In case you’re unaware, there are rules for the classic slasher picture.  Granted, the tenets may not be all that involved, much less rational, but they’re real, nonetheless.

First, you (obviously) must have a slasher.  A good one.  A real killer.  Not so mamby-pamby run’o’the’mill nut-job but a villainous predator who craves the shedding of blood for a purpose.

Second, the deaths should either (A) mean something to the plot or (B) be as cool as Hell.  If not, then what’s the point?  The slaughter is just gratuitous, and not in a good way.

And, basically, that’s it.

Now, many storytellers throughout the years have tried to tack on other ideas and/or concepts, but the foundation – a cool slasher and memorable deaths – remains the same, regardless of the era, the star power, or the property.  Without those, there really isn’t a slasher film, per se, but more likely just a plain old-fashioned story dripping with blood (if not irony).

Well, so far as Red Christmas is concerned?  Somebody forgot the rules …

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
​

​From IMDB.com:
“A mother must protect her family on Christmas Day from a demented stranger who is hell-bent on tearing them apart.”

Now – for the record – that synopsis isn’t entirely accurate.  It kinda/sorta reads like a premise crafted by a clever marketing executive who knew a thing or two about wooing the widest possible audience with the fewest possible words.  And – perhaps as I explained above – maybe that exec even understood what it takes to give the promise of the classic slasher feature.  But for all Red Christmas’s obvious posturing – and there is plenty of it – it fails to deliver the blessed yuletide carnage.

Because even independent features have to get into the game of invoking political agendas to spin their yarns, Christmas’s foundation as written and directed by Craig Anderson requires twin acts of terrorism to spawn its villain: a failed abortion along with the medical clinic’s bombing set in motion some less-than-credible events putting Cletus (Sam Campbell) on the path to reuniting with his mother, Diane (the still fabulous-looking Dee Wallace).  Cletus was rejected before birth – Diane undertook the abortion upon learning her unborn child who be afflicted with Down’s Syndome – and, naturally, he’d kinda/sorta “rise from the dead” twenty years later in order to wreck vengeance not only on her but also her family this holiday season.  (There’s a bit more to it, but that’s enough to get the gist.)

However, Christmas wasn’t content to stop there.

Instead, Anderson layers his story with an entire cavalry of potential victims, each a bit more self-absorbed than the last with no one truly looking out for the other.  (Why, what happened to that holiday spirit?)  There’s Diane’s drinking and pot-smoking brother Joe (Geoff Morrell).  There’s Diane’s daughter Suzy, the financial-strapped wife to a possibly closeted priest (David Collins).  There’s Diane’s other daughter Ginny, the anti-establishment kinda/sorta hippie who can’t get through her pregnancy or a holiday meal without the requisite “quickie” in the laundry room with Scott (Bjorn Stewart).  And there’s Jerry (Gerard Odwyer), Diane’s Shakespeare-quoting son who also happens to be afflicted with Down’s.  This familial mob comes together for what they suspected to be their last gathering at the ol’ family haunt … and, of course, that turns out to be just the case.

As there’s absolutely nothing untoward about revenge finding its way into the classic slasher film, Cletus ends up being the central character here, a curious development given that he spends the bulk of the film wrapped in a black cloak (the same Death tends to wear when personified) with his face covered under bandages.  (He implies at one point that he’s a Leper, but that’s far from the truth.)  In order for that to have the requisite dramatic payoff, then there needs to be some kind of tie to each of these victims … but there isn’t.  What only there is remains the family attachment; given the fact that none of these players are particular happy with the life they’ve lived – the same one that Cletus was denied – the deadly comeuppances serve no narrative purpose other than to be simple deaths.

See, when Jason Voorhees went on his rampage killing camp counselors and the like, his rage was obviously directly figuratively as those who could’ve stopped his untimely demise.  (Granted, this becomes less and less true as the franchise wears on, but I think you get the drift.)  Likewise, when Freddy Krueger starts carving up those most pubescent and beyond he’s acting out the anger stemming from his own origins story.  There’s a purpose behind the bloodletting, and it’s that connection which makes for compelling killing.  Without it?  Well … like I said, it’s just gratuitous.

Similarly, features like Sorority House Massacre, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Saw, or even The Driller Killer might offer up lightweight versions of narrative attachment like Jason and Freddy; but what they lack in connection they make up for in sheer, unadulterated depravity.  These killers function on a different psychological level, one that compels them to really, really enjoy their gory hobby, so much so that the deaths grow more and more ingenious as the picture wears on.  There may be connections between the murderer and the victims, but what matters here is how creative can these unfortunate souls be dispatched.

Red Christmas offers neither.  Cletus has a tenuous link to these people at best, one that wasn’t enough for me to accept it as the cause for their respective expirations.  And – unfortunately – Cletus was a completely unimaginative killer.  In fact, I’d argue that there was really only a single death in here that pushed the envelope the way a traditional slasher film would (it involves a certain kitchen appliance, and I won’t spoil it more than that), but all of the rest?  Meh.  Pretty routine, Cletus.  You’re seriously gonna have to up your game if you want to make Santa’s ‘Naughty List’ in a sequel.

​Red Christmas (2016) is produced by Red Christmas.  DVD distribution (stateside) for this Australian release is being handled via Artsploitation Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Most of the film is very good with visuals and sounds, but there was a certain sequence wherein I experienced some weird loss of audio for a few seconds.  (It happened upon playback a second time as well, so maybe it’s a flaw in the disc.)  If you’re interested in special features?  Well, buckle up!  The Blu-ray includes a few making-of interviews as well as a director’s commentary for those who like those things.  A nice package all under the Xmas tree!

(Mildly) Recommended.  It may not be what you wanted from Santa, but it’s what he left for you!  Fans of slasher films might be a bit disappointed with Red Christmas, but there’s enough red drippings in here once the bloodshed starts to keep even casual enthusiasts interested.  For my tastes (and, yes, I do love all kinds of slasher films), the flick stops just short of where it needed to be, never truly giving Cletus the goods to shine the way great movie villains do.  As a killer, he’s far too conventional for my tastes, and another draft with another pair of eyes and ears might have been needed to make this holiday present truly presentable.

​In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Artsploitation Films provided me with a Blu-ray of Red Christmas (2016) for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

Being as blunt as I can, I don't dislike the Marvel films.  Because I'm probably as big a fan of genre entertainment as the next guy I welcome them to the fold with each and every addition.  Granted, I don't see all of them -- having read comic books since the early 1970's, I just never caught the Marvel bug the way most of my contemporaries did -- and, like any moviegoer, I do think that the company is taking a pretty big risk flooding the marketplace the way they have with the megaplexes, TV, and streaming.  Eventually, it all feels like overkill, and -- when that happens -- films tend to use the ingredients necessary to make them special if not risk feeling 'routine.'

In any event, Marvel's following up Thor: Ragnarok in November with Black Panther a mere four months later (February, 2018), so the company is well on its way to having one flick on the silver screen every weekend.  Hopefully this one won't be as forgettable as the last one, but -- dare I say? -- this one looks an awful lot like Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 ... only set on Earth ... and with African-American actors ... and fewer laughs.

For those of you who may've missed the latest trailer when it dropped the other day, I'll post it here for posterity.  Check it out if you're so inclined.
​

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

I've mentioned before that I've been a bit hard on Star Wars Rebels.

In my humble opinion, it's first two seasons were loaded with some relative klunkers, not so much owed to bad writing as it was to characters who took quite awhile to "get to know" much less care about.  It's central protagonist -- the young Ezra Bridger -- also put me off a bit mostly as he was a bit too young and brash in those early adventures, certainly not someone perhaps seen as the budding hero so much as he was some intergalactic upstart.  I was more interested in the supporting players, and they just didn't get near as much screen time in a property obviously geared more for the younglings watching the show (I'm a bit grizzled from a spent youth).

Still, the program took leaps forward in Season Three, allowing greater backstories to flesh out for this merry band of heroes in the galaxy far, far away; and I was a bit disheartened when showrunner Dave Filoni announced not so long ago that Season Four would be the last for the animated series.  Just when we were getting to know ye ...

In any event, that fateful Season Four premieres tonight on Disney XD, so I wanted to serve up a kinda/sorta public service announcement for those reading.  Make sure to watch or to set your DVRs, as I'm expecting that Filoni and friends will be sending out these Rebels on a high note not unlike what he accomplished with Star Wars: The Clone Wars.  And if you're needing a bit of a recap of where the crew has been, then check out this spectacular sizzle reel on YouTube.com below.

​As always, thanks for reading ... and May The Force Be With You!

​Some days, I’m actually glad that I don’t write professionally for some major media outlets.

It isn’t to say that I wouldn’t welcome the opportunity (especially if you're reading this, major newspaper outlets!); rather, it’s that – on occasion – I find it hard to have something interesting or relevant to say “right outta the gate” with some projects.  As a viewer, I do tend from time to time to prefer to think about a film or a TV show before sounding off … and that’s definitely the case with Blade Runner 2049.  As a film, it’s richer than most.  As a meal, it’s meatier than many.  It’s exactly the kind of flick I like to ruminate over a bit before I fully commit to some thoughts, and now that I have I think I have something to say.

Frankly, it might not be all that different from what’s been put out there already, but that won’t stop me from saying it.

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
​

From the IMDB.com summary:
“Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who's been missing for 30 years.”

Yes, everything you’ve probably already read about Blade Runner 2049 is – most definitely – true: it’s a visual masterpiece, one of the best of the modern filmmaking era.

Clearly, director Denis Villeneuve is a fan of the original as I’ve no doubt he spent hours crafting the look of 2049 almost entirely on the Ridley Scott feature, and I suspect film students and scholars will spent the next thirty-five years dissecting the hidden (and not-so-hidden) meanings of each and every construct as they’ve done with the seminal inspiration.  Hampton Fancher and Michael Green’s script smartly picks up the core elements of the older film and builds on them in ways that logically expand the universe created, showing not only a passage of time but also the consequences of technology further chipping away at our humanity, leaving even replicants only left with virtual companions in a world nearly void of any human contact.
​

​Also let it be said simply: much like Scott’s film, 2049 is not going to be to everyone’s liking.

Both the original and the follow-up -- as pure a sequel as can be -- share the distinction of being “stories” that require a certain amount of “storytelling” for the events to unfold.  Neither project is heavy on exposition – visual or otherwise – and one might admit to feeling the passage of time itself while waiting for developments from one event to the next.  Neither motion picture is heavy on action; both are tales requiring an investment of character in order for them to make the kind of narrative sense the viewer is rewarded with in the conclusion, but that’s quite possibly the greatest distinction I found between them separately.

Scott’s Blade Runner was a yarn built around the parallel existential discoveries of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) and Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer): both men are driven personally to shape the unforgiving world they were built for, though Deckard’s shaping is owed more to riding out the ebbs and flows of his job at first blush.  As the ride grows more intense, Deckard realizes he can take command – falling in love with Rachel (Sean Young), bucking the requirements of his police boss in pursuit of further bloodshed, etc. – so much so that he loses sight of his own civilization in the process.  Necessarily, he’s fallen so far off the beaten path that he needs the bloody, primal clash and near-failure with Batty in order to have humanity restored to him.  It's a kind of redemption, one that leads to an even greater but understandable sin.

For years, I’ve argued that the central idea behind the original film is the pursuit of mercy, perhaps the ultimate expression of (dare I say?) Godliness for we mere mortals.  “God giveth life” is what we’re taught, and so much of human history deals with how “man taketh it” away.  Blade Runner is the tale of two men chasing the shared demon for different reasons, Deckard because it’s all he knows and Batty because he wants to, relishes in the pursuit.  In the end, it’s mercy that redeems both sinners: the hunted saves the hunter’s life in the final reel, and it’s the hunter then who reciprocates – showing mercy – allowing the hunted to die on his own terms.
​

By contrast, I’m hard pressed to develop a theory as to what 2049’s central theme could be.

The film and its characters seem to be entirely constructed instead to comment on humanity (or the lack thereof) in this bombed-out world of near-tomorrow, but these various ingredients don’t quite congeal into any single ‘moral of the story.’  K’s so inhuman he isn’t even provided a full name by his manufacturers.  Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright) is a pale bureaucratic functionary who lives and dies by the job, once entertaining dropping her guard for some sexual facetime with her engineered subordinate only to dismiss it when he kinda/sorta rebuffs her.  Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is a replicant sternly dedicated to maintaining the corporate status quo no matter where such dedication takes her; her narrative counterpart – Joi (Ana de Armas) – is the only ‘human’ in all of this, and that’s ironic owed to the fact that’s she’s the film’s quasi-sentient hologram meant to represent near-technologic perfection, intimacy of the highest order.

Unlike Scott’s original, 2049 seems content with maintaining a stronger degree of individuality from start-to-finish: the players might interact (narrative conflict requires it), but they all seem to stay on separate roads, never gelling around a central message the viewer might relate to.  And – who knows? – perhaps that’s all Villeneuve wanted to say about tomorrow, that no matter how technologically advanced we might be we’re still destined to live and die alone?  Indeed, K’s last moments would seem to bear out such fruit; and – without spoiling the surprise – even Deckard’s final reveal might underscore how even reunions ultimately might be denied that which we all inevitable seek: human touch.
​

​Still, if subtle moments matter, then 2049 matches its predecessor’s intensity, and – as I said – I suspect it’s a film that’ll take some time to find the reputation its owed and earned.

​As an aside, I’m at a loss to understand why industry insiders believed 2049 would be some break-out box office superstar.  Those of us familiar with the original know that it took its sweet time (along with several subsequent ‘editions’) to reach its deserved perch in cinema history.  While Mr. Ford’s box office clout may’ve been overestimated by some, I tend to think Ryan Gosling remains a bit of a ‘critical darling’ at best; Hollywood creations rarely find blockbuster status entirely on the merits of ‘the work,’ and he still has miles to go before he sleeps (if you’ll pardon the expression).  Also, today’s ADHD-obsessed audiences can’t sit for nearly three hours on a narrative payoff, especially one lacking constant explosions, a pulse-pounding score, and Marvel-designed spandex.  In my humble estimation, 2049 always had a hill to climb, and I’m accepting this theatrical release as only its first step.

I could be wrong, but I believe the idea of an ObiWan Kenobi standalone Star Wars film was first put as a question to Ewan McGregor, simply being whether or not he'd be interested in revisiting the character in some fashion for that galaxy far, far away.  And I believe he was definitely interested, probably in large part because the fallen Jedi Master would emotionally be light years away from the warrior depicted in George Lucas's Prequel Trilogy.  I certainly believe that the fans would love something to help fill in the gaps of how Kenobi spent his years in isolation ... and -- as you can probably guess -- fandom has answered.

There's a fan-made trailer out there for such a project.  (I saw it this morning via The Hollywood Reporter.)  While it is culled together from McGregor's appearance in another motion picture, it definitely has its heart in the right place, giving audiences a portrait of Kenobi's potential emotional crisis while discovering that his efforts might very well have been what was needed to save an entire universe from desolation.  Check it out for the giggles and warm fuzzies.

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

I have to admit that I don't follow the press accounts all that closely regarding the BBC's long-running Doctor Who.  Oh, I do read a piece from time-to-time -- especially now that I've learned that the legendary time traveler will be morphing from male to female -- but I honestly don't pay all that much attention to much in the press largely because it tends to be written for hype and not substance.  At my advanced age (though I'm not nearly as old as the good Doctor), hype just doesn't interest me all that much.

Consequently, I was completely unaware of any controversy surrounding funnyman Matt Lucas's casting as a kinda/sorta companion for the show.  In some respects, I guess I can understand how some comedians joining a program might be greeted with some disdain, but Lucas's talents are quite broad, meaning he has the chops to be far more dramatic should the need arrive in any script.  I didn't much care for his character, but I had absolutely no bones with what he did.

The website We Got It Covered made a lengthy blurb regarding Lucas's thoughts on the controversy, and I thought it was worth sharing.  So there it is ...

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