Ouch.  This hurts.

Readers, as I do try to caution each of you from this space when the time is appropriate, cherish the time you have with our onscreen talent.  None of them lasts forever, and you never known when you're going to wake up one day only to find that we've lost another one.

Arleen Sorkin was born in 1955.  A quick look at her IMDB.com resume might suggest that -- curious -- she didn't have all that many screen credits.  In fact, one might conclude that a scant thirty-two different citations wasn't all that much ... but oh how wrong that would be for those of us who loved one of the greatest creations of Batman villainy to come down the pike in the last few decades?  Sorkin voiced the cheesily nefarious Harley Quinn for the better part of the lady's animated life, and nothing in live action -- including the very good turn by Barbie superstar Margot Robbie -- really touches the same level of greatness.  Sorkin was there in those early days, and with her sharp characterization definitely helped lift what could've been a maudlin sidekick to the Joker to the level of respect and admiration it deserved.

​Our very warmest thoughts and prayers are extended today to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Sorkin.  May she forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Can you feel it, folks?  Can you actually feel it?  That little tickle deep down in your heart is what's called 'Friday,' and it's finally here after waiting so patiently for it to arrive.  You did it.  You made it through another fun-filled week, and now you can start thinking about the weekend!  Woohoo!

Me?  Oh, thanks for asking.  I believe that the wifey and I have a screening of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith on tap for Saturday if we can squeeze it in.  She has an errand or two she needs to run for work and/or her volunteer work, but we'll definitely be experiencing the fall of Anakin Skywalker at some point.  It's our destiny.

And speaking of Star Wars ... how about that (cough cough) Ahsoka?  Yeah.  Yeah.  I've reviewed the first two installments on the MainPage here.  It's tough sometimes because -- being a fan -- you want to have good things to say about a property.  (No, no, no: I'm not even suggesting shilling, folks, and you should know me better than that.)  But because Star Wars is near and dear to me I want to be able to say, "Yeah, this is great," but it's just so tepid in so many ways.  The comfort factor is there in a few places, but the pacing and performances are a bit stilted.  I've also listened to a fair handful of podcast reviews (fanboy-type stuff, not media pundits whom I typically avoid), and the general consensus seems would seem to suggest that Ahsoka is a bit of a creative misfire.  I think those who've called it a 'dumpster fire' are being a bit harsh: some of the questions they raise could very well be answered in the coming episodes (that's why I'm occasionally slow to review episodic TV), but I do agree that newcomers might find themselves a bit lost here and there.  I hate saying "it is what it is" but "it is what it is."

​Also on tap for the day: I see that on this day all the way back in 1988, DC Comics published the first installment in what would prove to be a somewhat controversial Batman story with "A Death In The Family."  For those unawares, Death was a bit of a creative experiment for DC, as they were printing a serial event that might or might not result in the demise of a certain Jason Todd (the second person to fill the shoes and cape of Batman's sidekick Robin).  I say "might or might not" because DC actually allowed readers to phone in their votes (the internet wasn't around yet, kids), and the storytellers were going to allow fandom to decide the superhero's fate.  I was a very faithful Batman reader at that time, and -- while I could appreciate what the publisher was trying to do -- I can say that I and the fellow readers of the store I frequented weren't all that impressed with the campaign.  Why have customers dictate the storyline?  Why not just have a great story to tell and then tell it, readers be damned?  Well ... Jason Todd died (or did he?), and the rest is history ... which can always be rewritten and/or unwritten as we may or may not now know.
​
Lastly, warmest of Happy Birthday wishes are extended to the late Michael Rennie (of 1951's landmark Science Fiction film The Day The Earth Stood Still) and Sean Connery (of the James Bond franchise and more).  Truth be told, Connery isn't my favorite Bond -- calm down, haters -- but that's only because I really grew up on Roger Moore.  I think Connery's work is grand; I just have to give a nod to Moore for nostalgia's sake.  So sue me.

Ok, that's all I've got at the moment.  Here's what you really came here for ...
​

Folks, please please please do me a solid and share this post on the socials?  Seriously -- as I've mentioned before -- you wouldn't believe how my readership multiplies each time that happens.  It's astounding how many folks find the place via a 'Share' or a 'Like.'  I can't explain it.  It's just fantastic, that's all.

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

​-- EZ

True story, folks: there are risks inherent to telling any story.
 
The best storytellers have learned a thing or two about managing those risks.  When to divulge something to the audience is arguably as important at times as what’s being divulged: giving up the ghost too soon could result in a bit of confusion or wasting what could’ve been an even grander reveal for later in the narrative.  This doesn’t mean in any way that I’m opposed to the occasional loose ends, unanswered questions, and/or twist endings; rather, it’s merely a statement of fact, a cautionary tip to those spinning yarns that it helps knowing when it’s right to tell viewers information versus showing it to them.  Hollywood is very good at one thing, and not so good at others: can you tell which is which?
 
Now, Ahsoka is in the best hands it could possibly be in.  Dave Filoni knows more about this particular iteration of the mythology than probably does anyone.  The upside to this is that he should be able to put the pieces together in such a way that all of an unfolding series functions properly.  The downside is that his familiarity might occasionally have him using shorthand that not everyone in the viewing audience understands.
 
This is where I think Ahsoka’s second episode – “Part Two: Toil And Trouble” – is.  The audience is trapped at a narrative crossroads where we’re probably struggling a bit with what we know versus what we don’t.  I’m not sure that this bodes well for the future of the franchise – has it grown too cumbersome with the adherence to canon, or are the showrunners concealing a bigger endgame for fear of spoiling the brew – but answers had better start dropping a bit more quickly, lest Star Wars perish in the resulting doom and gloom.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessarily solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of person 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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Ahsoka and General Hera Syndulla travel to New Republic shipyards and make an unexpected discovery.”
 
So … right after the conclusion of “Part Two: Toil And Trouble” and the curiously-sounding ‘Game Of Thrones knock-off’ end music began to play, the wifey turned to me and asked, “Well, what did you think of that episode?”
 
To my utter surprise, I felt absolutely nothing.  I had – literally – nothing to say.  For all of the flash and sizzle and all of the pomp and circumstance, this second installment – the very one that had so many online critics saying was better than the first part – just felt flat.  Unimportant.  Uninvolved.  A bit of set-up here, and no payoff in the investment there.  Some interesting characters added to the mix, but they end the less-than-hour incarcerated … so?
 
And I told my wife: “I seriously have nothing to say about it.”

I’ve made the observation more than a few times in my life that I often struggle with storytellers’ vanity projects.  While some of them have been quite good, I inevitably see a bit or two wrapped up in them that confuse me; and I’ve suggested that I think these auteurs could benefit from working alongside another creative in the production and execution process precisely because sometimes an entirely impartial set of eyes might spot some deficiencies more quickly can the maker who has a greater personal investment in a story being told a certain way … with specific scenes … and charted out efficiency.
 
That’s where I’m at with Ahsoka.
 
Sadly, I’ve no real investment (yet) with these characters.  Oh, they’re doing good work – this is not a complaint about their respective interpretations and/or deliveries: this is about the weakness of the narrative and the fact that I’m being given little substantive reason to care about their individual and/or collective fates.  If I don’t care – if I minimally don’t have that smallest of emotional investments – then I don’t find the journey they’re taking me on significant much less interesting.  As they’re (cough cough) marquee names, I know that they’re not going to be killed off and/or sacrificed at this point in the process, so it’s hard to even get nervous about the risks they’re taking … unless I’m given more.
 
We’ve no functional idea why Morgan Elsbeth (played by Diana Lee Inosanto) desires a reunion with Grand Admiral Thrawn.  We’ve no functional idea how she convinced Baylan Skoll (Ray Stevenson) to join up with her in this undefined quest.  We’ve no idea why a former Jedi – a fallen Jedi? A dark jedi? A sith? – would collaborate with a known enemy to the New Republic, an organization he likely originally pledged to serve.  We’ve no idea how and/or why Skoll has an apprentice (‘Shin Hati’ as played by Ivanna Sakhno) and why the two of them are apparently so evil and/or bloodthirsty.  We’ve no idea why or how Tano thinks that finding Ezra Bridger might somehow avert an all-new outbreak of galactic violence.  We’ve no idea why Sabine Wren is hellbent on recovering Ezra as well except for maybe rekindling the familial bonds.  We’ve no idea why it is that the New Republic can’t seem to keep anyone behind bars.  We’ve no idea where any of this is, ultimately, going … do we?
 
So … in the absence of any information, I’m left with feeling – literally – no attachment to any of this.
 
Oh, it’s well produced.  It looks good.  It sounds good.  The details are top notch, there’s no argument there.  As I said in my review of episode one, Filoni is a bit of a Jedi Master at cultivating an aesthetic that looks part and parcel of that galaxy far, far away.  While I’m not quite won over with his ability to pick up and carry the torch for this universe, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief and give him an honest chance … but, seriously, is this the best he can do?  This story is flat when it’s not confusing, and unless there are some A-N-S-W-E-R-S coming very soon – answers that both support and further the narrative in a way that’s enriching – I’ve now got a bad feeling about this.
 
As I alluded to above, some of these shortcomings may result from the fact that Filoni’s firsthand knowledge of the people and places he’s crafted might be working against him with the audience here.  Juggling the established canon and putting characters through their paces is never an easy task, and “Toil And Trouble” – with its rather obvious allusions to Shakespeare – feels like its trying to portray an epic scale to all of this that I’m just not seeing, not matter how hard it tries.  It’s a square peg, and the writing is trying to force it into a round whole.  Were there more substance present – or if there were a clearer sense of directions and motivations – it might not feel this disconnected.
 
And yet … it does.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one to provide a review of Star Wars: Ahsoka streaming series as I’m presently a subscriber to Disney+ … which might be changing in the future as their programming has really gotten a bit stale.

-- EZ

​I’ve been told that the name of filmmaker Lucio Fulci might conjure up an awful lot of different reactions from fans of his work, but the single unifying thread around which the man built his career would apparently be his commitment to bringing some of filmdom’s best gore to the silver screen.
 
A summation of his career suggests that he was active for an incredible five decades, during which time he worked in the genres of Comedy, Dramas, Thrillers, Westerns, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror … but unless I miss my guess it would seem that he’s most remembered for Horror.  Even his biography on IMDB.com suggests that his career truly kicked into high gear in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s surrounding the completion and release of what’s been called his ‘Gates Of Hell’ Trilogy (per Wikipedia.org) which included City Of The Living Dead (1980), The Beyond (1981), and The House By The Cemetery (1981).  I can say that – having read a good deal about Giallo-style Horror – Fulci’s name alongside 1980’s City come up an inordinate number of times, so I’m glad that I’ve finally been able to absorb one of his masterpieces thanks to my contacts with Cauldron Films.
 
However, I’m going to divulge right up front that when it comes to Italian Horror I’m neither an expert nor a diehard fan.  Generally speaking, I’ve found many flicks more unintentionally humorous at times when methinks I’m supposed to be aghast in my seat.  I do recognize the skills and talent and intestinal fortitude required to bring a bit of blood, guts, and brains to (cough cough) life on the silver screen; and I have nothing but respect for those good old days wherein practical effects ruled.  These artisans went to great lengths to make a brain yanked out of a human head look authentic, and that’s gotta count for something.  My issue is usually that the stories almost feel secondary to the celebrated bloodletting, and I do prefer a bit more substance than most of what was explored in this grim titles.
 
(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:
“A reporter and a psychic race to close the Gates Of Hell after the suicide of a clergyman caused them to open, allowing the dead to rise from their graves.”
 

​It’s not always easy to write about film.
 
While some might disagree, I’ve never been a shill.  Oh, I may enjoy a flick more than the next bloke; and – as a consequence – I might encourage more to see a B-Movie or some direct-to-DVD project, but I only do that when I find the level of enjoyment and appreciation both notable and worth sharing with the reading audience.  Honestly, folks: I get nothing in return for putting my two cents out there in cyberspace.  I’m not compensated for anything that I pony up.  I do this for the love of the experience, and I hope that always shows.
 
But when I have to go about the uncomfortable business of dismantling popular myths that have surrounded a popular commodity?  Well, yes, that does get a bit daunting at times … and that’s what I have to do today: despite everything you’ve read and/or heard, Fulci’s City Of The Living Dead is very little more than a visually visceral encounter with some of filmdom’s most dubious zombies … and even that’s saying something.
 
As a fan of practice effects work, I certainly give props to the filmmaker and his cast and crew.  There are a handful of sequences involving the re-animated dead that work nicely, but still even for an 80’s incarnation of zombiehood this one is occasionally half-baked.  In one segment, it looks like little more than colored pasta has been mushed all over the actress’ pretty face; and – especially for this development – I’m left wondering why?  Is this supposed to resemble maggots?  Or what happened to this otherwise lovely dead lady in life to leave only her face in such a curious state?  And now how am I ever supposed to eat pasta comfortably again?
 
Also, City feels like an incomplete whole.  No character gets fully introduced – they’re more like chess pawns being moved around a board than they are real people – and this gives much of the production a feeling of artificiality.  Unless I completely missed it (which is possible), I’m left wondering why the central priest committed suicide in the first place, the act that apparently sets all of this affair into motion.  Sadly, it’s never given wider context – other than to serve as the catalyst for Hell being opened up – and, thus, City feels a bit lacking.  Some of this may be owed to the fact that Fulci’s film is only the beginning to a trilogy; and, if that’s the case, then so be it.  Each chapter should still function independently with its own strengths and weaknesses, and this one just doesn’t.
 
And – as long as I’m on the point – what’s with the big finish?
 
We’re told that the gate can be closed, and our characters go about the task of seeing it shut necessarily.  However, once they emerge from the underground, they’re met by a happy John-John – the youngster they saved earlier – who comes running to them … only for the screen to freeze, visually crack, and a frightened scream curdles the audience’s blood!  So … what happened?  Did they die?  If so … why?  What killed them?  Was the gate left open, or were there zombies left outside of Hell even in the aftermath?  The film gives absolutely zero explanation, and I suspect Fulci scripted it this way not so that there’d be any ambiguity but rather the obvious hint that there’s more to come.  As I said, this destroys any prospect of City working on its own merits, and I wonder if it fostered only more confusion than it did anything else.
 

Functionally, City does have a nice aesthetic.  There’s a bit of doom and gloom – all of it shrounded in a pervasive fog – everywhere that the camera looks, and Fulci imbues the feature with a bit of unpredictability that also serves the story well.  1981’s Dead & Buried (from director Gary Sherman) did this exceedingly well: in that chiller, a small coastal shipping village hid a dark secret regarding a populace that was (similarly) less than human, and the camerawork went to great pains to amp up the tension while keeping reality just out of reach and/or focus.  Thematically, City feels like it could be in that same territory – there’s vastly more that we don’t know than we ever do – and I can’t help but wonder if these two villages aren’t part and parcel of the same map.  Who knows?  Maybe they’re twin cities!  But Sherman provided a definitive answer to the madness in his quarters that Fulci plainly ignores, making his the lesser of two evils in more ways than one.
 
Still … if you’re a fan of seeing a person’s brain ripped out of their head?  Why, you’ll be giddy with delight on more than a single occasion!  It’s deliciously gruesome – just as it should be – and such gore appears to be all that Fulci intended.  On that front, he achieves nothing short of legendary status.
 
City Of The Living Dead (1980) was produced by Dania Film, Medusa Distribuzione, and National Cinematografica.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Cauldron Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds were very, very good: some sequences are captured in darkness, and they’re curiously photographed, so a bit of discomfort or disillusion was likely intended.  Also, Fulci makes incessant use of some throbbing music that can be equally offputting; rest assured that I think this was exactly what he wanted.
 
Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Holy mother of dragons, you’d better buckle up!  The disc boasts an incredible four separate commentary tracks (only one of which, I believe, is all-new, but still … four?!), a few interview shorts, a Q&A session, making of featurettes, an image gallery, theatrical trailers and more.  Seriously, I don’t know what else they could’ve stuffed onto these discs; it’s an astounding collection, and I suspect I’ll be spending a goodly amount of time with it in the days ahead.
 
Mildly recommended.
 
This isn’t to suggest – in any way – that there’s no market for the level of schlock inherent within 1980’s City Of The Living Dead because there is, there always has been, and there likely always will be.  At best, Fulci’s flick is probably one of the more impressive B-Movie chillers to come out of the storyteller’s library … but the list of flaws keep it from being memorable to me on any other level than schlock, if I’m being honest.  There’s far more left unsaid than said, and this makes it an incredibly uneven experience when you try to get beyond its visual appeal.  Mark my words: my opinion may not sit well with many of you … but – as the saying goes – “it is what it is.”  Either you’re a fan or you’re not.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Cauldron Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD of City Of The Living Dead (1980) 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 Thursday, gentle readers!  Here's hoping you're up and at it on this lovely, lovely, lovely day.  Never lose sight of the fact that the big weekend is only right around the corner!  It'll be here before you know it.

Well, well, well ... not a whole lot to report today on the casual front.  I did spend a good portion of yesterday running a few errands along with a medical appointment I had mentioned.  And it looks like I'll have another visit in the future.  Again (for those who've asked): no, no, and no, I don't believe it's anything serious, but I've still got a few steps to go through just to be absolutely certain.  Don't let it trouble yourselves as I'm really not allowing it to trouble me.  I just have a condition which from time-to-time causes an issue or two, and it has to be dealt with by folks with the proper skills.  (Of course, that makes it sound like I'm working with Liam Neeson in Taken, so let's leave it at that.  Haha!)

I am working on my review for Lucio Fulci's City Of The Living Dead (1980) that I should have up later today.  I'm well on my way through it, so it's just about finishing it up, finalizing my point on the flick, and the like.  So, yes, please watch this space.

Looking at the page for August 24th, I think the big ticket item -- at least, so far as yours truly is concerned -- was the theatrical launch of Fantastic Voyage.  If you haven't seen this one, then you are missing something special.  It's one of the first films to take a look at functional miniaturization for the purposes of medical emergencies -- that's a vast oversimplification of the premise, but it works -- and it definitely boasts some interesting special effects of the era.  It's always interesting to see what they did with less back in the day, and Voyage still makes for a great story with only a few unintended chuckles here and there.  Plus ... Raquel Welch?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Hello!

​Second in line for my attention would be the birth of the late Kenny Baker.  As you know (or should know, dammit), Baker was tasked with operating Star Wars' finest droid ever -- R2-D2 -- and did a masterful job helping to bring that fussy little astromech to life on the silver screen and beyond.  His name will likely always be synonymous with Star Wars, and I can only hope that fact alone will always bring a smile to his face ... no matter where he might be today.

But ... as you like ... here's the big deal ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... please please please share and like all the posts you see fit at each and every opportunity ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Under SciFiHistory.Net’s ‘Monsters Of A Sort’ category heading, I take a look at features that kinda/sorta dabble into sensibilities very close to (if not downright demonstrative of) Film Noir and/or the unconventional screen mystery.  Despite maintaining a heavy (and near constant) diet of genre projects, I’m not always satiated by just SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror; so I do like – from time-to-time – to add a little substance from these other realms.  It helps to widen my perspective.  It helps to cleanse the palate.  It keeps me fresh … and a ‘fresh me’ is good for all of you, my faithful readers.
 
Today’s distraction?  A very melodramatic Film Noir that answers to the name Outrage.
 
According to IMDB.com, Outrage was directed by renowned industry mover-and-shaker Ida Lupino, a talented lady who got her start in front of the camera before going behind it.  As a storyteller, she marshaled an incredible forty-two different projects to screens big and small while still managing to act in well over one hundred different ones.  Outrage’s script is credited to Lupino along with Collier Young and Malvin Wald.  Also, it bears mentioning that in 2020 the flick was inducted into the U.S.’s National Film Registry, the organization tasked with securing and maintaining prints of motion pictures deemed to have demonstrated cultural, historical, or aesthetic contributions to film.  That alone speaks volumes about Outrage’s quality, though I’ll admit up front that I found this one a bit undercooked (in performances) so far as my particular sensibilities align.
 
As per my usual format, the film’s synopsis appears below.  My two cents on its construction follow.
 
(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:
“A young woman who has just become engaged has her life completely shattered when she is raped while on her way home frow work.”
 
Full disclosure: I am not a woman.  More to the point: I am a man.
 
Consequently, I’m also disclosing that – entirely because of my gender – I’ve been cautioned on more than a single occasion to (cough cough) watch what I say about women’s issues.
 
So … consider yourself warned.  If a man talking about the subject of rape isn’t in your wheelhouse, then I’d encourage you one last time to go elsewhere.
 
Outrage is a slow-burning pressure cooker that deals surprisingly respectfully with the topic of rape, its aftermath, and its long-term consequences.  Without a doubt, Ann Walton (as played by the great Mala Powers) never asked for what happened to her as well as what continues to affect her life and choices well after the original event; and kudos to all involved with spinning a compelling personal story while avoiding some of the typical cliches populating ‘issue pictures’ throughout the ages.  Instead of succumbing to obvious and easy tearjerker antics, Director Lupino keeps the focus almost exclusively on Ann’s inner turmoil and just how it metastasizes outwardly no matter how big or small a trigger might appear.  Given that a good deal of this rests of Powers’ shoulders, the film deserves a bit of praise for both sticking to the point as well as sticking its landing.
​

Thankfully, Outrage doesn’t descend into preachiness or histrionics that pervades so many of today’s releases of similar subject matter.  For example, Reverend Bruce Ferguson (Tod Andrews) is introduced and gets to maintain his ‘good Samaritan’ status from start-to-finish in this 1950’s picture; today’s activist auteurs would more likely have branded him with some nefarious background or have him blindly complicit with ‘toxic masculinity’ all of his own.  Instead, what Outrage ultimately delivers is a tale of two souls whom life has broken in no small or uncertain ways; they find one another platonically and manage to stay on that path despite what I’m sure was the Hollywoodization that pushed for a perfect ending.  In life, there are no perfect endings, and it’s refreshing to see that sometimes love means putting another person on the proper path and letting them go the rest of the way alone.  That’s what a true steward would do, and Ferguson does this no matter the cost to his soul or his faith.
 
Still, a good deal of Outrage feels a bit too formulaic.  Because the script from this era couldn’t get into all of the authentic details, Ann is a bit apt to see devils where there are none; and few (if any) of these folks are ever allowed to demonstrate that they – like the reverend – were simply trying to do what they thought was best for all concerned.  As a consequence of this limited perspective, some in the viewing audience may suspect our leading lady went too frequently to that living with fear and/or shame when perhaps a victim’s emotions could’ve been something else, maybe frustration or downright anger.  Alas, I suspect the moral codes shackling films of the bygone era may’ve kept this one from tackling our victim’s reality with the authenticity it deserved.
 
But none of those reservations should dismiss the potential of what’s done exceptional well in here.  Lupino and her cast and crew manage to stage an event never deeply explored in such a way as to suggest a measure of detail as well as posit the psychology of both the hunted and the hunter.  It’s the kind of picture that retains an educational quality, giving substance to a difficult topic in such a way as to make it relatable to anyone and perhaps even be used to start a complex discussion.  Yes, it has some of the usual melodrama tied to its day; and yet I wouldn’t let that stand in the way of giving it a thumbs up.
 
Outrage (1950) was produced by The Filmakers (1950).  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds provided by this all-new 4K scan of the 35mm Fine Grain were very, very good; as usual, there are a few bits of grain here and there, but all-in-all it’s a very good remastering.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The disc boasts an audio commentary by film historian Sara Smith.
 
Recommended.
 
Though the performances of its players might seem a bit dated, there’s still no denying that Outrage’s message starts on point and stays there all the way to the bittersweet ending: trauma is very real, and it can lead a broken soul down many unpredictable paths.  Such is the Ann Walton’s dilemma: her loss of identity – and the loss of control over her life – forces her to abandon all of those who loved her in favor of total strangers, and it’s in their company that she can ultimately confront the demon that troubles her waking mind.  Love takes many shapes in this crazy world, but it’s only a mature and penitent heart that can set a spirit free and allow it to ultimately land where it rightfully should.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Outrage (1950) 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

I’m occasionally guilty of overthinking a property.
 
Some of this is owed to the way I try to approach each and every property: I strive to give it as much of an independent critical examination as I can, trying to dismiss any preconceived notions and/or expectations I might have owed to what I’ve read or seen previously.  That isn’t always easy – especially when you’re dealing with an ever-expanding universe like Star Wars provides – but I do believe that series and films do need to be evaluated entirely independently of what’s come before: audience goodwill can only stretch so far, and when the producers take fans of the material for granted the end result can be a mixed bag.
 
So … Star Wars: Ahsoka does have the benefit of – unlike the Sequel Trilogy (to a degree) – of having an incredible well of material upon which writer/director Dave Filoni can draw upon.  Added to the fact that he’s known as the creator of not only Ahsoka Tano but also many within this program he’s developed and finally delivered, one might expect that he could conceivably “knock this one out of the park” right from the get-go.  Well, I’m here to assure you that – so far as this longtime Star Wars junkie is concerned – this first episode is a very respectable launch.  It may not have everything that fandom comes to expect, but it is about as efficient an introduction (and a welcome return) to Filoni’s corner of that galaxy far, far away as might have been possible.
 
(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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A valuable prisoner escapes New Republic custody; a search for answers reunites two old friends.”
 
Launching a new series with an already established character can be a huge, huge, huge risk.
 
For starters, a storyteller risks offending the audience previously familiar with the character by moving a bit too slowly for the benefit of newcomers.  That’s the biggest risk out of the gate for Ahsoka, but I think putting the commodity into the capable hands of longtime Star Wars TV scribe Dave Filoni (Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Star Wars Rebels, Star Wars: The Bad Batch, Star Wars Resistance, and The Mandalorian) is a bet worth taking … and, thankfully, Disney+ has agreed.  While I could get into a debate with readers of this space (new and old) as to whether or not an audience was clamoring for an Ahsoka series, I’ll set that aside for another day.  My bottom line is that she’s a character known mostly to serious fans and not the casual viewer, but – as I said – we’ll let that sleeping Mynock lie.
​

What works chiefly in this new episode is often what I’ve called the ‘Familiar Factor.’  Ahsoka looks and sounds and feels at home within the wider Star Wars universe, granting it what should be an almost immediate appeal to anyone tuning in.  It has X-Wings, lightsabers, Jedi, the New Republic, a fallen Empire, and a few other attributes going for it; and Filoni manages to weave a mostly compelling web involving a lost friend, a secret map, and a small team of baddies whose ultimate goals remain a bit elusive.  There are very, very, very clear heroes and villains – one of the property’s biggest strengths since it began all the way back in 1977 – and it’s this accessibility that should put most watchers at ease with this new incarnation.
 
Still … you folks know me all too well, and not everything is going to get that easy a pass.
 
In the central role of the heroic Tano, actress Rosario Dawson hasn’t quite found her footing yet.  While I’ll concede that she definitely milks the action well enough as an extension from what began Ahsoka’s signature fight moves from the animated series, I’m still not thrilled with the portrayal.  For those who missed it, Tano started out as a wild card, always with a quip; and then she was allowed to mature a bit more when her character moved from The Clone Wars to Star Wars Rebels.  But even then I wasn’t all that enamored with her polished maturity; in fact, I wondered at one point in Rebels whether or not she might have been operating from a hidden agenda mostly because the performance was a bit too adult.  A bit too polished.  Dawson is doing little more than continuing in this vein, so I’ll be watching to see whether or not she’ll given greater range or if Filoni is going to pigeon-hole this warrior into something resembling Obi-wan Kenobi of the Original Trilogy.
 
And – for that matter – Tano never quite achieved Jedi status.  She walked away from it, turning her back on the Jedi Order at the end of her arc in The Clone Wars.  As to what may’ve taken place after that time, there have been a sprinkling of hints onscreen and across fandom; and I hope this gets clarified.
 
Yes, yes, and yes: I’m aware of her development proposed during The Book Of Boba Fett.  Heck, I’m even aware of some of the theories out there in cyberspace suggesting that (cough cough) it may’ve been Tano who trained with or alongside Luke Skywalker in the OT timeframe and/or just after.  Until all of these particulars have been spelled out clearly onscreen, however, I’m apt to remain suspect.  Hopefully, viewers will be supplied with information that might just clear up Tano’s massive steps forward; and, hopefully, it’ll make sense with what we’ve all already come to know within this universe.
 
As for now?  Well, Tano has a stoicism that doesn’t sit well with me.  I can appreciate that she’s matured; she still seems a bit too emotionally detached for my tastes.
 
Actress Natasha Liu Bordizzo is the show’s other big star.  Filling out the shoes of Sabine Wren – an apparently Force-sensitive ‘padawan’ to Ahsoka who also walked away from training (or vice versa) – Bordizzo manages to smirk and smile a lot more than perhaps was expected in this first episode, showing hints of what Ahsoka herself was like in her early days as a character in this universe.  That may be narratively what Filoni is going with here – maybe Ahsoka saw a bit too much of herself in Sabine and that’s why the teacher/student relationship went sour – but we’ll have to see more in order to have that question answered.  Hopefully that, too, will be up for debate.
​

However – and, no, I’m not going to make too much of this, but it’s deserving of mention – why is it that lightsabers just aren’t all that deadly any longer?  In Star Wars, Obi-wan Kenobi was felled with a single stroke of Darth Vader’s saber; and Qui-Gon Jinn suffered the same fate in Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace.  But the Disney+ Star Wars shows have now had multiple characters stabbed through the gut with these famed weapons only to live to talk about it afterwards.  (Darth Maul was sliced in half, only to have Dave Filoni bring him back in The Clone Wars.)  Really?  I mean … really?  How far are we going to push this, Dave?  Is Baylon Skoll destined to be beheaded only to rise again the next time he and Ahsoka meet?  At some point, this needs to either stop or the Jedi need to come up with something a bit more definitive as their weapon of choice.
 
All of these points aside, I did experience one massive disappointment with the pilot episode.  I saved this for last because it does harken back to my familiarity with other Star Wars shows, so I thought it significant but not a central issue.
 
One of my personal joys in the wider galaxy far, far away are those characters who are not Force users.  Because they’re – say – less special and closer to ordinary folks, I think storytellers have to go to greater lengths to give each of them their own uniqueness.  For example, there’s a whole cadre of fans out there who worship at the trough of Wedge Antilles, and they do so because he’s a face that goes along with all of the Original Trilogy’s heroes entirely as a second fiddle.  His actual screen time is quite brief, but he still manages to represent the ‘Average Joe’ toiling out there between the forces of dark and light in Star Wars.  Similarly, Han Solo – about as far from a Force user as you can get in the Lucas-inspired property – is that cynical hotshot who thinks he knows everything about the world and more; despite not being able to stand toe-to-toe with Vader and Boba Fett, he still manages to give them a good run for their money.  This also speaks volumes to fans, giving them hope that they – with their own cynicism – can find a way to exist out there.
 
Aboard Star Wars Rebels, I saw this dynamic largely filled by the character of pilot and space captain Hera Syndulla; and she’s brought to life in Ahsoka by actress Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  Whereas in Rebels the very capable and very commanding Syndulla swept into the middle of any situation and knew precisely what to do about it (or made it by the seat of her Twi’lek pants), Winstead – a very, very, very respected and awarded talent – is given nearly nothing to do to stand around and look ‘alien’ much of the time.  It’s almost as if she’s only here because she’s visually different and a reminder that we’re in Star Wars territory (in case you missed it), and that’s a huge disservice both to the actress and (more importantly) to the character.  Hera even had to deal with an incredible heartache in Rebels – the loss of a loved one – and I can only hope and pray that Filoni has something more in store for her here than window dressing.  Sorry if I sound like I’m upset, but that’s damn near criminal in my mind.
 
Recommended.
 
It’s Star Wars, and as a longtime fan I feel somewhat obligated to give Star Wars: Ahsoka an endorsement … but it won’t be a ringing one.  Like so many of their Disney+ shows, this one has something to offer if you’re willing to sit through it, be patient, and don’t overthink it.  While I’m no huge fan of the character, there’s a comfort and familiarity to her situation and circumstances.  At this point, I’m hoping for it to improve, and maybe Filoni can prove that his first time at bat in the realm of live action storytelling is warranted.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one to provide a review of Star Wars: Ahsoka streaming series as I’m presently a subscriber to Disney+ … which might be changing in the future as their programming has really gotten a bit stale.

​-- EZ

(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:
“Centuries of reports of hair-covered creatures roaming Alaska have been uncovered. Yet, beyond the mysterious apelike animals that haunt the forests of the 49th state there exist numerous legends of horrific beings that blur the line between Bigfoot and something else. Something with a far darker agenda. Now, eyewitnesses and experts alike recount stories that will chill you to your bone. Stories that tie Bigfoot-like creatures to tales of mountain giants, and even missing people.”
 
Unlike many others, I don’t think one has to be an anthropologist, geneticist, or some other specialist to be fascinated with the topic of Bigfoot.
 
Frankly, they’re the stuff of legends from around the world as stories stretch back hundreds of years (into lore and beyond) of sightings and/or encounters with … well … with something big and hairy and unrecognizable.  I’m honestly a bit more surprised that experts haven’t invested the time and scholarship to explaining how there can be so many similar ‘myths’ from around the world which defy conventional explanation.  Even a cursory examination might suggest that something could be lurking in the wilds out there; if not Bigfoot, then what?  And why won’t civilized minds go to lengths necessary to provide an explanation that’s both reasonable and rationally?
 
That’s why I have so much respect for the folks like Seth Breedlove and Small Town Monsters.  They’re still trying to fill that gap between what’s known and unknown on a good handful of topics.  Instead of treating the folks who’ve experienced these sightings with the usual scorn and ridicule, they hear them out.  They collect data.  They continue to seek out and explore some of the more bizarre phenomena that mainstream outlets practically refuse to exist.  While that’s a sad commentary on our world-at-large, Breedlove and his collaborators deserve a modicum of respect for, at least, doing their due diligence with only the slim hope of uncovering the smoking gun.
 
Land Of The Missing plumbs the backwoods of Alaska, where literally thousands of people have either vanished or gone missing over the years.  Any time there’s a vast region of unexplored territory, I think it goes without saying that many of these who disappeared have likely fallen victim to some of our planet’s harshest predators, but what about those who return with stories of what they saw out there?  In this respect, Land Of The Missing feels a bit light on substance – there are only a handful of actual accounts in here, leaving the bulk of the incidents being stories only heard about and/or passed along by others.  Hopefully, that won’t dissuade the crew from keeping their eyes peeled for more, as I’m quite certain there has to be more to discuss than these fateful few.
 
Don’t get me wrong: Missing does have one of Small Town Monsters finest accounts involving a trio out in the wild who discover that their small shack is not enough to keep what sounded like a small tribe of Bigfoot (Bigfeet?) terrorizing them up close and personal.  It’s an incredible story – one that has clearly shaken the teller to his core – and I wish that there were more of that in here.  A bit more digging – along with time for others to come forward – might prove that a further, more expansive feature is warranted.  Until that time, this’ll have to do.
 
On The Trail Of Bigfoot: Land Of The Missing (2023) was produced by Small Town Monsters.  According to a quick search of Google.com as of this morning, the film is available for purchase on Blu-ray or DVD from the Small Town Monsters website or is available to view via streaming on multiple VOD and other digital platforms.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert – and having seen a good handful of Small Town Monsters’ productions – I can assure you that Breedlove and his crew keep getting better and better at capturing these environments as Land Of The Missing boasts some very picturesque cinematography of the 49th state.  Lastly, as for the special features?  Since I viewed this via streaming, there were no special features under consideration.
 
Recommended.
 
Like so many who so desperately want to believe in the issues of High Strangeness, it’s hard to make all that much of Land Of The Missing (2023).  While Breedlove fills the screen with some of the best cinematography yet alongside some of the more interesting anecdotal tales, there still isn’t enough food on the table to make a full meal.  There’s no denying the clout behind Small Town Monsters – they’re arguably producing some of the best documentaries still searching for answers from the realms of fringe events – but this one needed a bit more focus in order to truly rise above.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Small Town Monsters provided me with complimentary streaming access to On The Trail Of Bigfoot: Land Of The Missing 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

Good morning and welcome to August 22nd, 2023, gentle readers!

(FYI: I'm a bit damn angry right now because I'm having to rewrite this post as Weebly.com didn't save it the first time I typed it out and saved it, but any blogger will tell you that sometimes these unfortunate events happen.  So ... let me calm my jets a minute, and then I'll get back to the business of bringing you today's information ...)

Well, well, well ...

I guess the big ticket item I see for August 22nd is that the day serves as the birthday for famed Science Fiction and Fantasy scribe Ray Bradbury.  I certainly hope that every one who sees this post has read at least one story and/or novel from the man, as this guy's abilities to spin some of literature's grandest adventures is damn near unmatched.

Growing up, I was aware of the writer, but I didn't really get into what he had to offer until high school.  If I remember correctly, Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles was required reading for that course -- it may've been one of the choices presented to the class, and I chose it as it clearly was something near and dear to my interests of the day.  While I couldn't say for sure, I do believe that Bradbury was a personal favorite of the teacher (she definitely loved reading passages of his stuff aloud), and it always helps to 'get inspired' when you're being taught by one who finds inspiration in such prose.  She even had the NBC miniseries of the day on videocassette, and we watched a few installments of it for comparison's sake.  So, yes, I even loved the miniseries -- the one that Bradbury rather famously trashed in the press.  He hated it.  In fact, a few years later -- when he had his own The Ray Bradbury Theater -- he remade several chapters of it for that serial.  So far as this reviewer is concerned, both efforts are worth your time and effort, especially if you're a fan of his works.  They're both very faithful adaptations.

And, of course, the Browncoats have reason to celebrate August 22nd as it was on this day all the way back in 2005 that the Serenity movie finally came to life on the big screen.  Sorry, folks, but I wasn't much a fan of that property.  The TV show in some ways felt a bit too derivative of some other shows and/or movies for my tastes.  It had the benefit of a great cast, sure, but the narrative just never quite looked me.  I'm glad it got a movie, and I think it's grand that it exploded as a phenomenon for a brief time.  Who knows?  Maybe we'll see it back in some shape or form (on screens) in the days, weeks, months, and/or years ahead.  Every now and then, there's a press blurb about a reboot, so it could happen.

Otherwise, that's all I've got for now.  So here's what you're really interested in ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing on social media and the like ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Yes, yes, and yes: like so many who write about film these days, I grew up on the flicks of the late, great John Hughes.  God bless the 1980’s!
 
And before I get into the nitty gritty, I’m just gonna warn readers right up front: this is not going to be a love fest.  I don’t do those, basically.  I call it like I see ‘em.  I think all storytellers have had some good films and some bad misfires, and Hughes is certainly no exception to that rule.  I think it goes without saying that what he did well he did incredibly well; but that doesn’t excuse some of the insufferable laziness and bad comedy that crept into his cinematic career at some point.  Why, it was almost as if something happened in the man’s life – and maybe it did – that forced his mind’s eye away from those incredible teen dramas and comedies that paved so much of the way in the early days of his filmmaking.  It was like suddenly he wanted to break away from all of that seriousness and/or teen angst and truly find something to laugh about again.  While I applaud anyone’s attempts to broaden the horizons a bit, I’d still suggest he went a bit too easily and conveniently into Wackyland, and I missed some of his more heartfelt attempts.
 
This is why I struggle with a feature that’s as ungrounded as is Weird Science (1985).
 
Most of its humor is quick and/or cheap and/or not really character-driven so much as it is situational, and – if I’m being painfully honest – it flirts with a subject matter that quite frankly most likely couldn’t be made today without there being some kind of cultural uproar.  While I prefer the prescient way he explored adolescence with Sixteen Candles (1984), The Breakfast Club (1985), Pretty In Pink (1986), and Some Kind Of Wonderful (1987), Science did little more than pluck at some of the lowest hanging fruit imaginable; and it’s a fundamental weaker outing as a consequence.
 
Of course – like any comedy – it’s occasionally funny, pokes fun at prudes, and triumphantly rowdy in respectable measure.  However, I can’t escape the fact that I think Hughes reached for something and missed rather gloriously.  I don’t fault him in any respect; the film just isn’t one of my favorites, and I see it as a curious stumble at a time when he was easily hitting home runs almost every time at bat.
 
(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:
“Two high-school nerds use a computer program to literally create the perfect woman, who promptly turns their lives upside down.”
 
Well … as a happily married man, I’ll still attest that it doesn’t take much effort for the wifey to turn my life upside down.  (It’s in a good way more often than not, so take comfort in that reality.)  And if nothing else then I’d have to give writer/director Hughes credit for having the creativity and presence of mind to see that computers and the Internet were ultimately going to be a match made in Porn Heaven!  So women have always been turning men’s lives upside down!  I’ll stop short of layering any more accolades onto Weird Science at that point, though, because it’s a film that even back then just never did anything for me.
 
Now, hang on a second, haters, before you unload both barrels.
 
I’ve often maintained that humor is one of filmdom’s most difficult concepts.  How many times have I reminded you that what I find funny isn’t necessarily what you’ll agree to and/or vice versa?  Therein lies my biggest hurdle to get over in embracing Science: I just never quite found it funny.  I loved the concept, and I think the film’s trinity of characters – Anthony Michael Hall, Kelly LeBrock, and Ilan Mitchell-Smith – all perform wonderfully, creating a loose ensemble that at times feels more like they’re riffing on one another as opposed to sticking hard-and-fast to a script.  Of course, it isn’t unusual for ad libs to rule the day on the movie set, and maybe that’s the case.  But I was honestly still a bit uncomfortable with the adult-woman essentially trying to ‘get it on’ but a couple of underaged boys (which they most definitely are), and I guess I just never cracked that nut.  Bonus points are earned by the late Bill Paxton who turns in a very funny job of an older sibling who seeks to exploit his seniority at every chance.   It’s a small role, indeed, but the impact defies categorization and deserves the extra mention.
 
Setting aside the moral quandary (which is difficult), I just saw nothing in here that rose beyond the level of the typical Saturday morning cartoon.  Yes, the science of (cough cough) creating a woman in such a manner was far more Fantasy than it was reality; and given the fact that Virtual Reality hadn’t become a thing yet it’s hard to attribute any sense of realness to even the smallest proceeding here.  When I can’t accept the world as defined, then I’m likely to struggle with the execution, no matter how stellar the performances become.  Some of the bits – though saccharin – felt a bit mean-spirited (the way some cartoons do), and I’m never a fan of this for the sake of laughs.  Call me old-fashioned, if you must.
​

Hughes definitely left a mark on cinema, and – quite frankly – I don’t think anyone since his days behind the camera has even come close to matching his genius.  (Spielberg’s stuff with younger children is equally impressive, but his teen entries have been few and far between for me to see them comparably.)  Because Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and a few others are just so much more powerful – and they also come from places which I can more strongly identify with – I’ve never really cared for Science and its brand of lunacy.
 
Again, I don’t fault you for liking it.
 
Don’t fault me for passing it up.
 
Weird Science (1985) was produced by Universal Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds to this Ultra-HD Blu-ray were very, very good: the flick has a few sequences wherein there’s some obvious grain, but I didn’t find it distracting in the slightest.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Wowza.  Arrow Films never disappoints, and they’ve turned out another great collection, especially for the rabid fans of this property.  There are three cuts – a theatrical version, an extended version, and an edited for television cut – along with about a half-dozen featurettes that consider its legacy, especially how it kinda/sorta doesn’t quite fit with the wider Hughes library of its day.  Nicely done.
 
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
 
I know, I know, I know.  It isn’t all that often that I’m this far out of the mainstream assessment of a flick, especially one that many consider a (cough cough) highlight of 1980’s cinema … but sorry, folks.  I’ve never really much liked Weird Science’s execution.  Though I have no real gripes with a great many of its pieces – the cast is stellar, the effects work reasonably well for for era, and Kelly LeBrock remains one of the quintessential hot girls of that decade – it just doesn’t and never has worked for me.  It’s far too much like a Saturday morning cartoon brought to life, and – yeah, you guessed it – I've never been a fan of those, either.  In my mind, Science feels like a turning point – the reliable Hughes turned his back on relevant storytelling – and all of us are worse off in the aftermath.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary copy of Weird Science (1985) 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