Great Mother of Dragons, it's been another seven days since the last time I reported on New Releases!  How times flies when you're having fun!

And if you haven't suffered enough promotion in the days since the last time I shucked for some wares, what with both Black Friday and Cyber Monday consuming your every available dollar, I'll only ask you to suffer through a few more, keeping it short, sweet, and maybe even a bit diversifying for readers today.

For example, have you ever seen Warren Beatty in 1978's rather good Fantasy creation Heaven Can Wait?  No, this one isn't hard SciFi much less hard Fantasy to be honest, but it's a quite good story of a guy who gets to Heaven, realizes he might have a way back, and then has to inhabit the body of a guy who's been a real dirtbag?  As comedies go, it's very good.  Personally, I've always liked Beatty in the role, and the late Jack Warden is also surprisingly good in there as well.  I see via Blu-ray.com that there's a new pressing hitting shelves today, and interested parties can surf over here to pick one up.

If you're a fan of All Things Marvel, then I suspect this is a big day for you as their latest, greatest epic Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021) also hits stores today.  I imagine this one will be this week's big seller as I know genre fans will likely be adding Feng Shui (my term for Shang-Chi, and it's meant with nothing but affection) to their home video library.  Heck, even the wifey and I saw this one in theaters (not so much a review is here as it is just a few reflections on it); we're not big Marvel fans, but we were hungry to see something and it looked better at the time than any alternatives.  Interested in a purchase?  I'm not seeing it up on Amazon.com, but I'd imagine it'll be EVERYWHERE today.

​Last but certainly not least, Malignant is coming from just in time for the holidays.  (Yeesh!)  Yes, it's a bit dark for the silly season, but this Horror/Fantasy certainly created a buzz at the box office when it screened earlier in the year.  I saw it -- I believe I watched it on HBO Max, if I'm not mistaken -- and while I found it quite entertaining and fun I wasn't as bonkers about it as others who partake of genre entries.  I remember thinking that I saw some of the stitches early in its fastballs, so the film's central 'reveal' wasn't all that revelatory for me.  But I was entertained.  Interested in snagging one for that special someone's stocking to be stuffed?  You can find it for sale right here.

As usual, there are a few more genre releases perhaps worthy of notice, and anyone looking for more details can check then out right here.

Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

It is, after all, the holiday season -- that sometimes frightful but always fateful time betwixt Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and I'm told that often makes many of us reflective.  I imagine that's where I'm coming with this morning's 'reflection,' some minor thoughts and musings involving the late actor Yaphet Kotto.

I've written before that one of the reasons I've always been drawn to Ridley Scott's Alien (1979) was that when I first saw it I was impressed that this was the first time I can recall 'regular folks' working in space.  This was the onset of my teenage years, and up until that point I'd been enamored with roles of leaders and adventurers going into space.  Captain Kirk -- the great American space cowboy -- had worked his way into my heart, as did the young and impressionable Luke Skywalker and his somewhat swashbuckling counterpart Han Solo.  Still, I grew up in what I've always called a factory town, and space shows and movies rarely showed the blue-collar types in major roles.  Oh, sure, Star Trek had its engineer Montgomery Scott, but even back then he seemed a bit more technobabble-lite to this young fan.

But the crew of the Nostromo?

Here, finally, was a captain and crew who looked, dressed, and sounded like the folks of my home town.  They were a bit grubby and rough around the edges.  They seemed very down-to-Earth and relatable.  And unlike others who had ventured deep into the Final Frontier, they talked about money in a way that said it was important to their world.  Wages mattered.  What they could gross in their take-home-pay inspired them to take risks that ordinary folks wouldn't, and -- like it or not -- those were the kind of people I was surrounded by in my formative years.
​
So while others flocked to Alien to relish in its thrills, chills, and spills, I saw the film a bit differently.  Sure, the Xenomorph remains the quintessential fright in the dark recesses of my mind, but the people populating this foundation of a franchise were finally regular Joes.  This opened my mind to the days when I could truly see ordinary folks choosing space as a career: they might hail from Earth, but as Captain Kirk said, "I just work in outer space."

And that's what Yaphet Kotto was for me in that original film.  He was back-breaking laborer.  Sure, he knew his stuff.  He was -- like Scotty -- more than familiar with whatever equipment surrounded him and could probably make it work in the same way as Trek's seminal engineer.  But Starfleet had regulations on appearance, and Scotty rarely -- if ever -- looked like he got his hands dirty.

As a consequence, I watched Kotto's career over the years.  He was never one of my personal favorites, mind you, but rather he was an actor who for the reasons mentioned above just kinda/sorta 'clicked' in my mind: if Kotto was in something, I'd probably check it out, if for no other reason than just to appreciate what he was doing.  This, I'm told, is how we nurture interests over the years: instead of having deep-rooted psychological connections right up front and center, they take root in our brain and push us onto a certain course when we least expect it.  That's how I think it all worked today.  It wasn't an obvious fascination but a casual one that kept popping up every time I saw his face.
​
Lo and behold, the late actor's birthday was recently celebrated on one of the pages within SciFiHistory.Net's archives, and this prompted me -- much in the same way I've already laid out how his face triggers me subliminally -- to look back through his career.  I relished some of memories I have associated his body of work -- the James Bond thing, again with the Alien performance, and one of my personal favorites was his time opposite Robert De Niro in Midnight Run (1988), a flick I consider De Niro's best work.  This journey down memory lane brought some of the lesser trivia of the man's life bubbling back to the surface, and it made me reflective about what might've been some even bigger contributions to the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy.
​
I'd completely forgotten that he was almost Lando Calrissian.

As Kotto tells the story (if I have all the details correct), he'd been approached about taking the role in the original Star Wars trilogy by no less than The Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kershner.  They met for lunch, discussed the script and the character, and Kershner offered the actor the part right then and there.  There may've been some other bits and pieces chatted about -- I've read only a single account of Kotto's where he recalls their meeting -- but he inevitably turned down the part out of fear that -- as happened in Alien -- his character would simply be killed off and where would that leave him?  He'd simply be off searching for another gig.

Now, we all know that never happened with Lando.  The charming smuggler-turned-governor survives his confrontation with Darth Vader and the Empire, lives on to see a bigger role in Return Of The Jedi, and even turns up in a small way in the (dreadful) JJ Abrams/Kathleen Kennedy fan fiction sequel trilogy.  And I can't help but wonder what that seminal Star Wars character would've been like if it had been played by Kotto instead of Billy Dee Williams.

​This isn't meant as a slight in any way to Billy Dee.  After all, Billy Dee became Lando.  There's no way to separate the two in my mind.  That swagger.  That charm.  But I can't even begin to imagine how all of that could've been played by Kotto.  He's just an actor with a darker edge, a bit more physically intimidating, and it just makes me wonder about the possibilities.

And -- to push the envelope even further -- I'm completely forgotten about how the late actor had passed on another incredible opportunity, that being taking command of a particular flagship of the Federation fleet in Paramount's return to the Boob Tube with Star Trek: The Next Generation.

That's right: Yaphet Kotto was almost Jean-Luc Picard.

​Amongst diehard Trek enthusiasts, it's fairly well-known these days that Gene Roddenberry wasn't exactly convinced that Patrick Stewart was perfect for the Enterprise's center seat.  The actor was bald, for one thing, and the show's creator (for reasons I've never quite grasped) just didn't believe that in itself inspired greatness (or some such nonsense).  And Stewart's biggest claim to fame (at the time) was his impressive stage work in various productions of Shakespeare.  Was Roddenberry concerned that perhaps Stewart was too high-brow a choice?  This was clearly going to be a different era for Star Trek -- not quite a generation away from when the original premiered but getting very close -- but would going with a formal actor push the program too far in the direction away from its 'wagon train to the stars' roots?

In any event, here was another opportunity for Kotto to gain some serious credentials in the world of genre entertainment.  As I've read, both Roddenberry and Paramount were onboard and interested in the choice ... but the actor just wasn't interested.  Again, I've not investigated it further -- when I have, I've only found Kotto saying that he eventually regretted turning down the job -- but it truly makes one wonder what The Next Generation might've been with someone of Kotto's stature in command.

​Dare I suggest Wesley might've behaved better?  I know I would've.

Again, just for the record: I've no problem with the work of Billy Dee Williams or Patrick Stewart in their respective franchises.  As actors, they breathed life into their characters in ways we, as fans, will always appreciate, will doubtlessly cherish for years to come ...

... but today I find myself reflective over what might have been had Yaphet Kotto made different choices.

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

​-- EZ

There are spooks, spirits, and spectres, but for some of us there will always be one crew of legitimate Ghostbusters.
 
Thankfully, those somewhat fearless four enjoyed a comeback – albeit briefly – in Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a flick the wifey and I managed to squeeze into our Black Friday schedule.  As I saw this one all on my own – and not via any press screenings or freebies via distributor outlets – I won’t trouble this space with a full review … but I did want to post a few thoughts on the subject.
 
No, no, no: I’m not going to get into any discussion regarding the (thankfully) failed all-female Sony reboot from 2016.  So far as this critic is concerned, Melissa McCarthy is the Antichrist, and the studios working overtime in their attempt to shove her down our collective throat as the next Julia Roberts deserve to lose more than they invest.  She’s funny at about the intellectual level of the five-year-old, so keep at it, Hollywood!
 
What Afterlife got right may be a slim list, but it’s an important one.
 
First, it may’ve not perfectly done so, but it probably matched the tone of the original film about as well as any film could in this modern era.
 
See, we’ve grown a lot more jaded since the mid-80’s, and our society is vastly more toxic.  Mimicking the charm of nearly four decades ago is exceedingly risky, but the screenwriting trio of Gil Kenan, Jason Reitman, and Dan Aykroyd hit all the right notes.  Mckenna Grace (in a fabulous lead role as Phoebe, the late Egon Spengler’s granddaughter) hit most of the nerdy marks herself, and she did so while also being arguably one of the best representations of the quintessential American middle schooler to come out of Tinseltown since Stranger Things’ first and second seasons.  Too often, directors and screenwriters just get ‘brilliant kid’ portrayals wrong (aka check out almost any episode of Wil Wheaton on Star Trek: The Next Generation); and the resulting mess sours the experience.  Not so here.  Grace is a delight, and I can see ample employment opportunities in her future.  (Stay away from Harvey Weinstein, kid.)
 
Second, Afterlife treated its legacy characters with surprising deftness.
 
In many respects, allowing heroes to both age and development isn’t a Hollywood strength.  By the time John McClane was in his fifth Die Hard incarnation, he was performing vastly more cardio than in his first outing – as an old-timer myself, let me assure you kiddos that that’s extremely unlikely.  Though the audience is never treated to vast amounts of screen time exploring the original Ghostbusters past few decades, we’re given enough to know that the band broke up, fractured, and its members moved on.  Yet seeing them together again – and in as best form as they can be at an advanced age – gave them as much a heroic moment as was possible and deserved.  The script’s subtext – the old would have to join with the new in order to vanquish their enemy – was pitch perfect.  (Instead of doing this with the lesser Star Wars sequel trilogy, JJ Abrams chose to defang Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Princess Leia in his bloated fan fiction, a sad development for that galaxy far, far away.)
 
Lastly – very much like the original film – Afterlife never quite took itself seriously.
 
It only kinda/sorta toys with seriousness – yeah, there’s the demonic possession of the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper, but even that is presented with the requisite smarm and camp to soften the blow.  Are they really in danger?  Well, they got to ‘third base’ in the process, so was it really that treacherous?  All of the special effects look at bit undercooked – they’re ‘good enough’ but not ‘grand enough’ to truly frighten the stuffing out of viewers – and its this softness that made the old flick enchanting in an almost childlike way.  You say you believe in ghosts but you wanna be scared stiff?  There are plenty of hard, harsh alternatives for those fans; but Ghostbusters was never really about the ghouls winning.  Their apparitions have to lose in the end, so let’s make ‘em look even a little less than up to the task.
 
And I’m content to leave it right there.
 
There were a few small moments I could quibble with, but because the film’s narrative temperament really was a throwback to a time when films were more collective experiences – a happy tapestry spun in the dark for a happy group to happily enjoy simultaneously – I’m forgiving this film’s sins.  It’s a far, far better film than I ever thought I’d see nearly four decades after falling in love with the original (one of my personal favorites); and I’ve learned at this ripe old age – like the original Ghostbusters have – to be thankful for small favors.  That’s what this film was: a thank you note to a generation gone by, one saying, “Don’t worry.  We learned from your mistakes.  And we’ve got this now.  Not because you can’t do it.  But because we learned from you and want to follow in your footsteps.”

-- EZ

I’ve always been a fan of anthology shows.
 
In short, I just find them more creative than other serialized programming.  Typically, they employ more writers behind-the-scenes as they have a wealth of script ideas that have to be prepared for shooting in a single season.  Whereas a routine drama or comedy has one team of writers committed to character arcs and season-long events, these scribes get to essentially craft a bottle story: something entirely independent from other tales and has to stand or fall on its own merits.  Granted, a stinker or two might slip through the creation process, but I’ve found that the dedication all players bring to this single event helps to get the best out of most people.  In the long run, it’s a win-win for viewers.
 
Sadly, there aren’t many anthologies that focus on Science Fiction, and I suspect that’s likely because the cost-prohibitive nature of special effects pushes investors and producers to the more serialized efforts.  Shows like Star Trek, Stargate, and Babylon 5 may incorporate some long-form elements to the stories they bring to life; but the huge cost-saving plus for most of them is that they get to re-use short effects sequences that may have been costly to create, thereby keeping an achievable budget within reach.  There are exemptions to this rule, but generally speaking this is one trick that’s worked to genre’s benefit.
 
Still, thank goodness that anthologies haven’t gone out of style.
 
Amazon.com has produced one or two that I’m aware of.  The BBC and Netflix have also given the format new life for their paying customers.  Recently, I learned that Shudder – a streaming outlet focusing on Horror and Fantasy (with a darker edge) – has brought Creepshow to life in a similar fashion; and I’m thrilled that they’ve provided me with a Blu-ray disc of their second season.  I’ve just begun watching these episodes – which thus far I’ve found quite good – and I think I’ll be penning individual reviews as time permits across the course of this visual journey.
 
Though I’ll get up a review regarding the entire season at a later date, you can watch this space on the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage blog for some episode reflections starting shortly.  I hope you enjoy what I have to say as much as I’m enjoying these quirky tales!
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films and Shudder provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ

Good morning and Happy Tuesday to all of you regular SciFiHistory.Net readers ... or should I say 'Happy New Release Tuesday?'  Yes, it's once again that fateful day when DVD shelves and warehouse inventories are stocked with all of the latest and greatest releases -- new and old -- for hungry consumers to scarf up as soon as they get the chance.  And with the holidays just around the corner, is there not a better time to pick something up for that person on your list?  That special someone who just can't get enough visual entertainment ever?

Whatever your persuasion, here are a few of the genre titles hitting the stores today.

I had the good fortune of scoring a complimentary copy of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989) from Arrow Video.  I wouldn't say it's a fabulous film, but -- as a B-Movie -- it has its merits.  Clearly it was made by folks who had some fun doing it; as a viewer, I just wish they had honed in on really what they wanted to say with the project.  Were we supposed to take it seriously?  I got the vibe that we weren't, and -- if that's the case -- I think they should've amped up the comedy a bit more.  Still, interested folks can check out my review right here; and if you're interested in picking up a copy, then surf on over to Amazon.com right here.

2001's Evolution was one of those flicks that I really, really, really wanted to like ... and I ended up being disappointed.  The SciFi/Comedy had a great cast (David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott, and Julianne Moore) in a story about an alien organism 'evolving' to attempt a takeover of our world; but it just didn't quite work the way I had hoped.  Sure, it had some good laughs, and I guess some folks probably enjoyed it much better than I did.  In any event, I see that it's received a new pressing on Blu-ray that streets today.  I believe I have reached out to the studio for a complimentary disc; alas, none was forthcoming, so I can't speak to whether or not it's worth the investment.  Still, if you're interested, you can purchase a copy from Amazon.com right here.

Last -- but not least -- I am seeing that Shout Factory has something streeting today which is curious.  It's a little something something I've never heard of called The Show.  Largely, the title caught my eye because I see in the publicity materials that it comes from the mind of Alan Moore.  Ahem.  Moore -- for what this is worth -- is an acquired taste.  (I've yet to find anything of his that I've been 100% satisfied with.)  An award-winning scribe known from the world of comic books, his stories have always been revered as cutting edge and controversial ... but he's famously unhappy with any visual adaptation of his work (so far as I've read).  It looks like The Show flirts with the world of the magical and fantastical, so I'd encourage folks who want to know more to do some digging before making a plunge ... but it could be worth something.  It's up on Amazon.com right here.

As is always the case: "buyer beware."  I share this information for promotional reasons only -- consider it your genre-related public service announcement.  If you're looking for the full rundown of today's titles, check it out on Blu-ray.com right here.

Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

The name of Art LaFleur certainly wasn't all that big in genre circles, but I think the guy definitely benefitted from one of the more recognizable faces in Hollywood.

The actor built a resume impressive with a total of 169 different screen credits, and he was known for stealing scenes with his sometimes likable charm.  IMDB.com reports that the entertainment industry didn't call out to him until he turned 31 with aspirations of being a screenwriter.  A friend persuaded him to give acting a try first, and some modest successes followed reasonably quickly.

As for his roles in the realm of genre entertainment?

Fans might recognize him from work aboard TV's incarnation of The Incredible Hulk, The Invisible Woman (1983), Wizards And Warriors, Trancers (1984), Zone Troopers (1985), The Blob (1988), Field Of Dreams (1989), Trancers II (1991), Tales From The Crypt, Space Rangers, Strange Luck, A.J.'s Time Travelers, Angel, Night Stalker, and Speed Racer (2008).  Though some of his roles may've been small, it certainly took the heart and soul of a big man to fill them.

SciFiHistory.Net wishes prayers to LaFleur's family and friends in these difficult times.  May he rest in peace.

​-- EZ

As I've mentioned previously in this space, I do receive emails from readers who have questions regarding the site and general information.  Should I notice a trend, I'll then take to the MainPage and try to pony up an answer to what I feel might be a 'Burning Question Of The Day.'

Today's doozie:

"I read what you wrote about Dune: Part 1 (2021), and I'm confused as to whether or not if I'll like the film.  How can I know?"

When I began first writing and talking about film in the mid-1980’s, I came to a mildly startling revelation: most folks I hung around with either hadn’t seen the flicks I was most impressed by or they simply didn’t enjoy them as much as I did.
 
Now, I honestly didn’t find that very earth-shattering, though some of my friends did.  Many of us shared common interests in Science Fiction and Fantasy; liking many of the same things can have the effect of making others believe we have more in common than we actually do.  In fact, some friends were surprised when they found out that I didn’t enjoy David Lynch’s Dune (1984) as much as they did.  “How can you not love it?” they’d ask.  Sure, I could provide them my reasons, but they weren’t persuaded.  The truth is I wasn’t trying to convince them otherwise; the film just didn’t mean to me what it meant to them, and ‘that’s them apples,’ as they say.
 
My position has always been that each of us has our own personal preferences, and how we might ‘scale’ particular films, books, and TV shows relates to themes, morals, and ideas we each hold sacred.  For example, I’ve found that folks who love Horror features are inclined to give even the least interesting entry in that genre a pass for even the most egregious errors these films make.  This isn’t meant as an insult; rather, it’s just meant to convey that I realize fans like what they like, so even a middling feature that tickles their particular fancy is better than none.  If you’re a fan of, say, The Exorcist and I’m not, who am I to suggest that it’s an inferior film?  I may not enjoy it the same way you do, but I guarantee that you likely don’t share my love of Jeepers Creepers … and there’s nothing wrong with that!
 
For any number of reasons, one film – be it Drama, Comedy, or SciFi – may resonate with you.  It could be nostalgic, something that you saw in your youth, so viewing it might trigger all kinds of warm fuzzies.  (1980’s Flash Gordon does that for me.)  You could be drawn to a particular actor or some strong element of a script, and those connections make you appreciate the finished product more than others do.  Perhaps you experienced one motion picture at a low point in your days, and it lightened your emotional load: consequently, you hold it near and dear to your heart.  This is what film – as art, I might add – does to each of us; so what kind of critic would I be if I even politely implied your choices were insufficient?  Off-kilter?  Inadequate?
 
Simply put: Citizen Kane means to you what Citizen Kane means to you.  Don’t expect me to agree.  (FYI: “Don’t expect me to agree” has long been my personal motto for reasons too vast for me to write down.)
 
Now, this isn’t to suggest that the business of film criticism is a failed enterprise or a fool’s errand.  I wouldn’t do much of what I do with this website and my blog were that the case.  While I may know a bit more about film than the next writer, I don’t make it my business to dismiss arguments made on any project.  (I will debate the way a review is framed if I don’t see it as authentic, but that’s small potatoes.)  Though I may know less about features than one of the mainstream press outlet scribes, that doesn’t make my observations any less valid.  It is art, and each of us can have an eye for greatness on any given day in the universe.  Truer words will never be written.
 
This is why I rarely – extremely rarely – give anything other than a mild ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ to friends when asked about something at the box office.  Sure, I might talk about what I enjoyed or disliked; but I’m quick to add the caveat that, “You’d probably have to see it yourself to make up your own mind about it.”  Yes, I might even say that the flick just wasn’t for me, but in the end I always try to position a film as an endeavor that’s worthy of your own opinion.  After all, who am I?
 
Procedurally, I don’t approach writing a film review with any sense of doom or hyperbole.  When I talk about a particular release as I often do on SciFiHistory.Net’s blog, I try to intelligently discuss what the story, direction, and performances did for me.  Even the most cheaply produced piece of cinematic garbage can have a good moment; so why shouldn’t I try to find it, share it, and reward it with a good blurb?  Likewise, even the most expensive Hollywood vanity project might suffer from creative bloat, so why should that escape my criticism?  I always try to be honest with an assessment, and I do make a legitimate attempt to find something worthwhile from a single viewing.
 
So … no … there’s no possible way I or any reviewer can tell you whether or not you should or will like a film.  The best I can do is to discuss what the work meant to me.  Anything more I see as superfluous.  Yes, I do try to give films a recommendation; and I do this based entirely based upon whether I found the flick a worthy investment of our most perishable resource … time.  If it was worth my time, then I believe there may be something in it deserving of your notice as well.
 
Of course, I understand the sentiments most folks share, that they follow a certain reviewer because they’re found some similarity of tastes between them.  And, yes, that’s marvelous!  In fact, that’s fabulous!  If you and X share life experiences to the point that you appreciate the same stories in life, then I’m happy for you … only so long as that relationship doesn’t keep you from seeking out and exploring other events that might make you grow as a person in ways you never thought possible.  This is why I don’t try to find a reviewer I agree with: I’m afraid that coupling might shelter me in ways too harmful to imagine.
 
And no: I don’t expect you to agree with me.
 
-- EZ

​As a practice, I don’t typically get into films like 1989’s Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge on SciFiHistory.Net.
 
This isn’t because I don’t like them because that’s far from the truth.  Rather, Phantom is the kind of feature that really only kinda/sorta flirts with SciFi and Fantasy elements in such a soft way, so I don’t see them as real contenders to genre greatness.  Honestly, Phantom is more slasher than anything else.  Thematically, it only circumstantially touches a chord – drawing up some grand comparison to Gaston Leroux’s Phantom Of The Opera (1909) – whereas other films play a symphony of notes.  But because it’s close enough, I decided to give this one a watch and review.  I’m glad I did.
 
Mind you: this is no big budget production.  It’s a small(ish) film, so its investment in developing a metaphor back to the original Phantom is very, very weak.  It isn’t a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it size, but it is trivial by comparison to other features that have put more sizzle to the steak.  At best, it’s pleasant – though occasionally gruesome – if not a bit theatrical.
 
So I’ll dispense with the usual preamble because it really isn’t all that relevant.  Instead, let’s get right to the main feature, shall we?
​

​(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 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 product packaging:
“A year after her boyfriend Eric burns to death in a mysterious fire, Melody vows to put her traumatic past behind her.  But the past isn’t ready to let go.  When Melody and her friends get jobs at the new mall, haunting reminders and inexplicable events begin to occur.  With the help of a newspaper photographer, she learns the truth about Eric and the trail of grisly murders at the mall.”
 
What makes the original Phantom Of The Opera (the book, not the musical) so memorable is the fact that it’s one of those tragic love stories: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, but – alas – they’re not destined to be.  In comparison, Phantom Of The Mall does pick up on that central premise – Eric (played by Derek Rydall) meets Melody (Kari Whitman aka Playboy Playmate Kari Kennell), they fall in love, etc. – but the circumstances of their parting gets a contemporary, anti-capitalist makeover.  As fate (or a good screenplay) would have it, Eric’s house stood in the wall of the local establishment erecting a state-of-the-art indoor shopping mall; so the boy, his parents, and their home went up with what looked to be the small community’s most fortunate case of arson ever.
 
But like a good neighbor, Eric faked his death so that he could come back a year later and serve as the bloodthirsty thorn in the side to those developers.  He sacrificed his love, his family, and his future … all for the sake of revenge.  And rest assured that the man will stop at nothing to see that Sam Goody, Waldenbooks, and Radio Shack get exactly what’s coming to them!
 
Setting a traditional Horror picture in a mall remains a curious choice.
 
Malls – by design – are not dark and moody places, so director Richard Friedman had his screenwriters working hard at figuring out ways to amp up some of that needed darkness literally and thematically.  The mall’s secreted hallways and air ducts do get a bit of needed exposure; and the writing team ended up giving Eric his own subterranean lair (every Phantom needs one, after all) complete with cable access, a good couch, and a workout space.  (???)  I guess it’s a charming way to convey some of the doom and gloom needed to make all of this work, and I think it’s safe to say that those are the only sequences that truly gelled perfectly in this otherwise lukewarm reimagining.
​

Every tragic hero needs a dastardly antagonist, and this Phantom had a few.  The commercial establishment’s developer, Harv Posner (Jonathan Goldsmith), is the foul-mouthed main baddie hell bent on making a buck, and his crew is rounded out by his equally villainous shoplifter-of-a-son, a trio of crooked cops, and small-town mayor Karen Wilton (Morgan Fairchild).  The downside to their collective spirit is that they spend the bulk of the picture reacting to what Eric is doing – no one really has what I’d call an active role in evildom – and it becomes clear with the increasing body count that none of them are a physical, emotional, or mental match for the disfigured athlete.  Such can be the nature of B-Movies.
 
And when it comes to B-Movies, just how does Phantom match up?
 
Well …
 
Therein lies the problem I had with it.
 
Because this is a smaller picture, I suspect only folks truly committed to Horror have ever heard of it.  The film’s ‘big draw’ was Morgan Fairchild, and her career at the box office was never that expansive to begin with.  In fact, I’d argue that she was far more well known for her work in television, so banking on her participation to put butts in the seats was a risky proposition.  But as Horror releases are already considered “niche,” this Phantom probably needed a bigger script with bigger risks if it was ever going to break out.
 
Alas, even as a Horror feature, it’s fairly tame.  Eric’s victims are mostly deserving of the fate they suffer (one could argue otherwise in a few places), so the emphasis on ‘revenge’ may’ve elevated it above the more mundane competition.  His kills aren’t all that bloody – certainly not by comparison to what, say, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger accomplished – and I think a case could be made that the film suffered by not properly reveling in the butchery the way other franchises do.  And when one of your villains is as beautiful as – gasp – Morgan Fairchild?  I hope you get the point.  (FYI: she does.)
 
This Phantom played it too safe.  He should’ve come out from behind that mask a bit more often, and he should’ve embraced the theatricality that goes hand-in-hand with being a celebrity killer.  He may not have had a longer reign at the box office, but I guarantee more people would’ve remembered his name.
​

Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) is produced by Fries Entertainment.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Arrow Video.  As for the technical specifications?  This restoration looks and sounds surprisingly good especially given the fact that there are a handful of sequences shot in extreme darkness; the new balance looks very crisp (in most places), and I suspect this will probably be the ‘go-to’ version for cinema purists for some time.
 
As for the technical specifications?  Again: kudos to Arrow Video for ponying up an incredible package.  While I’m no fan of this specific title, I spent a few hours yesterday with these extras, and even I was impressed at the depth of material.  The disc boasts three different commentary tracks.  (FYI: I’ve only listened to two at this point.)  The first features director Friedman (with a moderator); while it’s good, I felt that the host spent a bit more time discussing subjects just beyond the scope of the film, only bringing things into sharper focus around key moments.  The second features disc producer Ewan Cant and historian Amanda Reyes; it’s a track I wanted to like more than I did – mostly because the two are affable and definitely know their stuff – but, again, far too much time was spent in topics only tangentially related to Phantom.  They honestly allowed whole swaths of the picture to go by without a mention about what was happening, production discussions, etc.  Nice but disappointing.  As is common with Arrow’s limited-edition sets, this is packed with shorts, mini-documentaries, trailers, and the like.  There’s more than enough to explore.  Fabulous.
 
Recommended only for fans of B-Movies or slash films as that’s really all this one has to offer.  Sometimes it’s hard to find something positive to say about a flick, and I had that struggle with Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge.  In short, it just struggled to find what it wanted to be.  At times, it appeared to be poking fun at the tropes of Horror and revenge movies, stopping just short of embracing comic sensibilities because none of it was all that funny.  I think the director and screenwriters had an interesting idea worth exploring, but what they ended up collaborating on played it way too safe for a feature about retribution.  A missed opportunity.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

So far as this reviewer is concerned, zombie pictures can be notoriously hit-or-miss.
 
Honestly, I don’t have any qualms with watching or review them.  My preference, however, is to spend time with a ‘walking dead’ picture where the properly zombified suffer their fate with some explanation: I hate there being zombies just for the sake of there being zombies.  I want to know the why and how that our victims have been transformed into this curious state truly between life and death.  What can I say?  I simply find their origins important.  Personally.  Textually.  It increases my enjoyment of the motion picture, and I tend to rate those pictures that dabble in some ‘Horror Science’ more highly than if it’s snubbed.
 
Ahem …
 
That said, 1989’s The Dead Pit kinda/sorta flirts with a reason.  (It may not be a good one, but it’s there.)  From the best I can tell, there’s a mad doctor.  Like some mad doctors do, he’s attempting research into what I believe gets curiously termed “the organic causes of death,” and – as you can guess whether you’ve seen the flick or not – it all goes wrong.  Horribly wrong, even.  ('End Of The World' type crap.)  But there’s also some kinda/sorta mystical aspect to the reanimation that involves the usual sensational trickery (fog, prosthetics, green lighting, and even more fog) thrown in more because audiences have come to expect it from these films than any other reasons.
 
So the straight skinny is that the picture ventures halfway into what I like as a foundation, which probably puts it far enough for me to enjoy it more than I truly should.
 
Color me suitably impressed!
​

(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 product packaging:
“Dr. Ramzi, a deviant who enjoys torturing his patients, is killed by a fellow doctor and buried in the basement of a mental health facility.  Twenty years later, the hospital is up and running again and a ‘Jane Doe’ arrives at the institute with amnesia.  Upon her arrival, a major earthquake rocks the building and unearths the now undead Dr. Ramzi and his legion of zombie patients so he can continue his work.”
 
As imperfect as The Dead Pit is, there’s no denying its irascible charm.
 
So very little of the motion picture makes literal sense – well, except for whatever it postulates as the core for this world existing in the first place and its variable zombie mechanics anyway – but each and every one of its characters embraces the sheer lunacy with the kind of gusto known only to the best B-Movies.  Our Jane Doe – eventually revealed as ‘Sarah’ (played by the lovely Cheryl Lawson) – finds herself trapped in a facility that ends up having a very, very, VERY personal connection; yes, it’s the kind of link that only happens in movies, but that’s what we’re watching anyway, am I right?  The hospital somehow has a basement that mysteriously looks more like a castle dungeon … but it all looks better that way when stuffed with the undead, see?  And why would our master of evil, the late Dr. Ramzi (Danny Gochnauer), truly need to dress his last planned victim – our Jane/Sarah – in a nurse’s uniform (complete with shoes and – ahem – white stockings) for her time spent on his sacrificial altar?
​

​It’s often been said that the best way to enjoy a true zombie picture is to not think too deeply about it, and I suspect that’s a sentiment not lost on writer/director Brett Leonard.
 
The Dead Pit served as the genre director’s cinematic debut – he went on to such projects as The Lawnmower Man (1992), Virtuosity (1995), and Highlander: The Source (2007) – and his potential as an auteur is all over this one, having a small role in it as well as co-writing it (with producer Gimel Everett).  Clearly the picture incorporates enough of the tropes of the zombie genre far and wide that this Pit can be seen as an homage to what’s come before, and the director says as much in the disc’s commentary track.  In fact, Leonard admits to influences from Horror, Dramas, and more in the lively discussion; and I encourage folks who enjoy the flick to spend time with the special feature for even more rewards.  It’s as revealing as it is entertaining.
 
Essentially, this Pit works because all involved make it work, a sentiment embraced by those before and behind the camera.

​Lawson – her first leading role – is an attractive lead; while she may not possess the emotional stuffing required to garner an Academy Award, her work here is admirably ‘blue collar’ – especially for Horror – and she makes the most of it.  The location – Leonard’s commentary discloses it was shot on an actual psychiatric institute – becomes a character in and of itself, adding to the palpable menace required for audiences to buy into the premise.  And the effects crew?  Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for practical special and make-up effects; while I could quibble with a handful of individual scenes, the overall effort here is more than enough to ‘sell the sizzle’ that is the zombie aesthetic.  Hats off to the stewards who raised the dead once more!
​

The Dead Pit (1989) is produced by Cornerstone Production Company.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via Code Red.  As for the technical specifications?  This B-Movie of the late 80’s looks and sounds very good; the packaging indicates this is a new 2K scan from the original negative (with some extensive scene-by-scene correction), and though I’m no visual or video expert I thought it looked solid with only occasionally grain.
 
As for the special features?  I’d have to say this is probably one of the liveliest audio commentaries I’ve had the good fortune to listen to in my lifetime!  Director Leonard, producer Gimel Everett, and star Jeremy Slate clearly had as much fun shooting the flick as they did re-assembling for this commentary.  (The packaging bills it as ‘new,’ but as Everett and Slate have both passed away some time ago I’m figuring this is only ‘new’ to the U.S. marketplace.)  Even better, the disc boasts a handful of interviews (Leonard, Slate, Everett, and star Lawson) which contain much of the same information, though it’s admittedly a bit easier to follow as no ones speaking over one another the way it happens in commentary tracks.  It’s a great collection for fans who enjoy this sort of thing, me included.
 
Recommended.  The thing I love about discovering an older release which somehow has eluded my research is that I get to experience that particular era of filmmaking all over again, almost like it’s brand new.  The Dead Pit – while flawed – has the kind of charm many who grew up in the 80’s expected from our lesser Horror, SciFi, and Fantasy films: it doesn’t have to make much sense because that wasn’t what a film of its type was all about.  Instead, you get to revel in the moment of sometimes clever and sometimes shlocky storytelling.  Also, I rarely stump for commentaries all that much, but this one was a winner: the trio has some fond memories of bringing this to life, and listening to them recount their time together feels like you’re all sitting in a living room reliving it with them.  Very nicely done … though I found it a bit weird that actor Slate actually took a quick phone call during their taping session.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Code Red provided me with a Blu-ray disc of The Dead Pit (1989) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

When is a murder mystery more than a murder mystery?
 
If we’re speaking in cinematic terms, then the answer would lie with the skill of the craftsman (or craftswoman) behind the camera.  While names like John Ford or Sergio Leone conjure up notions about epic Westerns that helped both define as well as shape the genre, the greatest purveyors of the film mystery is a bit harder to cite; and this is quite possibly owed to the fact that many who dabbled in the solving of a puzzle crossed over into realms of Drama, Comedy, and Horror.  These storytellers typically mashed up different thematic categories in hopes of getting the best of both worlds to combine in ways others simply couldn’t (or didn't) achieve, and audiences rewarded their efforts over and over again at the box office.
 
Examples?
 
Well, Alfred Hitchcock definitely comes to mind.  The England-born writer and director rather famously took his everyman characters and put them through some treacherous paces on the silver screen, so much so that his mysteries look less and less like puzzles and more like cinema thrill rides.  Certainly, the Coen brothers – who’ve crafted such films as Blood Simple (1984), Miller’s Crossing (1990), and Fargo (1996) – have achieved great results with quixotic characters being thrust into dire straits, often times with an ample infusion of blood, menace, and comedy.  Though it would appear that Brian De Palma steered his career away from the more traditional crime stories of his early career – films like Blow Out (1981) and The Untouchables (1987) – no one can deny the director’s signature ‘creeping camera’ style helped move the story along in ways other auteurs only dream about.
 
Where am I going with this, and what – pray tell – does this have to do with Science Fiction and/or Fantasy?
 
As I said, some directors defied the conventions of their generation and their industry, instead choosing to bring whatever elements they chose to a good story.  One such master was Dario Argento.  Instead of compartmentalizing films into particular niches, Argento tended to flavor whatever tapestry he spun with elements of darkness.  He explored the natural and the supernatural.  Sometimes bloody and sometimes macabre, his best and most personal films flirted with ideas not all that different from what the Brothers Grimm or even Edgar Allen Poe explored, stories about people thrust into a chilling nightmare they may or may not emerge from whole.
 
Definitely, Argento left his main character Marcus Daly (as played by David Hemmings) immersed in a pool of blood and perhaps questioning his own sanity in the process in the grand finish to Deep Red (1975) which I’ve recently had the good fortune of screening.
​

​(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 product packaging:
“One night, Marcus Daly, looking up from the street below, witnesses the brutal axe murder of a woman in her apartment.  Racing to the scene, Marcus just manages to miss the perpetrator … or does he?  As he takes on the role of amateur sleuth, Marcus finds himself ensnared in a bizarre web of murder and mystery where nothing is what it seems …”
 
The difficulty in reviewing a landmark presentation like Deep Red (aka The Hatchet Murders) – a singular flick often cited as one of filmdom’s best examples of pure giallo style – is that there’s an awful lot to unpack.

​Visually, the film is dynamic as Argento peppers it with clever theatrics that provide commentary both about motion pictures in general as well as the expectations of those of us who watch them.  Though some sequences feel longer than necessary (a popular criticism applied to Argento as well as the aforementioned Hitchcock and De Palma), I suspect every shot here was exactly what the auteur required in order to convey the magnitude of text and subtext.  Even the music score at times seems to be coming at the material from yet another angle, offering up contrasting styles of jazz, technopop, and metal.
 
See what I mean?

​As I teased in my article’s opening, there’s so much more to this than just a murder and its dastardly culprit, and I’ll have trouble squeezing even the most benign observations into the mix.
 
Because folks in these parts of the Information Superhighway do come expecting my discussion of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I’m going to focus on that particular element of Deep Red for the review.  It may end up seeming inconsequential if not a bit trivial to some, but because Argento continued to make films flirting with the ideas of High Strangeness I think it’s entirely relevant.  This focus, however, will allow me to dispense (at this time) with other subjects that might be a bit esoteric or academic, though as editor I do reserve the right to revisit the work at some later date if I feel so inclined.
​

Chiefly, Deep Red underscores the director’s belief in psychic phenomena, namely one’s ability to read another’s mind.
 
In one of the film’s earliest segments, the audience is introduced to psychic Helga Ulmann (Macha Meril).  The featured speaker at a conference involving the supernatural, Ulmann finds herself psychically assaulted by the film’s villain, presumably a participant in attendance.  Even after the other presenters on stage come to her assistance, the woman is so overwhelmed by bloody impulses that she can no longer continue.  Though the conference ends early, it becomes clear that the murderer will strike again … and it’s only natural that Ulmann become the next victim.

​Why?  She knows a crime has been committed.  She's seen it, albeit in her mind's eye.
 
Wherein other dirctors treat such subject matter with kid gloves, Argento isn’t afraid to bring its possibility front-and-center.  Ulmann’s unique psychic gifts are what define her as a character in this universe, and that makes her as a central target.  If she survives after having read these murderous impulses, then the killer remains at risk.  This telepathy serves as the catalyst to unlock a door  once closed, and the audience is treated to even greater authenticity when it’s shown her continued journaling of these dark thoughts back in her hotel room before she meets her grim demise.
 
Though the wider discussion of telepathy essentially disappears from Deep Red at this point, I wondered if in some small way it continued to percolate in Argento’s mind as the rest of the story continued.

An otherwise uninvolved protagonist, Daly remains fixed on some deep-rooted need to uncover the murderer – yes, it’s clear that he’s at risk because of early involvement, but wouldn’t a normal person simply run away?  Isn’t it a more natural human impulse to flee from impending danger … and yet Daly persists on growing more deeply involved at every turn?  Could his fixation be something greater than a personal moral code … maybe even something supernatural?  Is he in some way ‘linked’ to the evildoer beyond the obvious?
 
Again, I’m not suggesting this was the case as I’ve no way to know.

I’m simply pointing out that Argento’s catalogue of films suggest there’s something more to existence than what we see at face value, and I thought this worthy of pointing audiences in another direction to consider.  Centrally, it's about the possibility that there's more to life than this.  I find it refreshing when storytellers embrace some of what stretches beyond the conventional and works those ideas into their films because -- it's been my experience -- that's how those of us out in Blue Collar Existence see the world-at-large: it's a place sometimes too complicated to understand ... much like Argento's villain.
​

Deep Red (1975) is produced by Rizzoli Film and Seda Spettacoli.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the superb Arrow Video.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  This widescreen presentation looks and sounds absolutely brilliant from start-to-finish.  There was one sequence that, I think, my player ‘chopped’ the audio out completely on first viewing (for a few seconds); I restarted the chapter and it played fine on the second session.  (I’ve noticed that sometimes discs loaded with special features can have some playback issues, but this isn’t all that common, nor do I think it a defect of the presentation; it’s just what sometimes happens with a lot of data.)
 
As for the special features?  Again: wow.  Arrow Video has quickly become the ‘go-to’ source for many of these older/vintage re-releases, especially those deserving of either greater study or widespread appreciation.  The disc boasts a handful of video interviews with various stars (as well as director Argento) and production personnel that are surprisingly lengthy (longer than the all-too-typical five minutes bits).  The chat with Argento and production manager Angelo Iacono were particular good; though the other interviews featured here are nice, I just didn’t see the reflections adding as much depth as did the director and manager’s.  Also, there are a handful of galleries one can spend a fair amount of time with; again, they’re a great addition, but they’re not the kind of thing I’d ever go through another occasion.  Lastly, there are two great commentaries, the better of which (in my opinion) is from Danish screenwriting Thomas Rostock.  His presentation is filled with facts and figures – though occasionally he spends a bit too much time breaking down individual sequence compositions – but it’s all delivered with patience and poise.  The other commentary – this one by author Troy Howarth and producer/cinematographer Nathaniel Thompson – I found occasionally frustrating if not downright puzzling; as the two men clearly know their stuff about film in general (as well as this one in particular), they’re often times speaking so fast to get out their respective thoughts that I found it hard to hear what they were actually saying.  (!!!)  I’ve experienced this before on audio commentaries – usually the ones by film historians can be overblown with content – and someone really needs to work with these behind-the-camera folks to temper either their nerves or their presentation style.  Speaking inaudibly does no one any favors; as much as I enjoyed their dialogue, I could only put up with it for about 70 minutes or a 120+ minute endeavor.  They were just that exhausting.
 
Highly recommended.

​Deep Red is the kind of film I’d imagine film students are watching and writing papers on.  Indeed, I would have – back in my day, that is – though I grew up largely unaware of it.  Our local video store in my hometown really only had the bloodiest entries in the Argento library, and I don’t recall it being on the shelves at the time.  Still, I’m thrilled to have discovered it today as I think it definitely demonstrates that great storytelling isn’t confined to any single country much less any singular storyteller.  Yes, Argento is a master, and this film in particular is worthy of your attention.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Deep Red (1975) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ