace before the glow of the movie projector.
 
For me?
 
Well, regular readers of this space know all-too-well that I have quite a few, but the one that generally befuddles most of my audiences is my unabashed love for 1982’s Superhero/Fantasy Swamp Thing.  Written and directed by the late and great Wes Craven, it’s a mighty bit of screen schlock that’s filled with some moments of unbridled lunacy, mind-bogglingly bad practical effects, and high camp.  Acting-wise?  There’s only the underplayed or the vastly overplayed moments.  As for the script?  It’s an exceedingly simple affair – though it’s almost hyperbolically committed to the comic book sensibilities of the era – and might be a feature voted ‘Least Likely To Ever Be Inducted Into The National Film Registry.’  A friend of mine once told me it’s about as bad a film as can ever be made – much less has been made – and, yet, I cannot look away.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After a violent incident with a special chemical, a research scientist is turned into a swamp plant monster.”

Kids, I’m here to tell you that comic book movies didn’t always take themselves all that seriously.
 
Naturally, it’s perfectly common for storytelling to evolve over the years.  Not every release is going to look and sound like Superman – The Movie (1978), one of cinema’s highwater marks despite its somewhat muddled ‘turn back time’ finale.  Tim Burton certainly proved in 1989 that things could get darker and grimmer with his theatrical presentation of Batman.  2008’s Iron Man – what with its big name draw of Robert Downey Jr. in the titular role – ushered in, perhaps, the most modern era of superhero sensibilities; though the Marvel Movie Universe has kinda/sorta succumbed to a bit of a rough patch as of late, its directors and screenwriters are still painting in as many colors as is humanly possible with their bold and politically-correct tendencies.
 
No, back in the days of my distant youth, a little ‘something something’ called Swamp Thing was more the norm than it was the exception.  Surprisingly, Superman never quite launched a trend – certainly not the caliber that George Lucas’ Star Wars had done with space fantasies in 1977 – and the only guess I can make is that maybe studios were hesitant to start heading down that alley when they were all so heavily invested in one potentially high-cost adventure already.  Special effects were expensive, and – even worse – making audiences believe a man could fly week-to-week wouldn’t be cheap.  Why risk it when they were already achieving respectable TV ratings with Wonder Woman (1975-1979), The Amazing Spider-Man (1977-1979), and The Incredible Hulk (1977-1982)?  Those were reasonable hits, and none of those heroes flew (per se).  In fact, it wouldn’t be until 1981 that a man in a cape would fly similarly in The Greatest American Hero (1981-1983), and I suspect this only happened because the price of effects work finally made a procedural a stronger prospect for network executives.
 
So …
 
For the modest budget of somewhere between $2 and $3 million dollars, Swamp Thing delivered audiences probably what they expected – more of the same from the TV superhero line-up – which was namely little more than a big actor (Dick Durock) in a big rubber suit on the silver screen.  What this obvious shortcoming meant to director Craven was that he’d have to stuff it ‘to the max’ with as much charm as humanly possible to cover the seams, and – though some might find the results mixed – I thought most of the cast were up to the task.  The perfectly fetching Adrienne Barbeau made for an attractive lead, imbuing her role as government agent Alice Cable with enough spunk to keep eyes on her instead of some subpar production details.  Ray Wise – albeit briefly – gave Dr. Alec Holland the kind of wide-eyed ‘gee shucks’ scientific optimism required to make viewers care about his survival, especially since Fate was about to throw the man a huge, huge, huge curveball.  And Louis Jourdan definitely brought his A-game to the entire proceedings, elevating an otherwise lukewarm cabal of baddies with his turn as a suave, sophisticated, if not downright poetic villain this side of a James Bond film.
 
(Sadly, I’ve been unable to locate any box office receipts for the picture.  I have read that it endured a staggered release schedule across the United States – a strategy that would’ve entirely killed any prospect of building strong word-of-mouth back in the day wherein lower budget fare needed that to survive.  BoxOfficeMojo.com, in fact, shows absolutely zero statistics, a rarity in this day and age.)
 
As an origins picture, Swamp Thing is a fairly bare bones procedural.
 
Audiences are introduced to Holland and this world with the ultimate backwoods of science and Fantasy, but – as tended to happen in comic book films back then – there was little explanation for how it all worked.  What we did come to know was that Holland and his sister Linda (Nannette Brown) were working on a formula that presumably might’ve solved the world’s food crisis.  When a crack paramilitary assault team shows up to seize his work for their own nefarious ends (curiously never explained), Alec accidentally gets doused with his magical chemical, is set ablaze, and dives into the surrounding swamp waters to escape.  When he emerges the next day, he’s now … Swamp Thing!  The extent of his developing powers (super strength, a heightened sense of his surroundings, the ability to heal others, etc.) only show up when they’re needed.  While I’ll concede that keeping the exposition light helped this sometimes campy fare’s pace from faltering, it still would’ve been nice had Craven incorporated a few throwaway lines to give Holland’s plight a bit more substance.
​

But – don’t you know? – this was a comic book film; and, as such, Craven and his merry band of co-conspirators never put in all that time in trying to elevate it above the construct of being a live action cartoon.  Even the screen wipes transitioning from scene to scene offer up a kind of loony garishness at times, and I believe the technique probably helped remind audiences – whether they liked it or believed it or not – that this wasn’t real.  It was lifted from the pages of something some very young men (and maybe a few women) read in their youth and then pitched them aside once they were old enough for high school books or went off to chase girls (hopefully ones that looked like Barbeau).  Of course, such an approach instilled the entire affair with a measure of harmlessness, but it all ends as the credits roll over an image of Swamp Thing himself lumbering quietly back into the storied bayou with no one to love and no one to hold.
 
Such a dire predicament – a life of isolation while surrounded by our planet’s marshy manifestation of life itself – could’ve used a bit more narrative nuance from start-to-finish.  It wouldn’t have hurt Craven’s campier tone, and it might’ve made for a more memorable theatrical launch to an otherwise overlooked comic book creation.  It would get an inferior sequel almost a decade later – along with a pair of television shows also decades apart – so, thankfully, this wasn’t the last audiences would see of Swamp Thing.  But methinks we’ve yet to see this seminal creature in peak form … and that’s the real shame to all of this.
 
Swamp Thing (1982) was produced by Swampfilms (as per IMDB.com), Benjamin Melniker, and Michael E. Uslan (as per the product packaging).  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the reliable folks at MVD Visual Entertainment Group.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  Though I’m no trained video expert, this 4K restoration looks and sounds absolutely fabulous.  Just absolutely fabulous.  With a film this crazy, it oughta be a crime to look and sound this good.
 
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Other than supplying the unrated international cut (also remastered, thank you very much), I don’t think that there’s anything brand-spanking-new in here as these are all likely ported over from earlier releases.  The disc boasts two commentary tracks – both are only viewable alongside the original theatrical cut – with one from writer/director Wes Craven and a second from Makeup Effects artist William Munns.  There are also a handful of shorts – interviews and design work – along with photo galleries and the theatrical trailer.  Purist should be extremely pleased.  Also, the packaging includes a collectible mini-poster that’s definitely a nice touch.
 
Highly recommended.
 
I know, I know, and I know: sometimes, there’s no accounting for taste, which is why I admitted upfront to always having a fondness for Swamp Thing (1982).  I’ve always thought that most of its imperfections stem from the fact that Craven and all involved were subconsciously apologizing to their audience for drawing upon something that came from the world of – gasp! – comic books.  While embracing some of those sensibilities, I can’t help but think that they ignored (to a degree) that the creature is, perhaps, one of that industry’s most poetic manifestations.  Though we see hints of that promise on the screen at times – especially in Wise’s turn as the scientist in his natural habitat and maybe once or twice in Durock’s slim speeches – the film truly needed a bit more hutzpah to rise above the camp and give this gentle green giant his time in the limelight.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Rewind Collection provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Swamp Thing (1982) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Good morning, and Happy Tuesday, readers!  Can you believe it?  It's already Tuesday ... but thank God Monday has come and gone, am I right?

Sadly, I don't have a whole lot to report this morning.  I did spend some time last night and this morning updating July 25th so that I'd have a 75 citations announcement for you folks today, but that's about it.  I do have a movie that was sent to me to review -- believe it or not, I was fortunate enough to snag a promotional release of that 80's gem Swamp Thing (from Wes Craven) -- and I'll need to spend a bit of time with it.  The package looks loaded with goodies, and -- like so many of you -- I'm a sucker for those things especially on older releases.  (Newer films just don't have all that many great stories to tell behind-the-scenes; and the companies who shuck these older re-releases truly put in some admirable time in assembling quality packages.)  Also, I've had a handful of Horror productions come my way via streaming; so I'll have to set aside a bit of extra time to work through those as well.  I did review one yesterday, and I'll be sharing it online today.  (I posted it yesterday, but I wanted to give the company some time to respond regarding a question.)

Last night, I also sat through the disappointing finale to The Walking Dead: Dead City.  I've seen a lot of folks online who are totally digging the show, and -- for the life of this old dog -- I can't figure out why.  It's really bringing nothing new to the creative table.  While, sure, it's great to get a bit more of Maggie and Negan, the writing has been fairly ... erm ... well, I'll say it ... fairly stupid and uninspired that I'm not sure I'll tune in when it returns next season.  Likely, I will ... but it'll only be out of some obligation I might feel to finish its run (should that prove the end of all things).  I might dump reviewing it, though, as it's become a bit of a slog since I've very little to say substantively about it.  Time will tell.

In any event, here's the link to the joy that awaits you today ...
​

There's a lot of good stuff up there today, so please please please check it out, and feel free to both share online, encourage family and friends to discover the site, and never hesitate to drop me a line personally (through the website) if you have a suggestion to offer or something else you wanna say about anything.  Creative talent?  If you're out there -- and I know a few of you do read things fairly regularly -- you're also welcome to give me an email if you've anything you want known as well.  I realize that -- due to the writer and actor's strikes -- you're somewhat prohibited from engaged in promotion; but we can always talk about something else.  Older projects are usually vastly more interesting to me anyway.

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

​-- EZ

Happy Monday, you lovable smilers, and welcome to an all new week of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror treats in all of their unbridled glory!  While -- yeah, yeah, and yeah -- I know what they say about Mondays, I always look forward to the newness of starting over -- at least, on a weekly basis -- and trying to get right this time what maybe we misssed the mark on last time.  Take that with the spirit of positivity, innovation, and kindness with which it's all intended, folks, and make today a winner for each and every one of you!

Now, on to the business of making things fresh ...

Every now and then, I'm greeted with some inquiries from folks who have just stumbled across SciFiHistory.Net.  I've always viewed readership on a continuum -- it goes up and it goes down, and these numbers fluctuate because some folks might go elsewhere whilst newbies just find what I've done in this little corner of the Webosphere.  But some of these inquiries come from media types -- directors, screenwriters, distributors, other bloggers, etc. -- and they might reach out and contact me wondering why it is I do what I do.  Am I trying to reach a certain audience?  What are the target demographics?  What do I see as the blog's potential future?

Now, honestly, I don't give those things an awful lot of thought.  Gathering the trivia tidbits that are a part and parcel of each day -- what I call the Daily Citation pages -- are the meat and potatoes of SciFiHistory.Net, and they always will be.  Granted, I even see them as works in progress as I build on to them, alter them, tweak them from time-to-time -- when I see the opportunity -- so even they have some innate flexibility.  Still, as I continue to push this place forward, I'm still searching for one universal format that makes the most sense and gets the greatest attention.

So over the weekend I spent some extra time working on July 22nd.  See, I wanted to have one page that kinda/sorta works as a standout for how all pages will inevitably look and feel, what with Birthdays, Movies, and TV citations.  As I've often said, my goal is to have well over 100 different items on a page -- which might actually lead me to breaking down each day a bit differently, but that's an idea for another day and another time -- and July 22nd now has that.  If you could, take a gander.  Look it over.  If you have any suggestions and/or ideas that could strengthen the presentation, then leave a comment in the Comments Section at the bottom of the page.

No, no, and no.  This is not a requirement.  This is just a request if you have some input.  Having corresponded with a good handful of you privately, I'm well aware that many of you come here to simply read the goodies.  That's all well and good.  What I'm looking for are constructive ideas that might give me a new perspective on cleaning things up, making some elements stronger, and continuing the process to making each and every day a destination for anyone loving genre projects as much as I do.

Here's the day ...
​

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

​-- EZ

Back in my college days, I had a professor of film who insisted that the entire genre of Horror only worked because it explored themes of the loss of identity.
 
Now, silly me, here I had grown up thinking that Horror was chiefly about the loss of life (have you seen its body count?), but the more I thought about it the more it made sense.  His main premise was that each of us experiences some deep-rooted but latent fear of losing control of one’s actions, making us pawns to the bigger tenets of Destiny and Fate.  Arguably, there’s no greater loss of self than the loss of life anyway, so I guess my perspective had some validity, too.  Losing oneself – whether it be to death or life – definitely ties in with the ideas of conventional and unconventional frights; so pitching that as a foundation behind an entire category of features put my fertile brain on the track to thinking about such features with a more academic focus.   If nothing else, this cornerstone served up great fuel for that semester’s writing exercises for the whole class.
 
Lo and behold, 2023’s The Puppetman takes that construct and pushes the boundary even further.  A simple phrase like “it wasn’t me” takes on vastly greater meaning if there’s some ghostly being who can step into your shoes, walk a few mile, and slay a co-ed or two for giggles.  It’s a grim affair – one that could’ve used a bit more time baking in the creative oven for effect – but still a workable origins picture if the creators (and the audience) are willing to invest in it.  While it’s too soon for me to tell, I’d still encourage folks to check this one out, largely because enough of its narrative stuffing makes for a solid first turn in what could be a budding Horror franchise.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citations:
“The Puppetman, a convicted killer on death row, always maintained his innocence and that it was an evil force controlling his body as he slaughtered his victims.  Now Michal, the killer’s daughter, begins to suspect that there may be some truth to her father’s claim when those around her begin to die in brutal ways.  She must try and break the curse of The Puppetman before all her loved ones are killed.”
 
I’ve argued before that more than half of any good Horror film is crafting the proper atmosphere.  From a visual perspective, the world created must complement whatever narrative ideas are at work within the script; so the director, cinematography, production designer, and anyone else behind the camera need to put in some great effort to both choose shooting locations and design interiors that serve the central ideas, its main characters, and the world-at-work in this fictional universe.  If the parts surpass the sum of their total, then there’s a visual unevenness – a failure to achieve storytelling equilibrium – and one risks creating a story that’s perhaps remembered for the wrong reasons.
​

For example, think what you will about the Saw universe of flicks, but I occasionally struggle with enjoying them, much less in telling them apart.  (No, no, and no: this has nothing to do with the debate of whether or not that franchise is just an excuse to explore torture porn or not, but that’s still a legitimate argument.)  To me, there’s absolutely no distinctiveness between the films – except for casting considerations, I couldn’t tell you much difference between Saws I, II, and III – because they’re experiences that slowly became more about the murderous contraptions than they are about any individual characters.  This isn’t to suggest that cultivating a visual palate is unimportant; but when the manner in which players are ceremoniously offed grows bigger and more elaborate in size and shape than do the themes and ideas, then maybe we’re really not serving the stories so much as we are giving the effects people bigger and bigger paychecks for their time and effort.
 
(Again, folks, you needn’t agree.  These are my opinions alone, and I’m sticking to them.)
 
So … when it comes to setting The Puppetman out on his (or her) inaugural journey, writer/director Brandon Christensen has done a fairly affable job.  Set in an upstate New York college town over a school break (and having spent my university days in a similar setting in the Midwest), the locale is understandably and eerily deserted.  (In fact, over our breaks I always thought my western Illinois hamlet felt more than a bit like a ghost town.)  The streets are bare.  The buildings are quiet.  The neighborhoods are almost creepily lying in wait for any activity to crack the silence.  What few unfortunate souls find themselves in such urban emptiness do cling together to while away the time – tossing back a few cold ones and chittering about their collective bad luck – because that’s all there is to do in the social abyss.  Wouldn’t you just know that some supernatural entity would use this time and this place for evil deeds?
 
Once you venture beyond the setting, however, Puppetman starts to have some … erm … issues.  Some big, some small, the central problem with having so many of them in one production helps remove the veneer that would otherwise suggest this is an authentic and organic creation.  Instead, what you’re left with is the feeling that this world is entirely a screenwriter’s invention, and that does kinda/sorta serve as a bit of a buzzkill, for lack of a better word.  Though it doesn’t destroy the picture, it does reduce its effectiveness.
 
For starters, there’s a somewhat obviousness of casting choices to be both politically correct and inclusive.  While I can understand and appreciate how a college-aged cast might include the traditional jock, the brainiac, the misfit, and the outcast, casting departments go to great lengths these days to include representation from classes and ethnicities; and Puppetman feels no different.  Drawing on my experience of a small college setting, I can say this wasn’t always the case: while it’s arguably possible such cultural balance could be achieved, this feels a bit too theatrical – and forced – for my tastes, more like a producer or small studio wanted to hedge their bets against any backlash.
 
Similarly, because frights of this nature do have to create and employ their own mythology and methodology, screenwriters spend extra time and attention when setting and stretching parameters these spooks employ.  How have these entities been drawn into our world?  What rules do they have?  How is it they can both interact with our reality while escaping adherence to the laws of physics and such?  Initially, it seemed that Puppetman had to be in very close proximity to his/her victims to wreak his brand of havoc (as it were), but – by the film’s end – that rule seemed to have been broken.  He could be anywhere and everywhere – multiple locations, even – at a moment’s notice; and this, too, kind of cheapened the brew.  A bit of extra effort could’ve cleaned this up, but none was expended.
 
Furthermore – about that whole mythology component – I was at a loss to understand why Michal’s parents even considered introducing a spectral entity into their own flesh and blood daughter was a remotely sound idea.  Were they cultists before they married?  Was this a dark tradition handed down from fathers to sons – mothers to daughters – and so forth?  Did they seriously think this was going to end well?  Or was this just some ludicrous attempt at rearing a bad or unruly child?  Others – especially Horror fans – might accept this construct without question, but I was honestly looking for a bit more substance.  Otherwise, I’m just looking at bad parents, and that’s a bit too easy, too predictable, and too lazy.
 
Textual quibbles aside … yes, I still managed to have a lot of visceral fun with Puppetman.
​

Christensen is a name I’m familiar with.  Having seen and reviewed a previous effort – 2021’s Superhost – it’s nice to see him continuing building a pedigree in the genre.  As he accomplished there, the director gets fabulous mileage out of a reasonably tight setting and an incredibly gifted cast, showing that he is a name worth following in the days ahead.  Plus, he’s got a solid track record in building practical scares on screen – meaning there’s little if any reliance on computer graphics (which I find inferior in Horror) – and that’s a huge plus.  If he continues to build on this record, then matching those skills with the right property should produce some very interesting results.
 
And speaking on the cast?
 
Relative newcomer Alyson Gorske makes for a convincing lead.  In particular, she handles Michal’s quieter side – the introvert, the broken soul crying out to understand her troubled existence – quite well.  The fact that she plays a character-in-transition – you don’t really know how far down the Rabbit Hole she’s traveled until the film’s closing scene – is handled with a deftness not seen enough in Horror.  Unlike other creations just not written strong enough, Anna Telfer rather easily convinces viewers that she’s the academic brain of the group; she balances cynicism and sarcasm when given her few and fleeting scenes, but she also delivers the flick’s best contorted death sequence whereas a lesser actress’ work would’ve gone up in smoke.  (Pun intended.)  And Kio Cyr both looks and sounds like the humble tagalong who’s happy to simply remain in Michal’s orbit though secretly pining for something more.  It is surprising that the two fail to ‘hook up’ (given the state of collegiate affairs these days), and maybe the two could’ve graduated to a screen couple if Fate hadn’t intervened.
 
But can I make just one more observation?
 
As I’ve often opined on SciFiHistory.Net, even the smallest films sometimes birth the brightest ideas, and there’s a nugget of something special I saw trapped inside Puppetman worth mentioning.  Wouldn’t it be great to see the film’s small-town detective – played by genre regular Michael Paré – and the small-town psychic a regular screen team?  Granted, neither player gets a lot of screen time here, but both players show up and efficiently hit their marks.  If Puppetman returns – and there’s certainly the suggestion that not all is said and done here – then I, for one, am hoping these two are back in action.  Clearly, he’s the just-the-facts ‘Dana Scully’ to her the-truth-is-out-there ‘Fox Mulder,’ and the pairing kinda/sorta smoldered for me in just the right way.  If not here, then bring ‘em back in a feature all of their own – it could be a small screen franchise, if you ask me – and the sky’s the limit.
 
The Puppetman (2023) was produced by Not The Funeral Home.  From what I can tell via some online resources, the film is presently only available via streaming on the Shudder platform.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to Clayton Moore’s cinematography were quite good, definitely keeping in mind aesthetics that go hand-in-hand with Horror.  As for the special features?  Given the fact that I viewed this one via streaming, there were no associated special features to view and/or review.
 
Recommended, but …
 
While The Puppetman (2023) provokes a fabulously dour small-town atmosphere that serves as a strong backdrop for this spectral tale of otherworldly intervention, the script suffers here-and-there from horrific sequences that seem to break the film’s loosely established rules.  They’re great thrills and chills, but viewers who watch closely might spend more time questioning the how’s and why’s when all that really matters here are the wow’s (!!!).  Still, relative newcomer Alyson Gorske’s central performance elevates some otherwise routine plotting; and the pairing of Caryn Richman and screen veteran Michael Paré deserves an X-Files-like spin-off.
 
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to The Puppetman for the expressed purposes of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

​In 1998, director Hideo Nakata and Toho Company delivered one of the better Chiller/Thrillers of the year (if not all of the 1990’s) when Ringu created a viral sensation – before viral sensations were a legitimate thing – that helped put Eastern Horror flicks on the cultural map.
 
In it, a reporter and her husband raced against time to save themselves once they realized they had viewed a cursed videotape that promised to deliver them to Death’s Door seven days after watching it.  Writers Hiroshi Takahashi and Kôji Suzuki’s both ably handled suspense and character development within the ticking clock construct, allowing audiences to go along for the ride while peeling back the layers of the mystery surrounding the tape and its disturbing imagery.  The end result was a cultural phenomenon that led to sequels, remakes, and imitators, but none of them truly matched the narrative power of the original.
 
But our collective fascination with comparable urban legends has been the footing for many a good film franchise, and now we can add a little ‘something something’ titled Elevator Game to the list.  While it lacks the complexity and emotional weight of Ringu, it does present viewers with glimpse into a dark place – the Red World – just beyond our reach unless we’re willing to risk it all, follow some simple rules (like ‘don’t look at the Fifth Floor Woman’), and breach that barrier between reality and what lies beyond.
 
As you might guess, someone decides ‘wouldn’t it be fun to try,’ and – of course – it turns out to be a young’uns.  Not one but several internet ghostbusters embark on the shared journey – all for the benefit of hits and clicks to their online channel – entering a nightmare they never thought possible.  Will they make it out alive?  Will they undo the fabric of the universe?  And – most importantly – can they keep their only video sponsor?
 
Only time will tell …
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Supernatural Horror, based on the eponymous online phenomenon, a ritual conducted in an elevator, in which players attempt to travel to another dimension using a set of rules that can be found online.”
 

The Crew
As per IMDB.com, Game shows directing duties were assumed by Rebekah McKendry, a name I recognized albeit I couldn’t quite remember from where.
 
A quick glance over her resume shows a work history largely (at this point) owed to both producer responsibilities alongside directing.  It looks like her first time fully behind-the-camera for features was 2018’s holiday-themed Horror/SciFi All The Creatures Were Stirring for FallBack Plan Productions, an independent outfit from California.  Interestingly enough, FallBack debut film – Absentia (2011) – is an exceeding well-done Horror I’ve seen and reviewed back in my Amazon.com Top 1,000 Reviewer days; I’m not sure that I have this one available on SciFiHistory.Net so I might need to do some searching to recover it for posterity’s sake.  But I believe I recognized McKendry’s name most likely for her contributions to bringing 2022’s Glorious to life.  I had wanted to see this much-advertised Horror headlined by Ryan Kwanten and J.K. Simmons, but I apparently wasn’t on the advanced screening lists at that time.
 
As for her work here?
 
Meh.  It’s sometimes hard to make much of some directing efforts in the world of Horror features as so much of what makes the film work is both the narrative foundation and whatever visual trickery gets infused in the production process.  As frights go, Game is pretty meager, almost razor thin with respect to gruesome effects and/or atmospheric delights.  Although much ado is made in the script about the potential behind the ‘Red World,’ once we’re delivered there I’m at a loss as to see why it is all that elusive after all.  In fact, the place only seems to have a single resident (i.e. the Fifth Floor Woman), everything is chromatically tinted red (for pretty obvious effect), and a fabulously under-used kinda/sorta flaming cross lighting the night sky.  Those watching closely will understand perfectly where this light comes from, and it’s probably the feature’s best reveal, especially considering how frightless everything else in here truly is.  So let’s just chalk up McKendry’s performance here as ‘serviceable.’
 
IMDB.com notes that Game’s script is attached to David Ian McKendry (I smell nepotism! I kid, I kid …) and Travis Seppala.  Respectfully, Seppala’s apparently fairly new to the screenwriting gig (he has a few shorts listed on the profile, but this film and 2023’s Captive appear to be his big break into features).  David Ian is, in fact, the director’s spouse; and his resume shows the aforementioned All The Creatures Were Stirring and Glorious as screen collaborations with his better half.
 
Without knowing where each writer’s contributions began and ended, it’s difficult to dish praise each appropriately and/or point fingers.  The strength to an idea like Game presents – that being a modern era urban legend drawing the attention to those risk-taking vloggers – is that there’s likely a built-in audience who can grasp both the concept and its execution easily.  Essentially, the exercise looks to prove or disprove the existence of this other reality, and no thought is put into the whole ‘what happens if we prove it’ aspect.  However, there’s a mile-wide downside to it that plagued me until the latter half: what’s the purpose of playing a game wherein both winning and losing look to reward participants with death?  These players rather dumbly – if not profoundly dumbly – go about the business of messing with All Things Strangeness without knowing precisely how to turn things off (and you knew they’d need to turn things off eventually).  Is the big takeaway here nothing more than to demonstrate to audiences that we’ve raised a generation of thrill-seekers who don’t give a damn about their own lives?  The fact that there is a way to (allegedly) close the bridge once it’s opened proves otherwise, and maybe – just maybe – we all should’ve known that going in.  Granted, it would’ve made for a shorter picture, but that may not have been a bad thing.
​

The Cast
 
As a critic, it isn’t always to review a film boasting almost entirely a young cast because – on the face of it – it’s fairly obvious that none of the players will likely display a level of maturity that suggests what they’ve doing might be a very bad idea.  I think that’s one of the reasons – since Horror’s inception – these films have always focused on less-seasoned characters.  In fact, the arrival of the more world-weary types usually bodes well for all involved (audiences, too) as it signals that finally there’s a potential voice of reason which might put us on a path toward an effective conclusion.  That doesn’t happen in Game, but – once again – I suspect the flick’s core demographic wouldn’t have it any other way.
 
To the feature’s strength, it’s largely an ensemble piece.  One of the big values to crafting screen stories this way is that each and every player not only suffers the shortcomings of their weakest talent but also reaps the benefits of the strongest; consequently, there’s a solid equilibrium to the group performance here, and no one comes off looking like … well … screen fodder (until they’re effectively reduced to screen fodder by the script, that is).
 
The biggest praise gets dished to Verity Marks.  In the guise of ‘Chloe Young,’ she fills out the kinda/sorta everyman role – or what most closely looks like one in the whole adventure.  As the resident researcher behind this vlog/group’s escapades, she both is a mover and a shaker here, delivering the exposition necessary to let her peers and the audience understand what’s going on.  Though she deals with a lot of facts, she never quite lets any of them get in the away of her spirit of discovery; so it’s easy to appreciate and identify with what she does at each step along the way.  Also, Gino Anania – as ‘Ryan Keaton’ – makes for a convincing male counterpart to share in the mischief.  While I think the script didn’t quite know what to do with him in the first half (without spoiling too much, he operates from a somewhat hidden agenda that fuels the film’s main premise), the actor proves himself capable of delivering more than just a few clever, confused faces while eavesdropping on the group’s business talk from an adjacent room in the set-up.
​
The Bottom Line
 
Without making too much of this, I think it’s safe to conclude that this particular Game looks and works very much like any reasonably-budgeted thriller from the heydays of home video.  It doesn’t break any barriers – as I suggested above, it’s structurally somewhat derivative of some vastly superior rights not unlike Ringu – and it goes about its business of putting the young, restless, and uninitiated through some efficient though predictable scares.  Its risks are, sadly, somewhat safe bets; and nothing in here ever quite rises to the level necessary to make it anything greater than a mildly effective diversion.  It’s forgettable … but you’ll likely have fun with it while watching.
 
What’s sad about it is that with a bit more time, effort, cash, and (most importantly) story, it could easily have raised the bar a notch or two for what was achievable with an origins-style Horror.  I’ve always been a fan of somewhat ‘bare bones’ production, even downright guerilla-style storytelling, especially when it only tells you enough of a story to leave you wanting more.  While Game looks very affordable, it just never makes me fear its beyond enough at any stop along its merry way; as a result, its characters truly end up looking more brainless than they do reckless, and I invest very little in their survival as a consequence.  When I don’t care whether they make it out alive or not, there’s very little prospect I’ll recall even seeing this one this time next year.
​

Even worse, because there’s nothing eternally frightening about the Red World – much less the creepy, crawly Fifth Floor Woman – I’m struggling to even figure out how someone found this alternate existence in the first place.  Did they stumble onto it by merely punching elevator buttons in this precise order, or was this nothing more than an old wives’ tale that somehow turned out to be true?  And given the fact that whoever did find the place likely didn’t live to tell about it, how in the Holy Hell did the rest of us find out about it?
 
See what I mean?  Too many questions spoil the thrill.
 
Elevator Game (2023) was produced by Fearworks, Buffalo Gal Pictures, Head Gear Films, Manitoba Film & Music, and Metrol Technology.  From what I’ve been able to find online, the project is viewable either on Shudder or is available for purchase from Amazon’s Prime Video.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds provided were pretty exceptional; there’s clearly not an awful lot that’s been expended on production details here – the sets are only occasionally colorful but have an almost TV grade quality to them at times – but it works well enough to tell the story.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I watched this one entirely via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
 
Recommended.
 
Elevator Game is the kind of visual exercise that really only works because it pits a bunch of inexperienced youngsters willing to do something downright stupid against the world of the Supernatural … and you pretty much grasp going in that not everyone is going to get out alive.  Much like its cast of characters relish the opportunity to come face-to-face with a brush with death, so does an audience vicariously, albeit we’re doing the same from the comfort of our own home.  However, this script could’ve used a bit more polish – its world-building never quite rises to the required heights here, and I’m left wondering what all the fuss was about.  The fact that it ends with nothing more than the promise of a sequel also cheapens the thrill, making this one feel a bit too much like a cash grab for whatever spectators are willing to give it a whirl.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Elevator Game (2023) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this view.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ