As I’ve often suggested, the dirty little secret regarding Horror is that, frankly, not a great deal of what get’s produced is authentically scary.
 
All too often, producers, directors, and screenwriters take the easy way out: they’ll craft an interesting premise, they’ll stock their picture with acceptable (or good-looking) characters, and then they’ll pour on buckets of blood, gore, and brains, enough so that audiences will be easily distracted with the carnage enough so that they don’t get caught up with the particulars.  Usually, this does shift the focus away from what works to what’s dripping (or who’s bleeding); and it can make for passable entertainment.  Bodies pile up.  Protracted endings get proffered out.  Jump scares get inserted.  And there’s always the hint of a sequel because nothing spells success for a studio suit like a franchise that can keep audiences coming back again and again and again for little more than the same but captured with a slightly different perspective.
 
Now, in everyone’s defense part of the problem is that true frights don’t always translate well from person-to-person much less from text to screen.  What one might read about and get scared silly from gets passed through innumerable filters in going from the page to film, so much so that the original frightening idea gets modestly reshaped in the process.  The evil as conceived by a talented writer gets interpreted instead of legitimate exhibition, and this dilution has probably hampered a good many films despite the best efforts of all involved.
 
Such could be the case with 1987’s Hellraiser.
 
By all accounts, this was director Clive Barker’s first time behind a big production.  (IMDB.com credits him with directorship over a few shorts previous to this project.)  While he was undeniably familiar with the source material – considering he adapted his own 1986 novella “The Hellbound Heart” for the screen – I can’t help but wonder if he struggled in rendering what he saw in his own mind – as the writer – into the shape all of it took on the silver screen.  None of this matters regarding my critical assessment of the picture (which we’ll get to shortly), but it does make me wonder whether or not he was ultimately thrilled with how it all came together and was bloodily torn apart in the big finish.
 
[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 woman discovers the newly resurrected, partially formed, body of her brother-in-law and lover. She starts killing for him to revitalize his body and escape the demonic beings that are pursuing him after he escaped their underworld.”
 
Like so many, I appreciate when any storyteller goes to greater-than-average lengths to craft a singular vision; and I think that Barker truly establishes something special with Hellraiser.  When any director or screenwriter could certainly come up with some average hell spawn worth a bit of cinema time, Barker sets up an entire world fairly succinctly with the introduction of the Cenobites, these extra-dimensional beings who apparently subsist on the pains and pleasures of the mortal beings their magical cube draws them into contact with.  While one could argue that – as a construct – it opens the door to what could’ve been some visual chicanery, the writer/director largely plays everything here with an undercurrent of plausibility; and it’s a touch that stays consistent from start-to-finish.
 
Where Hellraiser stumbles a bit too frequently, however, is the fact that I was never quite certain whose story it truly was intended to be.
 
For example, the opening vignette involves Frank Cotton (played by Sean Chapman) purchasing a curious puzzle box from a vendor in Morocco.  Back in the quiet of what we believe is his own home, the man quickly solves the enigma, accidentally unleashing the Cenobites from their world into ours; and he winds up being violently dismembered for his troubles.  The cube returns to normal, leading me to suspect it’s about to happen all over again.
 
Well …
 
Yes, the cube and its ethereal sadomasochistic inhabitants will eventually come back into play (much later), but – in the meantime – the story resets as Larry (Andrew Robinson) and Julia Cotton (Claire Higgins) settle into the house Frank vacated against his wishes (apparently, this is a family estate of some sort).  While moving their furnishings upstairs, the new man of the house accidentally slashes his hand open; and the blood trail eventually re-awakens Frank’s undead spirit that’s been trapped between our world and whatever lies beyond.  Needless to say, dear ol’ Frank isn’t quite himself – he’s essentially a bloody amalgam of flesh, blood, and bones – and he’ll need more to reconstitute himself fully, which is to say he’s going to need an accomplice … and he has a willing one with Julia.
​

As fate would have it, Frank and Julia had a ravenous sexual affair – one that hints of the same pain and pleasures that ultimately tore the man from this world – and the lady is definitely interested in starting up again.  Her marriage to Larry has fallen on hard times, and her husband seems far more interested in pursuing other hobbies that don’t involved sweating between the sheets.  Now all she need do is supply her former paramour with a few more bodies from which he can magically extract what he needs, and she’s well on the road to resuming orgasmic ecstasy.
 
To complicate matters further, Kirsty (Ashley Laurence) – Frank’s teenage daughter – has moved back into the area – there are hints of past family troubles but, sadly, nothing is made expressly clear – and she’s looking to reconcile with her father.  Eventually, she discovers that Julia is straying outside the marriage – she witnesses her stepmother bringing home one of the victims intended for Frank’s rebuilding – and this development fuels a good portion of the film’s conflict and resolution, some of which suggest that her uncle may very well have had his way with her previously.
 
If you haven’t noticed by now that Hellraiser is a bit hard-to-follow and nebulous at the same time, then let me be clear: it’s occasionally hard-to-follow and nebulous at the same time.  While a scene or two that clearly spelled out what fractured this family in the past could’ve alleviated some of the confusion, things gets markedly worse when Kirsty inadvertently unleashes the Cenobites all by herself, removing any previously established linkage between Frank’s chosen lifestyle and their existence or purpose.  Apparently, these specters treat everyone the same way – no matter how good and pure the victims may’ve been – and they’re even willing to trade another’s mortal soul in exchange for saving one’s own.  So much for the curse of opening a magical bauble …
 
Still, because I had some trouble distinguishing between what the major storyline here was up until the midpoint of the feature – it eventually settles with Julia, arguably the least interesting because the audience is given no narrative justification for her initial fall from marital grace – Hellraiser seemed to be caught up in fits of starting and stopping, changing its shape and size in much the same way Frank’s reanimated corpse does.  It really takes a good deal of time for the plot to take full effect; and – once it does – Barker pretty much surrenders the story to some obligatory (and expected) bloody carnage.  When Kirsty mucks around with the cube, the film then goes back to the original track laid down with Frank’s opening vignette, and it starts to coalesce around him and his desires again … so, yes, be prepared for some shuffling foci.
​

In some ways, I thought that Hellraiser had some attractive similarities to Giallo films.  The flick is chocked full of – ahem – psychosexual desires as Frank apparently had been living his sensual life to the fullest even with the loss of his epidermis.  Likewise, Julia spends her private moments early in the picture haunted by a lust lost – presumably from her husband but also from Frank – and it becomes clear why she wishes a return to form no matter what deed she might be required to complete as a transaction.  One could also argue that Kirsty’s character kinda/sorta loosely fills the bill as a detective because we see her finally trying to solve whatever has gone wrong with her father and stepmother’s relationship; and she even unearths the dark secret behind Frank’s reanimation.  The haunted house occasionally has a surreal quality to it, especially once viewers see that it harbors a glimpse into the supernatural given that Frank’s spiritual presence is trapped within its confines.  But the associations really stop there, leaving the project with passing resemblances to what Italian filmmakers accomplishes so uniquely with the genre.
 
Hellraiser (1987) was produced by Film Futures, New World Pictures, and Rivdel Films.  Presently, the flick is available for physical purchase (in a variety of edits) as well as digital.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were quite good from start-to-finish.  Yes, as a fan of practical special effects, there are plenty of grisly tidbits in here to get excited about; and those work wonderfully, even holding up well after the decades since created.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one digitally, there were no special features to consider.
 
Mildly Recommended.
 
Though I can give props to writer/director Barker for launching his very own Horror franchise, I’ll still admit to finding this first outing a bit confusing.  The story and its elements kept shifting a bit too often early on – whose story is this, whose perspective matters most, what are these Cenobites really up to, etc. – and I couldn’t quite find the human core to the complex relationship between all these Cotton folks.  Eventually, it starts to make greater sense – even if I had to fill in some minor holes with my own speculation – and it builds to a reasonably satisfying conclusion.  I just wish it was constructed with more narrative answers – or maybe ‘clearer ones’ – so that I didn’t have to risk so many guesses along the way.  As practical Horror effects go?  Hellraiser certainly raised the roof with viewers, and it’s easy to see why.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m beholden to no one for this review of Hellraiser (1987) as I viewed it as part of my subscription to a streaming service.

-- EZ
​

At the core, each and every 'body snatching' movie I've had the good fortune to watch has had something relatable to say about the loss of identity.

In fact, I think I'd once read a treatise on that whole idea -- that the trend of 'body snatching' flicks in Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror were fundamentally meant to be more social commentary -- that we inevitably lose ourselves in some way, shape, or form -- to something else.  While I don't find that conceit hard to accept on any level, it is interesting that these productions do continue popping up with each successive generation.  If anything, that trend underscores that stylistically those fears never go out of style; storytellers just keep finding new ways to express and explore such deep-rooted fears, sometimes with comic intentions and sometimes without.

Woof.  I said a mouthful, eh?

In any event, I truly just wanted to pop by to alert the readership that there's one more on the horizon: Dark Star Pictures' The Becomers looks to spawn theatrically just this Friday (August 23rd) with a proposed VOD release that'll follow starting Tuesday, September 24th.  Those of you looking to know a bit more can check out the press announcement located below, and I've also posted the trailer (available online) for your perusal.

You know what to do ...
​

Writer/director Zach Clark’s acclaimed sci-fi genre-bender THE BECOMERS kicks off its U.S. theatrical release on Friday, August, 23rd and arrives on VOD in North America on Tuesday, September 24th. The film will open in New York on August 23rd at Cinema Village, in Los Angeles on August 30th at Lumiere Music Hall, and in Chicago on September 13th at Music Box Theatre, with more cities listed below.

The latest film from the celebrated American indie filmmaker, a visually striking homage to retro science fiction that reverberates with the pulse of politics and cultural trends of the last five years —drawing from COVID, Qanon, and constant states of anxiety— while exploring themes of confusion, isolation, and the deep need for human connection through the story of two body-snatching alien lovers. The cast includes Molly Plunk (LITTLE SISTER, SEE YOU NEXT TUESDAY), Mike Lopez (MAY DECEMBER), Keith Kelly, Isabel Alamin, and Frank V. Ross (DRINKING BUDDIES), with narration by Russell Mael, lead singer of the renowned musical duo Sparks. 

Best known for the critically acclaimed WHITE REINDEER, released by IFC Films, and LITTLE SISTER, featuring Addison Timlin and Ally Sheedy, THE BECOMERS is Clark’s fifth feature. Also a celebrated editor outside of his own films, his credits include Sophia Takal’s ALWAYS SHINE, Hannah Fidell’s THE LONG DUMB ROAD, Michael Tully’s DON’T LEAVE HOME, and Michael M. Bilandic’s indie cult film JOBE’Z WORLD. 

THE BECOMERS was shot in Chicago and is produced by Joe Swanberg (HAPPY CHRISTMAS, DIGGING FOR FIRE) and Eric Ashworth. Eddie Linker (GHOSTLIGHT, QUEEN OF EARTH) produced for Slasher Film Company. Daryl Pittman lensed, Fritz Myers composed the film’s original score, and Glamhag production designed. 

Synopsis: 

"Forced to flee their dying planet, two body-snatching alien lovers arrive separately on Earth. Determined to find each other, the aliens jump from body to body, but they quickly learn that it's not easy to inhabit their new, fleshy hosts, and that life in modern-day America is more complicated than they could have ever imagined."
​​

I know a good number of you missed out on Psycho Goreman, a bit of delightful otherworldly lunacy that came about in 2020, and that's a crying shame.  While I realize that its offbeat humor might not have been for everyone, I suspect there was honestly something in there for everyone, be it the skewered perspective of anti-Spielbergian kid performances or even Goreman's unquenchable desire for galactic domination.  In the end, I thought it was downright fun -- and I said as much in my review right here -- and I still find myself recommended it to folks who show up asking for something fresh, bold, different, and unheard of.

Now ... I've no way to know whether or not Frankie Freako will ultimately be in the same vein of unpredictability.  It does boast an association back to Goreman -- same writer and director -- so that arguably bodes well so far as I'm concerned.  The effects in the trailer all look and feel a bit more intrusive by comparison to Goreman's modest insertions, but -- again -- I rarely put a great deal of weight into coming attractions.  They're usually crafted with one goal in mind -- putting butts in the seats -- and I'm always one who prefers waiting to see the finished product.  Call me old-fashioned, if you will.

Whatever the truth may be, I've received some of the promotional materials for Freako, so I'll be doing the dutiful copy-and-paste below, along with posting the trailer.  This one is on-tap for later this year -- October, I believe -- so maybe put it on the calendar as one to check out when the time is right.

You know what to do.
​

Just to clarify ... no, I'm not gloating.

As I've said several times when I've been asked by fans on my opinion of Star Wars Disney+ streaming series The Acolyte is that I didn't watch it.  In fact, I've confessed that I cancelled my subscription after the dismal finale to Star Wars: The Bad Batch, an animated diversion that I enjoyed up until its last season in which creator Dave Filoni kinda/sorta switched dynamics and went in a markedly different direction with the ensemble project.  (No, I didn't hate the last episode or two, but I was disappointed.)  Since I've never seen so much as a single episode of The Acolyte, I can't effectively comment on it critically.

Now, I can say that I followed a lot of the program's controversy, along with the drubbing it took online from fans.  While I'll concede that some of the criticisms were occasionally over the top, I think a good portion of what I saw seemed logical, cogent, and well-conceived.  No, I didn't see -- as has been widely reported in the media -- a "bunch of bigots" spouting out their shared hatred of people who look and/or act differently than they do; instead, I watched and listened to thinkers dissecting why scenes and characters and even settings didn't quite work as seamlessly as the way even a modestly produced effort should.  Truth can be difficult to swallow, but that doesn't suggest one opinion is any more divisive or ill-founded than others.  Reality is likely somewhere in the middle.

But I did see yesterday that word has finally reached the World Wide Web of The Acolyte's cancellation; and I can't say that I'm all that surprised.  The show's ratings were not good, and -- ahem -- the way the studio, the stars, and the showrunners were lashing out at anyone who held an assessment contrary to theirs probably didn't exactly win over the vast majority of potential viewers who were 'sitting on the fence minding their own business.'  Rarely do such campaigns turn out well, and had any employee with an understanding of history been behind-the-scenes then perhaps a cautionary word or two might've brought a different fate.  Again, truth can be difficult to swallow ... but I've already said as much.

At the very least, The Acolyte joins that growing mountain of Science Fiction and Fantasy shows that were fortunate enough to get a single season but not relevant enough to earn a second.  That's no testament to quality, frankly, as a great many shows have come and gone in the same fashion, some of the good, some of them bad.  Having been around on this Big Blue Marble longer than most, I can tell you my heart, too, has been broken from having suffered alongside fans in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and more; so -- if nothing else -- those of you who enjoyed The Acolyte have minimally my understanding and an appreciation for how you're feeling today.  Yes, it hurts ... but you'll get over it.
​
Here's the thing, though ...

History also tells us that just because a studio cancels something that doesn't mean that fandom simply walks away.

Indeed, where would we be if those legendary Star Trek fans -- Trekkies, Trekkers, general Trek enthusiasts, etc. -- had left the Final Frontier behind?  Each and every time the television show was up for cancellation, they responded.  They bought the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew a full three seasons; and even then when the show resurfaced in television syndication they kept pushing and pushing and pushing for more.  It wasn't all that long before an animated incarnation turned up -- along with novels, fanfiction, and the like -- and then once Star Wars lit the fuse it was inevitable that Paramount followed suit with the franchise of their own.

The Acolyte can live on ... but only if you lift it up.

Yes, it'll take a significant amount of effort.  Yes, it's likely going to be an uphill battle.  But if enough of you can convince the powers that be -- along with Harvey Weinstein employee Leslye Headland -- that you want more, then you're likely going to get something.  It might be a graphic novel or a series of books.  It could even be an animated show.  The sky's the limit ... but you're going to have to show them that it's worth the investment.  That's what scores of folks did back in Trek's days; and if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and do a good day's work then you, too, can seize the day.

Regardless ... The Force can still be with us.

-- EZ
​

One of the irrefutable truths about Horrors is that they thankfully come in all shapes and sizes.
 
In other words, some studios have poured untold millions into the genre, and these projects have either sunk or swum (swam?) on their own merits.  Likewise, smaller outfits and/or even independent filmmakers have ponied up smaller budgets and slimmer casts; and they’ve still managed to complete a number of projects that have still ‘met the bar’ and racked up some solid box office returns.  Because anyone with a smartphone these days can tinker in the realm of storyteller, there has grown a stronger tendency to see something newly released really being little more than a cheap clone of something that’s come before: the writers, directors, producers, and actors will come together and wind up presenting little more than ‘a riff’ on one of their favorites, giving the audiences not quite what they wanted but perhaps just enough to still transcend the noise.  It ain’t easy finding break-out success – what with so many options available to consumers presently – but that never stops an opportunist (or a group of them) from trying.
 
What this generally means for viewers is that they’re not quite getting works from authentic auteurs but instead they’re forced to endure an increasing number of knock-offs … and, no, I don’t use that word as if it’s a bad thing.  In fact, film history is replete with inspired retreads that can be good, vicarious experiences; and that’s about the sum total of my two cents on Hell Hole (2024).  While it may not be all that original or offer a even a measure dose of that ‘new car smell,’ it still rather humbly sets out to establish its own universe with enough bells, whistles, and widgets to achieve a modest level of fright.  Heck, given that some of what I believe might have been its original muses are a few decades old, it may even convince watchers that it’s in prime shape all on its lonesome.  Though I’ve seen it before, others may not have … and that fact alone might earn it a better box office return than it perhaps deserves.
 
(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:
“Hell Hole hails from the filmmaking family behind Hellbender and centers on an American-led fracking crew that uncovers a living French soldier frozen in time from a Napoleonic campaign, whose body hosts a parasitic monster.”
 
I’ve mentioned before that – amongst the fans and fanatics of John Carpenter’s work – I’m in the minority when it comes to choosing his greatest screen effort.  A good many – probably the vast majority – cite the writer/director’s 1982 remake of 1951’s The Thing From Outer Space – simply called The Thing – as his highwater mark.  While I’ll concede it’s a great film, I’ve often said that I struggled with its pacing, finding the reveals a bit too slow in response to the level of tension the story otherwise ratchets up.  My expectations just weren’t met as cleanly or as often as I felt the film promised, and that’s largely why I rank it a bit further down the list.  (If you’re really interested, then I insist his crowning achievement was 1981’s Escape From New York, but that’s an argument for another time and another place.)
 
As hard as Hell Hole tries to chart out different territory, I can assure you that directors John Adams and Toby Poser (both of whom are also credited with scriptwork along with Lulu Adams) really don’t go far enough to distinguish their effort from appearing as anything other than a lukewarm copycat.  Oh, no, it doesn’t invest the same kind of splash, splatter, and gore along with Carpenter’s cutting edge utilization of practical special effects with the body-hopping parasitic alien entity; and yet – on a vastly smaller budget – Hole steps into that same alleyway depicting the struggle of its cast of characters walled off from society at large on a fracking installation in the middle of nowhere and cut off by a washed out road.  The crew may not be scientists – they’re mostly blue-collar Serbians with the exception of the company leads and a few specialists – but they’re about to turn on one another as the newly-unearthed critter keeps jumping from one host carrier to the next.
​

The downside to so obvious an inspiration is the Hole – on its own efforts – can’t quite capitalize on either the growing hysteria or make similar use of the resulting paranoia of the group’s isolation.  In The Thing, the key players were quite literally sequestered away from mankind in the cruel Arctic location; by comparison, Hole shelters these workers in the black hole of the Serbian mountainside where a somewhat decrepit or condemned factory is about all they can see.  Still, they’re all free to move about – scenes take place inside the old structure as well as in some reasonably wide-open spaces – and this works counter to the aesthetic of the central theme.  The directors clearly try to keep the bulk of the action contained in smaller places, and yet even they can’t help but toss in far too money aerial drone shots of the blighted factory probably because they thought it was good cinematography.
 
The other big problem that kills any real forward momentum an otherwise good script develops is that neither Adams nor Posey stage their affair for the cameras with any degree of elegance.  Every scene and sequence has a kinda/sorta mechanical feel – characters are often shot individually, and it’s all assembled in editing – so there’s very little dramatic impact between the men and women when they’re arguing with one another (which happens in ample supply as the story wears on).  Think what you will, but drama often works better when it’s captured with more than a single character in the frame: this way, there’s a visual representation of the conflict played out on two faces instead of a single one.  Clashes are more dynamic – we love seeing the interplay of differing opinions – and that just never happen here.  The beauty of photographically putting a good deal of thought into pre-production (i.e. storyboarding, even the chatty bits) usually results in more vivid photography; I can’t help but think that Hole was, largely, put together in-process, and it just never kicks into high gear when it should.
 
In fact, there’s a whole sequence that’s structured around narrative exposition.  The site scientists go to great pains to explain what it is they believe they’ve uncovered about the central creature – a parasite with some similarities between known Earth species – and it’s an incredible slog as it one speech after another shared between four people.  When the big reveal of your film requires, say, five-to-seven minutes of various speeches, then it needs to be rendered with some visual flourish somehow … but when that never happens even the least informed viewer realizes he’s in for smooth sailing instead of the much-needed bumpy ride.  It’s a huge creative miss that’ll likely put more folks to sleep than it’ll alarm.
​

For what it’s worth?  Toby Poser – as the script’s biggest player, Emily – does a pretty spiffy job carrying the action.  She’s the somewhat hardened crew lead surrounded by a bunch of burly men and yet never flinches away from her responsibility when leadership is required.  She’s a welcome distraction to the grim loner that Kurt Russell played in Carpenter’s afore-mentioned The Thing; and I wish a bit more attention could’ve been given to make her the truly commanding force this wild bunch needed in the big finish.  As it is, I’m not entirely certain she survives (I suspect she does, but it's unclear), and the film ends without any significant resolution.
 
Hell Hole (2024) was produced by Not The Funeral Home.  According to the supplied press materials, the flick will be available exclusively on Shudder effective August 23rd.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit that I still found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish; there’s some occasional special effects trickery that’s a bit underwhelming, but as often happens with Horrors of this variety it all still comes off as ‘measured charm’ anyway, so don’t make too much of that.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
 
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
 
I suspect that younger viewers – those largely unaware of, say, the films of John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and/or Stuart Gordon – might find more to enjoy in Hell Hole (2024).  While I found a great degree of it derivative, the script occasionally offers up some snappy dialogue, but the somewhat predictable Horror procedural gets anchored in place all too often by some stupefyingly boring direction, staging, and thematic pacing.  That and some curiously out-of-place rock music edits try to infuse the piece with some hip, music video sensibilities that seem way off … like the directors and producers were going more for comic effect instead of dramatic tension.  The end result is just too uneven for my tastes, but it’s an affair not entirely wasted on this film junkie, either.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Hell Hole (2024) 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
​

One of the quintessential debates throughout the age of mankind always boils down to this: are you cat or a dog person?

I know, I know, I know ... why can't you be both?  Well, society in general seems to be okay with it to varying degrees, but the wider motion picture industry always seems to cast aspersions more at cat lovers than they do dogs.  Why?  Well, there's probably no real central reason, but dogs -- what with their 'man's best friend' descriptor -- seem to be among the favored status.  Cat lovers?  Sigh.  I guess it goes without saying that we have issues, what with the fact that they were once revered and worshipped by Egyptians (from what I've been told).  As a consequence of history, we usually get the short end of the stick.

Setting aside the cultural dynamics, there's a new flick coming down the pike that promises to put some of this in a unique perspective: Booger looks to transform the cinematic marketplace by serving up the story of a woman and a cat who might wind up having a bit more in common than they did at the beginning of their complex relationship.  I've received the press materials via one of my industry contacts, and I'm doing the respectful copy-and-paste below.  Readers are encouraged to check this one out next month when it all comes to light and shadows both theatrically and digitally.

Move over, Cujo.  There's a new terror in town.  And this tabby is named Booger.
​

Dark Sky Films proudly announces the release of Booger to select theaters and digital/VOD on September 13th. Booger is the acclaimed debut feature from writer-director Mary Dauterman and featuring a praised performance by Strawberry Mansion's Grace Glowicki.
 
Booger, the acclaimed debut feature from writer-director Mary Dauterman and featuring a praised performance by Strawberry Mansion's Grace Glowicki, is a one-of-a-kind film blending body horror with comedy in a story of intense female friendship and its tragic loss, all backgrounded by a tale of supernatural transformation.
 
New Yorker Anna (Grace Glowicki, Strawberry Mansion) has just suffered the sudden and unexpected death of her best friend and roommate, Izzy (Sofia Dobrushin, Mean Girls 2024 ). She's trying to handle this loss when Izzy's cat, Booger, runs away. Anna goes on a desperate search to find him and in the process, she is bitten on the hand by the cat. She soon begins to take on feline characteristics. and her work life and relationship with her boyfriend start to go downhill.
 
The film also stars Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), David Rysdahl (Oppenheimer, Fargo) and indie icon Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream 3). 

Booger is produced by Lexi Tannenholtz (Shudder’s Bad Things) and executive produced by Neon Heart Productions (Cora Bora), Ley Line Entertainment (Everything Everywhere All at Once), Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment (Joyland) and Lizzie Shapiro (Shiva Baby).
 
Written and Directed by: Mary Dauterman
Produced by: Lexi Tannenholtz
Executive Produced by: Neon Heart Productions, Ley Line Entertainment, Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment, Lizzie Shapiro
Language: English
Genre: Body Horror, Comedy
Distributor: Dark Sky Films  
Run Time: 78 minutes
Cast: Grace Glowicki (Strawberry Mansion, Tito, Until Branches Bend), Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), Sofia Dobrushin (WeCrashed)

WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING

• ""Booger showcases Dauterman’s budding senses as a filmmaker." - ROGER EBERT ONLINE
  
• "If you don’t gag at least once watching Mary Dauterman’s feature debut Booger, then you’re probably doing it wrong." - IN THE SEATS
  
• "Dauterman wisely uses genre elements to visualize and augment the often visceral impact of maintaining (and losing) close female friendships." - BLOODY DISGUSTING
  
• “Dauterman’s feature debut is a must-watch for horror connoisseurs who prefer horror films that make them think” -COLLIDER
  
• “Equally as funny as it is horrific” - COMICBOOK.COM
  
• “Mary Dauterman’s sensational debut feature” - THE MOVEABLE FEAST
  
• “What sets Booger apart are Dauterman’s unique perspective and Glowicki’s amazing performance as a woman teetering on the edge of sanity – and occasionally toppling over” - SCREEN ANARCHY

Oh, what parallel lives we lead!

I don't know about you folks, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of other universes.  In fact, I think it's easier in some ways to believe that there could be more than a single level of existence to reality because such a fundamental concept might offer a unified theory to things like sasquatch, UFOs, cryptids, ghosts, and the whole spectrum of paranormal phenomenon.  If there's another layer -- or even multiple layers -- to consciousness, then who's to say there isn't a means with which to swing a door wide open, allowing for us to go through or even for them -- whatever they may be -- to cross into our world?

Well, this whole premise looks to be the driving force behind a little something-something that's launching both theatrical and digitally just this week as writer, director, and actor Graham Hughes unleashes his little opus Hostile Dimensions onto unsuspecting audiences.  I've received a notice of its impending release along with a few of the particulars which I'll be doing the dutiful copy-and-paste below; and I'm encouraging readers of SciFiHistory.Net to check out the trailer.  Knowing what a great many of you think of 'found footage flicks' (yes, I realize it may not be to everyone's liking), I'd still suggest this one might be worth the effort as it appears to have garnered a bit of positive praise on the film festival circuit.

Besides: I happen to be pretty fond of the found footage format, especially when the storytellers actually do something interesting with it.  May not be fancy.  May not be cutting edge.  But if it tweaks the imagination in even a small way, I usually dig them.  So if I can get my hands on a streaming link, then I'll be giving this one a review.  Keep your eyes peeled, kiddies.

In the meantime, you know what to do.
​

Official Film Synopsis:
A twist-filled multi-verse thriller from Graham Hughes (Death Of A Vlogger), HOSTILE DIMENSIONS follows two documentary filmmakers who decide to investigate the disappearance of a graffiti artist who seemingly ‘vanished’. As they delve deeper into their research, they encounter an ominous freestanding door which leads them on a dark journey through the dimensions behind it. Determined to uncover the truth the pair soon realize they have stumbled across something far more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.

Written & Directed by: Graham Hughes
Produced by: Stephen Beavis, Cedric Gall, Graham Hughes
Language: English
Genre: Horror, Science Fiction, Independent
Distributor: Dark Sky Films 
Run Time: 77 minutes
Cast: Annabel Logan, Joma West, Josie Rogers, Paddy Kondracki, Stephen Beavis, Graham Hughes

WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING

• 5 stars: ‘Remarkable…Hostile Dimensions offers something special’ – MOVING PICTURES FILM CLUB
• 5 stars: ‘A true mind-bending movie that keeps you guessing’ – MOVIES REVIEW 101
• 4 stars: ‘Downright terrifying…A must-see’ – THE HOLLYWOOD NEWS
• 4 stars: ‘Like Daniels’ Everything Everywhere All At Once, and a little bit like James Ward Byrkit’s Coherence’ – SCIFI NOW
• 4 stars: ‘Sharp, pacy, inventive’ – ELECTRIC SHADOWS
• 'High-gear lunacy... inventive, exciting, funny and creepy' – THE LONDON HORROR SOCIETY
• 'An original found footage gem' – NIGHTMARISH CONJURINGS

​

As a fan of detective stories, I’ve written before – in this space, even – about my feelings regarding the character of Sherlock Holmes.
 
Regarded by many as the quintessential deductionist, Holmes has earned worldwide glory through exposure books, films, and television series.  He’s one of those characters that – for reasons I’ve never quite understood – comes and goes: he’ll fall out of popularity for some time only to come back into our collective consciousness again, perhaps even stronger and more admired than when he left.   Because he’s a fictional creation that’s stood the test of time, producers are apt to tap that well again and again, perhaps gifting him with some new talent or new quirk in order to lend the man an air of freshness … and, yet, all that truly matters most is the investigator’s singular ability to get to the bottom of any affair that requires his urgent attention.
 
For me, however, I have to admit that I’m rarely enamored with his stories as are so many.  While it might be a minor quibble to some, my issue is that going back to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle far too many clues are hidden from the viewer’s eye – meaning I’m unable to follow along closely and perhaps even solve the case vicariously with the master – and, consequently, I think it’s a bit of a narrative ‘cheat.’  Knowing I’m in the minority, I choose not to make a big deal out of the man’s adventures, but I do give them a spin from time-to-time for no better reason than – as I said – I enjoy a good mystery.
 
Thankfully, the kind people at Severin Films gifted me a copy of 1962’s Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace, a German production fraught with some production controversy (as I understand from reading) directed by Terence Fisher from a script rather loosely based on Doyle’s material and penned by Curt Siodmak.  If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then how about this: the great Christopher Lee headlines the picture as the enigmatic resident of Baker Street, joined by the reliable Thorley Walters as his perennial sidekick, Dr. Watson.
 
(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:
“Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.”
 
Once, I met a theatre critic, and – just for giggles – I asked him how he ultimately knew he was watching a bad theatrical experience as opposed to something worthwhile.  He told me that for him the big giveaway was that he found himself focusing on something usually entirely unimportant – things like set design, props, costumes, or even lighting – that would alert him that the story as presented just wasn’t working.  While these things are important (he assured me), they should never be so vivid or captivating that they overwhelmed the original tale.
 
Well …
 
Deadly Necklace – as a self-contained Holmesian investigation – is a hodge-podge that never quite rises to the level of interest required to compel an audience to stick with it.  I’ve read that not only was the plot – a kinda/sorta back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Lee) and his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (Hans Söhnker) involving the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb – hacked together from bits and pieces of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel “The Valley Of Fear” but also it was constantly a work in progress as the Doyle estate kept rejecting scenes shot as they held approvals over the daily production.  Suffice it to say, I’ve watched it twice now, and I still can’t make much sense of it.
​

What I can tell you is that the opening of Cleopatra’s burial vault has led to the discovery of riches, the greatest of which appears to be tied to an ornate necklace.  As a known expert on such antiquities, Moriarty is naturally interested on getting his hands on this jewelry, and he’ll stop at nothing – yes, including murder – to do so.  Of course, all of this draws Holmes, Watson, and even Scotland Yard into the caper, suggesting a somewhat loose ‘race against time’ structure that would see the necklace revealed to the public for its auction house event.  Though there’s some great suggestion of heightened tension to all of this, the film is nearly void of any such anxiety.
 
Thankfully, Deadly Necklace does make solid use of the adversarial relationship between Holmes and Moriarty.  (In fact, that’s really the only thriving undercurrent at work here to suggest any kind of dramatic beat.)  Though they don’t share too many scenes together, Lee and Söhnker capture a sense of two men secretly locked in mortal combat – Lee is a composed and practical thinker while Söhnker’s mannerisms always hint at a measure of deviousness – and this effect truly should’ve been capitalized on more whenever possible.  Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Lee and Walters also muster up some solid chemistry as the flick’s celebrated pair: though his Watson comes across a bit too clumsy at times, Walters still holds his own opposite the venerable Lee, and their scenes do help to keep the whole mystery from becoming entirely forgettable.
 
But like my friend the drama critic, I had an increasingly difficult time staying invested in the film, a development I owe to the fact that everything felt a bit too artificial, a bit too forced.  No event flows freely from one moment to the next, and Fisher’s direction feels like it might’ve been usurped by elements beyond his control (mainly, whatever efforts the Conan Doyle estate were pushing behind the scenes).  In fact, I found myself focusing on scene dressing here and there – would a study really have that many books, and who thought putting a chair over there was a good idea – further pulling me out of the organic experience and thrusting me into corners best left untended.
 
Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) was produced by Central Cinema Company Film (CCC), Omnia Deutsche Film Export, Criterion Productions, and Incei Film.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that this 1962 flick looked fabulous; sadly, the soundtrack is a bit inferior.  (If one’s interested, then there’s some stuff out there in cyberspace about how German production of this era exclusively used dubbing after the fact, and you’re encouraged to read up on it if desired.)  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, aside from the usual extras there is a commentary track from film writers Kim Newman and Barry Forshaw: while it’s occasionally interesting, it truly veers into an incredible number of related topics … and, frankly, I found it a bit tiresome after a while.  (While I’m no questioning eithers’ expertise, it just could’ve stayed on topic a bit more to my liking.)
 
Alas … only recommended for either Lee purists or Holmes aficionados.
 
Sadly, there just isn’t all that much within Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) to give it even a complimentary nod.  The performances are all a bit predictable – though nice in a few spots – and the story feels unnecessarily spliced together in such a way that none of it feels all that interesting or consequential.  Have you ever watched a movie and come away thinking “wouldn’t it have been great if X happened?”  Well, Deadly Necklace might be one of those – an unusual assessment given it derived on Holmes subject matter – but that’s about the best that can be said.  If it all should’ve been elementary, then this was a bit of a mess.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) 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
​

Folks – and I do mean this – you probably won’t find a fanboy who is as faithful to independent cinema as I am.
 
No, no, and no: this doesn’t mean that I like all or even that much of what I watch.  The point I’m trying to make is that I’ve always found a measure of joy in exploring what writers, directors, producers, actors, actresses and more can accomplish on a budget.  I’ve seen some truly inspired works – ones that showed so much promise I sincerely hope that those involved were given an even better opportunity to break through the noise with their next production – and I’ve seen some truly insipid garbage.  Regardless, both ends of that spectrum have had stories to tell.  I may not have agreed with those tales.  I may not have given some sterling endorsements.  But at the end of the day I find I sleep easier at night knowing that I’m always willing to take a chance if for no other reason that I might find a ‘diamond in the rough’ worth passing along to the readership.  It’s just how I’m wired.  Always been.  Always will be.
 
Ahem.
 
Now, don’t take that clarification in any way to imply that Cocaine Werewolf (2024) is something I’m willing to give a thumbs up or throw cold water on.  Succinctly, it’s an attempt at capturing B- or even C-Movie glory, and yet … well … it has its issues, meaning that some of those blemishes are probably a bit too big to overcome despite the best efforts of everyone involved.  My biggest concern with it is that it never quite finds a tapestry worth spinning – good ideas get held back by either inferior ones or the lack of budget – so let’s accept the fact that this is one attempt that likely will get better once its rediscovered and given a bit more elbow grease in a redux.
 
(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:
“Cocaine, Cash and a Crew filming a horror movie in the mysterious woods of northern Pennsylvania clash when an unexpected visit from a Werewolf literally enters the picture. Cult film Master Mark Polonia - with nearly 100 film credits on his resume - delivers quite possibly his most entertaining venture to date, with a Gothic Industrial Rock soundtrack (courtesy of Cleopatra Records) perfectly setting the mood for one wild and crazy ‘howling at the moon!’”
 
It's been suggested that the reason why mainstream audiences kinda/sorta balk at B-Movies is that – ahem – they don’t understand B-Movies.  I’ve always found that assessment a lot of bunk because, frankly, it doesn’t take a whole lot of gray matter to comprehend just about anything and everything that’s going on within the limited structure of a B-Movie, so why take a cheap shot at the audience by implying that they’re just not in on the joke?  Maybe – dare I say? – they just don’t find it funny.
 
Such might be the trouble with Cocaine Werewolf.  If you show up thinking that you’ve got a B-Movie wolf feature waiting, then you’ll likely be disappointed because – shocker – it isn’t the full moon that drives this haunted man to become an American Werewolf in … well … the greater backcountry of New York State.  Here, it’s the china moon.  It’s the flake.  It’s the sugar.  It’s the snow.  It’s the snooze.  It’s the white rock.  It’s the nose candy.
 
You catch me, homey?
 
So … basically … it’s the cocaine.
 
Jack is a stock trader who – well, aside from this current predicament – is living his best life.  On his way to the Big Apple in (apparently) the smallest Uber available, he finds his driver dead in some garage in the sticks, where the local werewolf has taken a shine to the apache.  The big c.  The scotty.  The zip.  (Still, the cocaine.)  So when Jack gets bitten by the lycanthrope, he, too, is suddenly able to shift between man and wolf with little more than a single whiff of the apache, the the love affair, the Mexican Percocet.  With no means to complete his journey and collect on those stocks waiting to be traded, Jack instead opts to live out his days roaming the mostly urban countryside in search of good blow and red blood.
 
See what I mean?
​​

Grasping the central premise behind Cocaine Werewolf isn’t all that much a stretch.  What I explained above is essentially all one need know … well, that and the fact that this was put together on-the-fly with probably acting talent just a smidge out of reach of small-town community theater’s good graces.  No one can act – again, my review, my opinion – and it shows.  Terribly, in some places.  Horrifically in others.  It adds to the atmosphere, delivering some of the flick’s better but probably unintended laughs.

​Still, that’s the joy most viewers find in B-, C-, and even D-Movie bargain basement tomfoolery.  None of it – or exceedingly little – is meant to be taken seriously.  The script – credited to Ford Austin and Tyger Torrez – was likely thrown together over a weekend bender; and Mark Polonia – an auteur with a reputation for such schtick – was probably all-too-happy to slice, dice, and splice whatever budget was necessary to bring this one to life.  I’ve absolutely no doubt that a good time was had by all; and, yes, that includes those who got together to assemble it.  Don’t be surprised if you learn that they’re all still laughing over it today.
 
As for the completed project?
 
Well, as I stated above, I’ve seen more than my share of small and micro-budgeted features.
 
While Cocaine Werewolf doesn’t quite rise to the level of zaniness I expected from such a title, a scene or two has the occasional vibe that might give it a shelf life beyond a single viewing.  Given the literal explosion of low-cost content available online – much of it available for free or nearly so – I’m honestly a bit surprised that something like this was still being attempted.  The 1980’s and early 1990’s saw a great deal of it churned out for mass consumption; and a lot of that disappeared as the turn of the century put camcorders in the hands of anyone with a smartphone.  Certainly, Cocaine makes use of similar technology – its special effects are a bit laughable and are no doubt the best APP money can buy – but you kinda/sorta know what you’re going to get with a project like this.  A few practical creature effects do give it some minor zing, but I suspect those who might enjoy this best are those inebriated by whatever controlled substance tickles your fancy most.
 
Not that there’s anything wrong with that …
 
Cocaine Werewolf (2024) was produced by Cleopatra Entertainment.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I still found a great deal of the provided sights-and-sounds to be – actually – quite good.  If shot digitally (as most things are these days), then this one benefits from looking better than it probably should.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The disc contains a director’s commentary along with the obligatory image gallery and theatrical trailer for those who like that sort of thing.
 
Alas … only barely recommended.
 
Look.  I’ll confess to seeing a great deal of independent fare.  I’ll also assure you that I’ve experienced perhaps more B-Movies than have many who pontificate about features online these days as most outlets have left the indie scene completely in the dust.  Still, it’s hard to get behind a flick like Cocaine Werewolf because – as a story – it just meanders too much from here to there, offering no central performance to wrap one’s head around much less propel an authentic story forward from start to finish.  I wanted to like this more than I did … but there’s a slim handful of worthwhile tidbits that I mentioned above.  At best?  Well, it’s only one hour and seventeen minutes long.  And I do like monster movies.  So there.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Cocaine Werewolf (2024) 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
​

(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:
“Perseus braves the treacherous underworld to rescue his father, Zeus, captured by his son, Ares, and brother Hades who unleash the ancient Titans upon the world.”
 
Given the fact that 2010’s Clash Of The Titans – a somewhat loose remake of 1981’s popular flick of the same name – earned nearly an astonishing half billion dollars at the international box office, it was only fitting that producers would rush back to the well of inspiration for another go’round.  The truth – at least, from what I’ve read – was that they’d always intended their interpretation of the Titans material to be a trilogy of films; so rushing 2012’s Wrath Of The Titans probably did the material no favors.  I don’t mean that to say Wrath is an entirely inferior follow-up: its story is a bit tighter, the adventure flows less like an endless stream of action set pieces that the original did, but it ultimately has vastly less sass and sizzle to distract audiences from any narrative weaknesses.
 
Financially, Wrath wasn’t exactly a disaster.  Prequels and sequels can be tricky business, especially given the fact that its predecessor debatably benefited from a positive reputation stemming from the 80’s Fantasy feature.  Without a doubt, the hero would be heading into previously uncharted territory; and one need only glance at the diminishing returns of some Marvel spandex mutants to realize successive flicks aren’t guaranteed the same profits their earlier projects showed.  On a budget of $150 million, Wrath mustered up a respectable $300 million in global ticket sales … but that’s a pretty significant drop from Clash’s $493 million gross.  Allegedly, a third film – one that would’ve completed Perseus’s story – was scrapped, and that, my friends, is all she wrote.
 
Setting aside that clinical assessment, Wrath opens with Mount Olympus largely having fallen into disarray.  Those mere mortals no longer show much interest in worshipping the gods; and – as a consequence – the powers of Zeus (again played by Liam Neeson) have begun to diminish alongside those of his immortal counterparts.  Blood in the water naturally brings out the sharks, and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) – god of the Underworld – conspires with Zeus’ son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) in a bid to see our world destroyed with the release of the Titans.  This way, Hades can start all over again, remaking everything into his craven image.
 
Meanwhile … back on Earth …

Perseus (Sam Worthington) has settled into the mortal life he had always wanted except for the fact that Io – after giving him a son, Heleus (John Bell) – has passed away.  When these Underworld shenanigans release a hungry Chimera on his seaside village, the demigod again rises to the challenge and kills the marauding beast.  Seeking an explanation for why such creatures would be loosed upon mankind, he goes in search of his father only to find the (im)mortally wounded Poseidon (Danny Huston).  The god of the sea informs Perseus of Zeus’ predicament, and he offers assistance in the shape of his own demigod son, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), who can aide in the quest to breach the Underworld.  Together, the two demigods must assemble the Spear Of Trium – a combination of Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon’s signature weapons – as it is the only known defense against Kronos, the leader of the Titans.
 
Unquestionably, Wrath benefits from having a clearly defined hero’s quest: Perseus and Agenor must join forces in their bid to both find their respective peace on Earth as well as achieve a kind of symbiotic equilibrium in their father/son dynamics.  Also, the script – credited to Dan Mazeau, David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, and television network killer Greg Berlanti – somewhat admirably scores points in showing that not all demigods are created equal: Perseus remains the resident screen hunk while Agenor gets cast as the plucky problem solver with only a guilty knack for doing the right thing.  The two make an interesting pair – a bit Abbott and Costello mythologically for those who understand the reference – and I’m glad the story dispensed with any pretense of having these two jockeying for screen time with muscles and brawn.
 
Also, Wrath gets an added layer of masculinity by having young Heleus along for the ride but not monopolizing what could’ve been a distracting father/son sub-plot.  Given Perseus’ physical and (chosen) emotional separation from Zeus, the demigod steps capably into the role of ‘dear old dad,’ and Worthington’s efforts here appear to be at ease.  Of course, things are apt to get a bit dicey once the young boy gets mixed up with gods and men, but that’s the stuff of good cinematic drama.  It all works itself out nicely come the big finish.
 
Sadly, actress Alexa Davalos was unavailable to reprise her role in the saga, and the part of Andromeda was recast with Rosamund Pike.  Clash Of The Titans saw Perseus and the queen parting ways (with a kiss) so that he could pursue a curiously forced entanglement with the aforementioned Io, but Io’s offscreen departure has the door swinging wide open again as Andromeda commands her armies to take up arms against these warring demons released by Kronos when Perseus shows up to make his stand.  Alas, Pike and Worthington really muster little screen chemistry (for what it’s worth), and that cheapens what could’ve and should’ve been a wonderful reunion of the heart.
 
To my dismay, Wrath just doesn’t hold up nearly as well visually as Clash did.  Some of this is owed to the various settings – Clash spent a good portion of its screen time in the richly stylized city of Argos, and that’s supplanted here mostly with small villages, forestry, caves, and battlefields – which give the picture as much earthier template.  (Wars aren’t fought in lavish cities, it would see, but on open plains.)  Even the supposed grandeur of the Underworld never quite amounts to a whole lot of pomp and circumstance, so it does help to temper one’s expectations when comparing this sequel to the opulence of the original.  Even Olympus has fallen, you see, so perhaps stylistically these Earthly confines had to follow suit.
 
Despite the theatrical blemishes here – such as how does this one look so average when the budget increased considerably – Wrath probably shares more in common with those swords and sandals pictures of the 1960’s.  In those, the men, gods, and demigods mostly saddled up for action; and they found something rowdy at every turn.  Whereas Clash (2010) felt like it was trying to pick up the baton passed off by the 1980’s Harryhausen effort, Wrath goes back a decade or two earlier; and I suspect audiences were disappointed with being thrown back a bit further in storytelling history.  While its effects and overall production values are quite good, Wrath can’t escape feeling like a project from an almost entirely cheaper universe … one that had already produced Hercules: The Legendary Journeys in weekly installments on television of the 1990’s.
 
Bluntly, that wasn’t a good look.
​

I could go on as Wrath’s problem don’t quite stop there.  Bill Nighy shows up in a curiously miscast comic relief role, and the finale’s battle sequences occasionally smack of the requisite digital overload of trying to push too many images into so little space; but those might end up being personal assessments more than truly critical.  Naturally, Perseus is triumphant in the battle – this is his story, after all – and his final assault lasts far long on screen than it need be.  Such flourishes are natural when playing in the big leagues, though a bit of restraint might’ve elevated some of the hullabaloo by accomplishing more with less.  Given Berlanti’s track record in television production, I suspect that was never going to be the case.
 
Wrath Of The Titans (2012) was produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Entertainment, Cott Productions, Furia de Titanes II A.I.E., Thunder Road Pictures, and Sur-Film.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the feature’s sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  There are a handful of making-of shorts that serve to tickle the fancy, but I found them a bit light on substance and feeling more like bloated advertising than anything else.  As I was provided screener copies only, I can’t speak to the materials provided by the complete set purchase, so consider them buyer beware.
 
Mildly recommended.
 
Though this may not exactly sound like high praise, I’ll admit to enjoying Wrath Of The Titans (2012) a bit more than I did its predecessor – Clash Of The Titans (2010) – if only because I thought the sequel had a more relatable and coherent story.  Visually, it’s surprisingly inferior, especially given the fact that by all accounts producers spent substantially more on bringing it to life and I’m just not quite seeing the spectacle up on the screen this time around.  I still question lead star Worthington’s casting choice – his age works better as intended here, at least – as I don’t feel his performance shows he committed to the project, instead taking the route that perhaps screen hunks like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Dwayne Johnson would’ve done.  That just doesn’t work for me stylistically, but again I realize I might be in the minority.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K copy of Wrath Of The Titans (as part of their ‘When Titans Ruled The Earth’ Collection) 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
​