It’s been suggested that the decade of the 1990’s truly crystallized what modern audiences defined as the ‘slacker comedy.’
 
For those unfamiliar with the format, let me offer a bit of illumination.  Slacker films are those typically headlined by characters generally opposed to the traditional world of work, be it the soul-crushing 9-to-5 construct or anything, frankly, anything resembling a normal job.  It’s not as if these folks are lazy; rather, (in my opinion) it’s that they kinda/sorta detest what’s grown to be considered a normal, functional existence, and their narrative rebellion against the establishment is what mostly defines these characters.  While it might be considered a bit ‘highbrow’ by some standards, 1998’s The Big Lebowski (from the Coen Brothers) is arguably one of the best examples – especially from the 1990’s – but a great many variations on such a theme and format also fit within the Comedy sub-genre.
 
Though I could be wrong on this point, I think it’s fairly rare to run across a slacker film in the world of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror; and that’s part of why I think I so much fell in love with 2023’s As We Know It.  Blending ‘slackness’ alongside zombie humor with more than a smidge of romance (Zom/Rom/Com), As We Know It was written (in part) and directed by Josh Monkarsh.  Its cast includes Taylor Blackwell, Mike Castle, Oliver Cooper, Pam Grier, Danny Mondello, and Chris Parnell (in the biggest roles); and its breezy California laid back setting pits its players against a growing zombie plague that’s brought on – by all things – a bad batch of soy milk.
 
(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:
“In the late 90’s, James Bishop is dealing with a complicated breakup with the help of his best friend, while trying to finish his book before the impending zombie apocalypse.”
​

Succinctly, there’s a lot of love about a world struggling to define and accept what love is – while at the same time winding itself down to possible extinction – and that’s what makes As We Know It such a pleasant 84 minutes.  The slacker comedy never quite takes itself or its small(ish) ensemble seriously enough to grow tiring at any point, even though some of the obviously chatty introspection does wear a bit thin in its second half.  Still, it’s paced mostly perfectly, never invests too much with characters whose existences are predicated on a measure of selfishness (stopping well short of narcissism), and delivers laughs to divert from any developing seriousness in just the right fashion.  Too much of a good thing might grate on the audience’s nerves, and too little might feel dismissive.
 
As for this one?  Like Goldilocks said, “This one’s just right.”
 
Aspiring author and SciFi junkie James Bishop (played by Michael Castle) has run up a healthy bit of writer’s block in trying to craft the follow-up to his somewhat successful debut novel, “Trains In Space.”  The problem is that whatever muse he had appears to have deserted him, and said muse took the shape of the ‘love of his life,’ Emily (a delightfully plucky Taylor Blackwell).  Thankfully, James has his best bud – Bruce (Oliver Cooper) – to distract him from his somewhat crippling bout of depression.  And, yet, perhaps what all of them truly needed was nothing more than a slowly burgeoning Zombie Apocalypse to at last bring them all together, face their demons, discover their separate truths, and maybe – maybe – even save the day.
 
Stranger things have happened, am I right?
 
Just as relationships are imperfect, As We Know It might not have enough humor to tickle everyone’s funny bone.  I’ve often suggested that humor is the hardest sell in the whole entertainment business – what you find funny may not be what I find funny, and so on and so forth – but Monkarsh and his friends’ script is equally prescient and smart about the world and people created.  It never suggests a rightness or a wrongness to any personal choices in all of this subdued chaos, leaving such assumptions to the viewing audience.  Instead, the bulk of the action has these somewhat slackers just embracing life on the fly – even the unwinding of civilization around them – by choosing to, instead, sit back and enjoy yet one more home screening of Kevin Costner’s own disaster-in-the-making, Waterworld (1995).
 
Oh, the cruel irony!  Embracing the Apocalypse while enjoying the ultimate professional apocalypse on film!
 
(As one of Waterworld’s last remaining and true fans, I’m thrilled for this tip of the hat.  So sue me.)
 
The core beauty of an ensemble is that it becomes impossible to see any other talent inhabiting these roles, and hats off to all involved in this respect.  Castle pitch perfectly assumes the mantle of the struggling author – that guy who may or may not have what it takes to find success if he can just figure out how to get out of bed in the morning – and he rather capably leads those around him to their collective doom.  The screen (and the audience) love a pretty face, and Blackwell shines as the young maiden who – despite her best interests – can’t quite quit coming back to her former flame, mostly because she believed somewhere in her heart of hearts that it was about as good as it can get.  Cooper – as probably the seminal slacker here – refuses to take ‘no’ for an answer – even when ‘no’ is, truly, the only answer – and his ‘never say die’ attitude satirically ends up nearly saving the day … but – in true slacker fashion – I think all of us suspected this one’s ending wouldn’t be happy across the board.
​

Now … don’t get me wrong.  Love wins.  That’s just what it does.  After all, that’s what love does, right?  It wins.  It always wins.  Whether we like it or not.  Whether we earn it or not.  Whether we want it or not.  That’s what film, stories, and Taylor Swift has taught us.  Love wins.  Still, love’s problem – as even these folks would tell you – is it has sh#tty timing, but who among us doesn’t want to go into the Apocalypse joined (at least) in hands with like-minded souls?
 
Count me in.
 
The best slacker comedies have always been, ultimately, centered on friendship: what makes these types who they are isn’t so much as important as their insistence on meeting life’s obstacles together, and As We Know It is no different.  Yet, global disaster has finally arrived, but no one seemingly lets it spoil their day; and – as the film shows – there’s always time to learn something about yourself along the way to oblivion.  In fact, I like thinking that the final message to all of these antics and discovery is this simple lesson: sometimes, you gotta come out of your shell far enough to realize just how safe you were … back in your shell.  After all, no one’s getting out alive – no matter how fit, how happy, how employed, how productive, or not – so why not stick to what makes you happiest?
 
Truer words were never written, and I’m glad As You Know It left me with that closing inspiration.
 
Ok.
 
Go about your day, people.
 
As We Know It (2023) was produced by Buffalo 8 Productions, Revisilagi Vfx Studio, and Traffic City Productions.  According to a quick Google.com search, the film is presently available for viewing theatrically at select locations across the United States.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights-and-sounds to this Horror/Comedy to be exceptional from start-to-finish.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I view this one via online streaming, there were no special features to consider.
 
Highly recommended.
 
While I’m admittedly no fan of the slacker comedy format, I’ll still concede that I found As We Know It (2023) highly infectious.  It properly hits many of the comic beats of like-minded fare (i.e. regular Joes both confronting and surviving the Apocalypse in their own special way), and it feels as if it could exist in the same universe as Zombieland (2009), Warm Bodies (2013), or Cooties (2014), albeit with vastly less blood and tension and with measurably more introspection.  Its performers make the of the slightly-overlong run-time … but when the end of life as we know it is this inviting that’s an easy overstep to forgive.  After all, don’t take those grudges to the grave, folks.  That, too, could kill ya.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Buffalo 8 Productions provided me with complimentary streaming access to As We Know It (2023) 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 (corrected) film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A man is tormented by an ex-lover, Lorna, who possesses a strange power over women, including the man’s daughter.”
 
Here’s the thing, writer/director Jesús Franco: you don’t make it easy for fans to defend you.
 
I know, I know, I know: anyone who has followed film – especially foreign releases, and, yes, I do say this as an American – has likely heard of Franco and his – snicker snicker – body of work.  Think what you will, but the auteur is probably best recognized as being one of Spain’s premier makers of reasonably low-budgeted exploitation fare, the kind of thing that used to be relegated to backroom video store shelves and/or obscure pay cable channels.  Yes, there’s a fair amount of T’n’A – if you know what I mean – and, being no prude, I certainly have no issues with that.  However … Franco can really try an audience’s patience regularly.
 
If one considers Lorna … The Exorcist (1974) as a somewhat typical product of the man’s talents and imagination (he is credited as both director and co-screenwriter), then the troubles begin right out of the gate: the flick opens with a – ahem – nine-minute sequence of lustful exploration between two comely lasses, only to end with a curious cut to all new characters and circumstances.  In fairness, I believe the audience was led to conclude that this somewhat exhaustive opening sequence was the product of a fanciful dream experienced by an inmate to a kinda/sorta insane asylum … or is it?  The uncertainty here is owed to the fact that this set-up – with the possible linkage to this ancillary character – has a very tenuous connection to Lorna’s premise itself, which frankly is far more interesting.
​

Patrick Mariel (played by Guy Delorme) is leading the perfect life.  Successful in life and in love, he’s married to the perfectly if not ravishingly beautiful Marianne (Jacqueline Laurent), and – together – they’ve raised their daughter Linda (Lina Romay) to the cusp of womanhood: on the verge of turning eighteen, the young woman has the world at her fingertips … but her fingertips – it would seem – have grown increasingly obsessed with (snicker snicker) exploring the peaks and valleys of her wonderfully shapely body.
 
As Fate would have it, Linda’s erotic obsession has a rather dark explanation: years ago, dear daddy made a pact with the Devil – or was it a witch? – when he was seduced by the lovely Lorna Green (Pamela Stanford), a businesswoman of her own making who commands a heavy price in exchange for providing her lover a favor.  The terms were simple: after making love to Lorna, Patrick must rush home and make love to his own wife, thus transferring the magical seed into a fertile womb and impregnating her.  This contract will produce untold wealth for the family, but – on Linda’s eighteenth birthday – she must assume the mantle of witchy prowess by taking Lorna’s place in the material world.
 
So Franco’s thematic explanation for Linda’s unnatural sexual hunger is tied to a kinda/sorta genetic awakening.  Of course, non-magically-bred young women also experience their own cravings as a consequence of hormonal development, but this is territory already staked out for its exploitative appeal so just roll with it.  (Roll with it?  Snicker snicker again!)  We’re treated to some inordinately long sequences of soft-core pornography in a few spots, and methinks that that’s all that really mattered to Franco is getting all of this and the kitchen sink up gloriously on the silver screen.
 
Lorna clocks in at an astonishing 99 minutes, and – for the amount of narrative substance it includes – that’s vastly, vastly, vastly too long.  In all seriousness, there’s truly only about a thirty minute episode of any direct-to-cable sex series in here, and yet – in customary Franco fashion – it’s all padded out with long takes, languorous camera tilts and pans, and pretty passing scenery … with so very little of it being functionally necessary to enhance much less move the story.  It’s artistic bloat – not of the good Martin Scorsese variety – and it truly only serves to sink the picture’s already leaden performances, occasionally even making me wonder if some of it wasn’t shot for another film but incorporated here in order to bolster the runtime.
​

Though I enjoyed Lorna’s central idea – that being a pact with a demon eventually extracting a heavy price on the mere mortals – there’s still too much padding in here (including the surprisingly unpadded ‘padded’ cell story that only loosely connects).  Dialing back the excesses while still dishing out some beautiful bodies doing what beautiful bodies are prone to do in the quiet of the night could’ve made this one into something a bit more special.  But as is?  Ouch.
 
No wonder one lady got crabs.  Literally.  (You’ll understand the pun when you see it.)
 
Lorna … The Exorcist (1974) was produced by Comptoir Francais du Film Production (CFFP).  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were very, very good: there’s one short sequence that had an obvious imperfection (vertical) line, but nothing in here took away or distracted from the story.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Kino Lorber has ponied up a good collection, including an audio commentary by novelist/critic Tim Lucas, some related interviews, and both English and French audio tracks.  Well done.
 
Still … only Mildly Recommended.
 
When it comes to some filmmakers, I do find it hard to give them an enthusiastic thumbs up.  Jesus Franco can be a bit of an acquired taste for some, so consider that a fair warning in considering Lorna … The Exorcist (1974).  At its core, there’s a solid, understandable, and relatable idea – one might even say classical, in nature – and the script bobs and weaves around the premise, though ultimately leaving all parties in some dire predicament as a consequence.  While I’ve read that this one has been long considered one of Franco’s best, that also means that those things he did which frustrated viewers are equally on display … so get set for taking ‘the good’ with ‘the bad’ on this endeavor.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Lorna … The Exorcist (1974) 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, it should go without saying that not every Science Fiction and/or Fantasy saga that 'comes down the pike' will bring joy and delight to fans everywhere.  Such is, simply, the nature of existence: some stories resonate more strongly with some, and others do end up, perhaps, taxing different minds to their wits' end.  Me?  I try to find joy in celebrating All Things Genre, and -- by doing so -- I try to reserve whatever downsides I might feel personally only in film and TV reviews. Generally speaking, I champion all releases ... and then I'll tell you what I feel about them only in the appropriate space and time.

With that qualifier out of the way, I'm still thrilled to have a good many fans of the Twilight Saga amongst my readership.  Though I understand the opinion of those who suggest the Stephenie Meyer Universe may've set back vampiric masculinity by centuries, I still applaud the persistence of seeing a story through to its ending.  Certainly, there are scores and scores of men and women who found it equally inspired; and, thus, another franchise was born into our collective consciousness.

Well ... wouldn't you just love to own that thing all for your lonesome?

I've received some of the promotional press materials for the forthcoming home video release of The Twilight Saga: The 15th Anniversary Steelbook Collection, and I wanted to pass along the stunning wealth of particulars for those considering making a purchase.  Think what you will about the film and its sequels, but I would love to see any number of franchises and stand-alone flicks this kind of supplemental materials.  It's an astounding collection, and I'll be doing the copy-and-paste below to bring you all up-to-speed with what's in store.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
​
Timed to the 15th anniversary of the first film in the franchise, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: THE COMPLETE COLLECTION – 15TH ANNIVERSARY arrives on a SteelBook® 4K Ultra HD™ (4K Ultra HD™ + Blu-ray™ + Digital) on November 14th at Best Buy from Lionsgate. Based on Stephanie Meyer’s best-selling novels with screenplays by Melissa Rosenberg (all five films), the film series was directed by Catherine Hardwicke (Twilight), Chris Weitz (The Twilight Saga: New Moon), David Slade (The Twilight Saga: Eclipse), and Bill Condon (The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Parts 1 & 2), and a cast that included Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Ashley Greene, Kellan Lutz, Billy Burke, Michael Sheen, and Dakota Fanning,
 
OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS

Celebrate the 15th anniversary of the first Twilight film and experience Bella and Edward’s epic love story, the dangerous feud between vampires and werewolves, and more unforgettable moments in the entire 5-film collection of Twilight: The Complete Saga. This special anniversary collection comes with four art cards and seven pieces of interchangeable cover art. Includes Twilight, The Twilight Saga: New Moon, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn—Part 1, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn—Part 2, and over twelve hours of special features.
 
CAST
​
Kristen Stewart                                              Spencer, Adventureland
Robert Pattinson                                            The Batman, Tenet
Taylor Lautner                                                Abduction, Valentine’s Day
Michael Sheen                                               TV’s Good Omens, Frost/Nixon
Dakota Fanning                                             War of the Worlds, TV’s The Alienist
 
SPECIAL FEATURES
 
TWILIGHT
 
4K UHD and BD:
Twilight Tour…10 Years Later featurette (10 mins)
A Conversation With Stephenie Meyer (23:34)
Music: The Heartbeat of Twilight (5:35)
Becoming Edward (7:28)
Becoming Bella (5:23)
Catherine Hardwicke's Vampire Kiss Montage (2:43)
Catherine Hardwicke's "Bella's Lullaby Remix" Music Video (3:59)
Edward's Piano Concert (2:34)
Twilight Cast Interview: Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson (6:45)
Twilight Cast Interview: Cam Gigandet (5:41)
Twilight Cast Interview: Edi Gathegi and Rachelle Lefevre (6:05)
Twilight Premiere On The Red Carpet (7:36) 
Cast Interviews On The Red Carpet (4:56)
Stephenie Meyer Talks About The Twilight Saga (34:45)
 
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON
 
4K UHD:
Filmmaker Commentary with director Chris Weitz and editor Peter Lambert (RT Feature Length)
 
BD:
Filmmaker Commentary with director Chris Weitz and editor Peter Lambert (RT Feature Length)
The Journey Continues: 6-Part Documentary on The Making of The Twilight Saga: New Moon (RT 95 min)
     1. Life After Twilight (RT 4 min)
     2. Chris Weitz Take the Helm (RT 4 min)
     3. The Subtile Details (RT 8 min)
     4. A Look at Production (RT 30 min)
     5. It's Not Magic (RT 10 min)
     6. Ready for the World (RT 8 min)
Team Edward vs. Team Jacob: The Ultimate Love Triangle (RT 7 min)
Introducing The Wolf Pack (RT 9 min)
Becoming Jacob (RT 5 min)
Edward Goes to Italy (RT 7 min)
Extended Scenes (TRT 30 min)
     1. School Corridor (RT 1 min)
     2. English Class (RT 1 min)
     3. Carlisla Stitches Bella (RT 3 min)
     4. Scrap Metal (RT 4 min)
     5. Start of Cinema Lobby (RT 2 min)
     6. Meeting Laurent (RT 5 min)
     7. Jake in Bella's Room (RT 5 min)
     8. Outside Emily's (RT 2 min)
     9. Jake Drives Bella Home (RT 5 min)
    10. Leaving for Italy (RT 1 min)
    11. Edward Meets Volturi (RT 2 min)
    12. I See You're Still Alive (RT 1 min)
Exclusive The Twilight Saga: New Moon Cast Interviews (TRT 22 min)
     1. Robert Pattinson (RT 3 min)
     2. Kristen Stewart (RT 3 min)
     3. Taylor Lautner (RT 3 min)
     4. Chris Weitz (RT 4 min)
     5. The Cullen Family (RT 2 min)
     6. The Wolf Pack (RT 3 min)
     7. The Volturi (RT 3 min)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon Live! Exclusive Webcast Event (RT 42 min)
Exclusive The Twilight Saga: New Moon Premiere Red Carpet Interviews (RT 6 min)
 
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
 
4K UHD:
Audio commentary with Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart (RT Feature Length)
Audio commentary with Stephenie Meyer and Wyck Godfrey (RT Feature Length)
 
BD:
Audio commentary with Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart (RT Feature Length)
Audio commentary with Stephenie Meyer and Wyck Godfrey (RT Feature Length)
The Making of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse 6-Part Documentary (TRT 98 min)
     Part 1: Introducing David Slade (RT 5 min)
     Part 2: Pre-Production Setting the Stage (RT 12 min)
     Part 3: The Heart of Eclipse (RT 14 min)
     Part 4: The Dark Side of Eclipse (RT 14 min)
     Part 5: Lights, Camera, Action (RT 25 min)
     Part 6: Post-Production Leaps in Technology (RT 23 min)
Deleted and Extended Scenes
     Deleted Scenes (TRT 3 min)
          1. It's Not Life or Death (RT 2 min)
          2. I Can't Wait to See What You're Going To Do Next (RT 1 min)
     Extended Scenes (TRT 8 min)
         1. Just Keep The Window Closed (RT 1 min)
         2. From Now On Switzerland (RT 1 min)
         3. Someone's Creating an Army (RT 2 min)
         4. Bella, I Envy You (RT 2 min)
         5. What Did I Say About a Low Profile? (RT 1 min)
         6. Jacob's Thoughts Are Pretty Loud (RT 1 min)
Photo Gallery (RT 7 min)
"Neutron Star Collision" Music Video by Muse (RT 4 min)
"Eclipse (All Yours)" Music Video by Metric (RT 4 min)
 
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN — PART 1
 
4K UHD:
Audio Commentary with Director Bill Condon (RT Feature Length)
 
BD:
Audio Commentary with Director Bill Condon (RT Feature Length)
Love, Death, Birth: Filming The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 6-Part Documentary (TRT 87 min)
     1. A New Beginning (RT 11 min)
     2. The Wedding (RT 13 min)
     3. The Honeymoon (RT 20 min)
     4. The Wolf Pack (RT 16 min)
     5. The Pregnancy (RT 13 min)
     6. The Birth (RT 15 min)
Jacob's Destiny (RT 7 min)
Bella and Edward's Personal Wedding Video (RT 9 min)
Bruno Mars - "It Will Rain" Music Video (RT 4 min)
Christina Perri - "A Thousand Years" Music Video (RT 5 min)
Iron & Wine - "Flightless Bird, American Mouth" Music Video (RT 5 min)
The Belle Brigade - "I Didn't Mean It" Lyrics Video (RT 4 min)
 
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN — PART 2
 
4K UHD:
Audio Commentary with Director Bill Condon (RT Feature Length)
 
BD:
Audio Commentary with Director Bill Condon (RT Feature Length)
Forever: Filming The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (TRT 93 min)
     1. Rebirth (RT 14 min)
     2. Renesmee (RT 11 min)
     3. The Cottage (RT 10 min)
     4. The Gathering (RT 16 min)
     5. The Field (RT 15 min)
     6. The Battle (RT 18 min)
     7. Forever (RT 10 min)
Two Movies at Once (RT 6 min)
"The Forgotten" Green Day Music Video (RT 5 min)
Tingles & Chills: Special Vampire Powers (RT 9 min)
Carlisle's Contacts: The New Vampires (RT 12 min)
 
 
PROGRAM INFORMATION
 
Year of Production: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Title Copyright: TWILIGHT © 2008, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON © 2009, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE © 2010, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN — PART 1 © 2011, THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN — PART 1 EXTENDED EDITION & THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN — PART 2 © 2012, Artwork & Supplementary Materials ®, ™ & © 2023 Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. and related companies.
Type: Catalog Re-Release
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Romance, Drama
Closed-Captioned: N/A
4K Ultra HD Subtitles: Spanish, English SDH
Blu-Ray Subtitles: Spanish, English SDH
Feature Run Time: 607
4K Ultra HD Format: 16x9 (2.40:1), 2160P High Definition 
4K Ultra HD Audio: English Dolby Atmos, Spanish 5.1 (Dolby Digital)
Blu-ray Format: 16x9 (2.40:1), 1080P High Definition
Blu-ray Audio: Various
Artist Name: Flore Maquin

Perhaps Eliphalet Oram Lyte said it best: “… life is but a dream.”
 
Setting aside the immortal debate involving religious and/or spiritual convictions, the best any of us can truly know is we get one ride for this particular attraction called ‘life,’ and we’re constantly encouraged to make the best of it.  Along the way, we experience an untold number of highs and lows, we commit what we can to memory, and we hope against hope that – come the big finish – it all, minimally, adds up to something.  That might take the shape of being fondly remembered by those whose lives we touched along the way, or – for those who’ve contributed more and continually ‘swung for the fences’ – it could mean being written about in history books.  Whatever the case, I think each of us hopes we’ll leave some positive impression for the things we accomplished, be they big or small.
 
But the current generation of our technological overlords have kinda/sorta found their own mechanisms to – say – ‘cheat the system.’  They’ve introduced a whole generation of creators and consumers to the world of Social Media (capitalized, you say?), and – by doing so – they’ve loosed a whole new Frankenstein of sorts that – dare I suggest? – perhaps even the Lord Almighty himself never anticipated this.  Whereas one’s life pursuits before this vanished in the ether, today they can be memorialized on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.com, forever enshrined in cyberspace for anyone who goes looking for a diversion, momentary or otherwise.
 
Never content to let an idea – good or bad – go to waste, our intellectual giants figured out a way to monetize this shared reality; and such a concept is at the heart of 2023’s rather interesting Share? from writer/director Ira Rosensweig.  Into this world comes #000000014 (played by Melvin Gregg), an inmate to some never-explained prison who figures out the key to improving what his lot in life has become requires entertaining others – via an unexplained video-link connection – who’ll them reward him in credits he can use for goods and services.  Apparently, there’s no way out of this Hellish landscape, but that may not be the entire truth … only if one’s willing to both think and act quick on his feet.
 
(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 man struggles to survive after awakening alone, trapped in a society connected only by primitive computers, where the ability to entertain is his only currency.  The first feature film ever to be shot entirely from one fixed camera angle.”
 
In short: wow.
 
As good as Share? is – and it is very, very good – it’s still as incomplete and/or inaccurate as the YouTube.com culture it decimates along the way.  I don’t think there’s any doubt to what Rosensweig intended here – presenting a bare bones existence honed all the way down to an obvious allegory to capitalism – and I suspect this award-winning writer, director, and producer hoped to inspire others to, at least, think about what they’re doing to themselves and the wide, wide world out there.  Ultimately, the problem with Share is that I don’t feel it ever truly figured out and stated categorically who’s at fault in its grand scheme of things.
 
As #000000014, Gregg gives a superb performance as a man who – for apparently no fault of his own – wakes up one day in prison with a web-streaming camera focused entirely on his four walls.  Slowly, he discovers that there’s no way out, but his surroundings and (to a smaller degree) his resources can be manipulated if he’s willing to work for it: viewers can express their appreciation of his antics (which, early on, consists of little more than farting and falling) by pledging credits through this computer economy.  With these earnings, #14 learns he can purchase food, cloths, and furnishings, all of which is delivered via a portal in the back wall.
 
Eventually, #14 also discovers that the video system can be used not unlike a video phone, giving him access to both his fans as well as streams from other inmates.  He’s eventually befriended and somewhat tutored to the far-reaching reality of the situation by #006395873 (Bradley Whitford) and even crafts a somewhat loving bond/relationship with #052605011 (Alice Braga), but one unfortunate and grisly demise inevitably has Gregg and Braga teaming up with the plot of enlisting the others trapped by this high-tech regime into a revolution.  After all, if you can’t bring them down from outside, then why not try it from within?
 
There’s a lot more to Share – the film tinkers with friendships in the virtual age as well as occasionally commenting on the legitimacy of affection with the loss of human contact – and I suppose it’s safe to suggest that Rosensweig and company had an awful, awful, awful lot on their mind that they wanted to say.

My issue with it is that rather than pare all of this down to one central message, it would seem that Share wants to indict everyone involved – even the feel-good yoga instructor #038491828 (Danielle Campbell) whose daily exercise and affirmations quite logically was helping a lot of her fellow inmates minimally accept their Fate so that they, at least, didn’t go completely bonkers.  But because it’s all piled on excessively and perpetually, I think it’s hard to come away from its last scenes without feeling like we, the audience, are all the brunt of the joke … which clearly would be true as we sat through this unchallenged for 80+ minutes.  The ol’ “if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem” ideology always works when it’s tried, and when it’s all crafted and shilled this good then aren’t you, too, Mr. Rosensweig?
 
Share? (2023) was produced by Traveling Picture Show Company (TPSC) and Wavemaker Creative.  A quick Google.com search shows that the film is presently available for rental or purchase via such platforms as Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, or Vudu.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were exceptional; there are a few special effects sequences that do give off some obvious tech wizardry, but I didn’t find them distracting in the slightest.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no additional features under consideration.
 
Highly recommended.
 
As groundbreaking as the structure, format, and story to Share? (2023) might be, I still find it a bit hard to conclude what writer/director Rosensweig truly wanted to say about our world.  Clearly, one might determine that it’s all intended to be an indictment of where we’ve arrived at both culturally and technologically … but – at the end of it all – is it?  Is it really?  Or is it an accusation levelled at those who’ve figured out ‘the system’ and are trying to utilize it for their own personal gains?  Or is it, instead, a condemnation of our society at large for willfully and deliberately going along with it?  In the end, we might never know … and that’s also quite possibly what is being stated definitively.  Each of us takes what we wish from this wild ride, and – believe you me – there’s likely to be a helluva lot of discussion when we reach the end of this carnival attraction.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at XYZ Films provided me with complimentary streaming access to Share? for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

I’ve made it my business to avoid picking up B-Movies and other forgotten flicks.
 
In fact, I’ve always tried approaching every film or TV episode I review from the standpoint of dissecting what works and what doesn’t, commenting even on the efficacy of performances and the worth of production details.  It goes without saying that those features shot with better budgets do begin the journey to completion with a potentially stronger foundation, but that doesn’t mean the end product will be any more worth its reputation.  Granted, the world of low budget pictures isn’t for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Siskel, and Ebert; but there are some nuggets of theatrical joy to be found by those willing to put in a little bit of time along with a good deal of patience.
 
This is largely why I’m thrilled to take a gander into such pictures like Vampires And Other Stereotypes (1994): they just don’t get the kind of coverage the latest Ryan Reynolds or Reese Witherspoon blockbuster will, even though they’re likely made by folks with more love, affection, and respect for the entire filmmaking process.  Because B-Movies are conceived, shot, and passed around by the medium’s most ardent fans, these films usually have something special worth a notice … and, yes, I get jazzed by trying to find out what that is.
 
Besides, if ten billion bloggers and vloggers have already told you why 2023’s Barbie deserved your attention, then wouldn’t you rather have little ol’ me pointing you toward equally interesting distractions?
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
​

From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Two ‘Men in Black’ wannabees (who are not wearing black) are on the look-out for ridding the planet of supernatural beings.  After saving a crooked businessman in a warehouse, they are surprised by three pretty girls and a leather-jacketed boyfriend who are searching for a party.  Evidently, they have unwittingly unleashed a kind of portal, endangering us all.  Our heroes spend the night trying to survive, as one of the three women has been targeted as a ‘breeder.’  She has apparently been chosen for being pretty tough – after all, she does the equivalent of shrugging her shoulders after witnessing her businessman father getting horribly decapitated just inches away.”
 
Erm …
 
Well, let’s get a few points out of the way right up front.
 
As a B-Movie, Vampires And Other Stereotypes has a bit more story than I honestly expected it to have.  That may not mean much to some, but I was pleasantly surprised with how deeply writer/director Kevin J. Lindenmuth tried to build this unique vision.  While his characters are all a bit two-dimensional, he still tried to give this subset to civilization a measure of uniqueness.  It may not have been all that original; but effort expended deserves the applause.  So … clap clap.
 
Where it’s hard to keep clapping is the fact that (A) far too much of what transpires does so entirely because that’s how it was written, and (B) the script kinda/sorta boasts a 1950’s mentality as it comes to social mores and the like.  Now, that would function adequately if all of this was intended as a narrative send-up to the way simpler times meant crafting simpler stories; but that doesn’t appear to be the case.  Vampires has some occasional humor – it boasts a rather funny sequence involving some bickering heads and faces of demons breaking through a concrete wall, and they spend their screen time arguing like spoiled children – and, yet, such folly would seem to be the exception rather than the norm to the flick’s tone.  I’m all for lampooning the lunacy of bygone days, but Vampires never finds that consistency and sticks with it.
 
In typical B-Movie fashion, we are delivered a wry and sardonic hero/antihero – two, actually – and Harry (Ed Hubbard) and Ivan (Bill White) rather capably host this journey beyond the Gates of Hell even though not everything that develops makes perfect sense.  (It is Hell, after all, so maybe that’s what Lindenmuth intended.)  In fact, I’ll admit to not even being entirely certain as to the why and how of this particular portal’s rules were handled: some instances play more as though they were made up in camera (or on the set) as opposed to being graphically plotted out in pre-production, so don’t look for all of this to add up seamlessly in the final reel.
 
Still, I am a fan of old school effects works – largely meaning things that can be accomplished both in camera and on-the-spot – and, in that respect, Vampires features a lovely assortment of make-up and creature prosthetics.  Those wall-mounted talking heads are some fabulous artistries, in fact, so much so that I wish the script had spent vastly more time with them; and there are some great masks used in the second half that should be the stuff of small legends within the realm of B-Movie fans.  They look great, and they allow for even modest characterizations obviously supplied by talented actors … so kudos to all involved in bringing some of these wacky creations so vividly to life.
​

I’ve read that this project was Lindemuth’s first in a reasonably storied career of like-minded fare, so it’s easy to chalk up some of the weaknesses inherent with such inexperience.  The curse of a half-baked script will always rear its head at some point, and therein lies Vampires’ greatest obstacle: how can even a winning ensemble overcome stories that could’ve benefited from one more draft if even that meant contracting a screenwriter for a second opinion?  The good ideas end up being shackled by the weight of unnecessary baggage, and the resulting inertia pulled parts of this one through that open gate with relative ease.  While it had parts I liked, it also had parts I loathed … and those two halves will never come together in any satisfying whole.
 
Vampires And Other Stereotypes (1994) was produced by Brimstone Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I can still spot some sub-par production work here and there; and there’s a great deal of sub-par production work spread across this low-budget effort.  As B-Movies go, it isn’t awful; but it still deserves a mention.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, holy mother of dragons, you’ll have plenty to get excited about as the disc boasts an astonishing three different commentary tracks, a plethora of cast and crew interviews, a good deal of related featurettes, some early Super 8 films from director Lindenmuth, and even a bit more.  Wow.  Visual Vengeance has spared no expense of giving fans the red-carpet treatment, so kudos to all involved.
 
Alas, only … Mildly recommended.
 
Vampires And Other Stereotypes (1994) requires a bit of patience even for those who traffic often in the realm of lesser features.  It doesn’t always make sense, and the fact that it kinda/sorta vacillates between meaningful Horror and schlock lunacy had me questioning just what all of it really was about, what it ultimately meant to say about its people, places, and things.  I realize that its entertainment value might be enough for others, but – as I said – I do still gravitate toward productions that resonate as opposed to cheaply entertain.  Still, I can appreciate some fabulous production work here and there, so I’ll keep my eyes peeled for more Lindenmuth in my diet.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Vampires And Other Stereotypes (1994) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Well, well, well ... good morning and Happy Tuesday, gentle readers!

Will you look at that?  Great mother of dragons!  If I'm reading that correctly -- and, yes, I've double-checked it (though I do have to do a bit of tinkering to get the proper headers in place) -- then you've got just over 100 different genre trivia citations to entertain yourselves with this morning!

Seriously I ask: could there be a better time to be a fan of SciFiHistory.Net?

I, for one, don't think so; and I'm thrilled that all of you have chosen to share this ride with me.  Welcome aboard, and -- certainly -- enjoy the day.  There's plenty of reason to celebrate.

I did spend the good portion of yesterday afternoon trying to get myself somewhat caught up with practical media that's been sent to me as of late.  I watched three flicks -- one of which I just reviewed this morning, 1963's Black Sabbath (found right here) -- and I'm working up my thoughts presently.  I might get another review (maybe two) up today.  It just really depends on the inspiration.  I do like to have something special to say about every film that I experience; but I'll admit one of the remaining choices is kinda/sorta pushing me to my limits.  It's an obvious low-budget flick ... and, sigh, it just isn't all that coherent in spots.  Sometimes this happens, and I've got to work overtime to give it some reflection.

Such is life, I guess ...
​
Also, my internet connection has been more than a bit wonky today.  Things aren't exactly showing up the way they're designed on screen, and I don't seem to be getting good signals.  So I'll likely take a break from it in a few minutes, if for no other reason than to do a full reboot as well as a reset of the house modem to see if that fixes the inadequacies.  Let's hope so.

But, otherwise, here's the real reason you're here this morning ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or character.  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:
“Boris Karloff hosts a trio of horror stories concerning a stalked call girl, a vampire-like monster who preys on his family, and a nurse who is haunted by her ring’s rightful owner.”
 
From what I’ve read, 1963’s Black Sabbath – an anthology picture of three Horror stories all adapted (in part) and directed by famed Italian director Mario Bava – was a project rushed into production and distribution somewhat on the heels of the theatrical success for his 1960 similarly-named Black Sunday.  I’ve also read that there exist two very different edits of the film with the Italian version being allegedly a bit brighter and accommodating of sexual mores while the U.S. incarnation kinda/sorta dials down some of this narrative extravagance as well as re-orders the order of the separate stories.  (For clarity’s sake, I’m reviewing the American International Pictures’ version.)  And, lastly, yes, I’m also aware that the film is cited as serving as the inspiration behind the rock group Black Sabbath choosing their name (a curious development, indeed, for anyone who wants to Google it), so let’s just agree initially that the flick has a much-deserved reputation.
 
Because this is an anthology film, I’m going to adjust my format, allowing for both a plot summary and some individual observations on each chapter.  I think this is the only way to do justice to the production, giving equal time to stories that only overlap tangentially.
​

The Drop Of Water
According to Wikipedia.org, here’s the plot summary:
“… is centered on Helen Corey, a nurse who steals a ring from a corpse that is being prepared for burial and finds herself haunted by the ring’s original owner after arriving home.”
 
Without getting into all of the particulars, the American edit of Black Sabbath really hits it out of the park with this first chapter.  In fact, it’s so good – expressive performances, fantastic cinematography, downright elegant production details – that I’d argue it should’ve been the anthology’s final chapter.  After all, why not go out ‘big’ with the best you’ve got?
 
Much like Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Tell-tale Heart,’ the narrative weight of Water rests entirely on the oppressiveness of sights and sounds truly terrifying our lead – a common nurse with a penchant for thievery – and Bava’s magic in this arc should have him standing side-by-side with any other Horror director in film history.  That might seem hyperbolic to some, but Water works entirely because its director knew precisely what was needed in every detail and managed to deliver just those elements to those watching closely.  From the glint off a jewel in a ring to the heavy plunk-plunk-plunk of dripping water, this short is crafted with epic details; and it could easily be celebrated alongside any award-winning ghost story I’ve ever seen.
 
Jacqueline Pierreux – as the nurse – earns high praise for the deftness with which she walks effortlessly through each scene, up until the point wherein The Other Side of Reality extracts its vengeance on a woman who would steal from the dead.  Milly – one of Italy’s most revered singers – equally handles her responsibilities as the dutiful maid (to the deceased) who really wants nothing more than to finish up her last day of work and get as far away from the gawking corpse as is humanly possible.
 
It's a fabulous affair, and it’s arguably this Sabbath’s best.
​

The Telephone
According to Wikipedia.org, here’s the plot summary:
“… involves Rosy who continually receives threatening telephone calls from an unseen stalker.”
 
For all intents and purposes, I thought that The Telephone both sounded and worked a bit too conventionally as Horror story.  While its performances are good and there are some nice supernatural touches that comes to life in its somewhat forced conclusion, this is a story that’s been done – to one degree or another – several times before both on the silver screen, in television, and even in book or story format.  As a consequence, it really only has the work of its players – namely Michéle Mercier and Lidia Alfonsi as dualling sources of affection – to give it the necessary ‘umph,’ and I thought they were both a bit light.
 
As Rosy, Mercier has vastly more screen time to both become her character and entice viewers into this story of a voice from the beyond haunting the present day.  She capably hits her marks, but I didn’t think that there was enough substance to the issue of precisely why she was being haunted.  Her increasing mania – resulting from both the repeated phone calls and the oppressive sense of claustrophobia – works well enough, but the elusive nature of her former lover’s axe to grind – as well as his reasons for using the telephone when it’s shown that he can choose human form as well as ghostly writing – held this one back from resonating beyond the grave as I think Bava intended.
 
While the anthology format wasn’t exactly brand new to storytelling in 1963, one wonders why Bava didn’t try to give this installment some greater freshness.  Was our male aggressor truly ‘a spectral killer?’  If so, then why couldn’t he be everywhere he needed to be to haunt the lady authentically?  Some of his talents suggest that is the case; but we see – in the all-too-brief finale – that he can be stabbed with a kitchen knife, so there are signs otherwise.
 
A bit of a misfire, if you ask me.
​

The Wurdalak
According to Wikipedia.org, here’s the plot summary:
“… where a man named Gorca returns to his family after claiming to have slain a Wurdulak, an undead creature who attacks those that it had once loved.”
 
Undoubtedly, the inclusion of Horror legend Boris Karloff – both as this anthology’s narrator as well as having him play the famed Wurdulak of this story – was meant to capitalize on the actor’s reputation with Western audiences.  And, frankly, he’s probably the best thing in this installment – so far as this viewer is concerned – as the story is a largely predictable one involving a vampire who apparently only feeds on friends and family.  While I’m not sure technically how such a diet could last throughout the ages – once you’ve fed and turned all in your bloodline, what else is there to eat? – but perhaps I’m just reading too much into the whole bloody affair.
 
But, yes, Karloff is very good here, vastly more committed and hugely successful in conveying his menace with little more than a look and a smile.  He rather creepily commands one scene after another, leaving the remaining actors and actresses with little more to do than fill out the story – and their respective descents into vampirehood – in melodramatic if not obligatory fashion.  While a twist would’ve been nice, I suspect Bava stuck as close to the source material as possible; and that just didn’t leave room for any further surprises in this mix of family dynamics.
 
I’d be remiss if I didn’t add that – perhaps more than the previous chapters – Wurdulak also benefits from the technical wizardry of its craftsmen and women along with Bava’s accomplished direction.  The piece both looks and feels exquisite, taking the audience on a tour through one decidedly Gothic location to the next.  While I thought that the yarn lost a bit of steam in its final moments – the seduction of our hero really became more inevitably than it was predictable – I think it’s still safe to say that Wurdulak demonstrates capably a good deal of what Italian producers could achieve on screen in this time and place; and it’s deserving of a look if for no other reason than that.

​Black Sabbath (1963) was produced by Emmepi Cinematografica, Societé Cinématographique Lyre, Galatea Film, American International Pictures (AIP), and Alta Vista Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to his release were exceptionally impressive; why, it ought to be a crime for a flick this dated to look this grand!  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The disc boasts the theatrical trailer along with a commentary from novelist and critic Tim Lucas.
 
Recommended, but …
 
Take note, readers: I think – and I could be wrong – that Black Sabbath is the kind of film that (A) appeals most to Bava purists; (B) interests fans of Italian and Giallo cinema; and (C) warrants a view for those chiefly interested in technical accomplishments.  While its stories are exquisitely rendered, they’re also understandably brief as they’re pieces of a broader construct.  I’m surprised I didn’t enjoy this one a bit more than I did – especially given Bava’s involvement and the fact that I’m fond of anthologies – but my last word on it is that I struggled with its ‘good, better, and best’ delivery.  Sometimes, that’s just the way the ball bounces.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Black Sabbath (1963) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to the start of an all-new week of excellence!

(That's right.  You heard me.  It's gonna be an excellent week!)

While I'm certainly hoping everyone had a weekend for the history books, it's now time to buckle back down to the business of making ends meet ends.  A new week will understandably bring new challenges and new opportunities, so I do expect each and every one of my readers to pick himself (or herself) up by the bootstraps and embrace whatever life throws at you in the seconds, minutes, hours, and days ahead.  Don't worry: you've got this ... just like you did last week.

Ahhhh ... what do I have to report this morning?

Well, not a whole heckuva lot.  As I mentioned last week, the weekend was a bit of a flurry for our household.  I had some volunteer stuff to attend to, as did the wifey, but we did manage to celebrate our wedding anniversary.  (Awww ... thank you!  Thank you!)  On Friday, we went up and out to a wonderful arts festival in Fountain Hills, and I even strayed outside of my comfort zome and picked up this wonderfully iconic Star Wars flannel-style shirt.  I'll put up a link -- perhaps tomorrow -- for a few of the booths I visited, as I do try to be a big supporter of folks who both stray outside their comfort zones as well as try to make a living entirely off of their talents.  In that vein, this craft show didn't exactly have as much to offer as it did last year, but I do so love walking and admiring what some folks can do with their own two hands.  It's inspiring, to say the least.

Still, I did manage to squeeze in a viewing last night: Arnold Schwarzenegger's The Running Man -- in 4K glory -- came to Amazon.com's Prime Video, and I couldn't pass it up.  It's a film I've always personally felt was flawed in construction but tried so very hard to say something about the world we live in.  Because it's a feature I've always wanted to say something about -- mostly because I disagree with so many fans who think it's a genius production -- I finally sat down this morning and sketched out my central premise.  Fans who wish to know more can check out my review right here, and I do encourage it because it's one of those rare occasions where I ventured into creative territory, telling you actually what I would've done to make it even more special than it is.  I do hope you read it and even sound off on my suggestions.

Naturally, there's more to celebrate in All Things Genre today, but I'll leave those discoveries to each of you.  Interested parties?  Well, you can find this mountain of goodness right here ...
​

Lastly -- as always -- thank you for reading ... thank you for sharing (that's always a plus 'round these parts) ... thank you for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- 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:
“In a dystopian America, a falsely convicted policeman gets his shot at freedom when he must forcibly participate in a TV game show where convicts, runners, must battle killers for their freedom.”
 
I don’t often do this, but I’m going to make a rare exception: though many of you might disagree, I’m going to tell you how – if I could go back in time and have been put in charge of bringing 1987’s The Running Man to bold theatrical life – I would make the feature into something special.
 
Okay, okay, okay: calm down.
 
I know that a good number of regular readers to SciFiHistory.Net quite probably both love and worship this Paul Michael Glaser-directed production.  It was reasonably popular back in the day, serving as one of the films that definitely cemented Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reputation in the world of Science Fiction and Fantasy.  (In fact, I’ve read that a good number of fans think it his best performance, but I won’t even go there.)  Screenwriter Steven E. de Souza adapted the Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King novel) for the big screen, so its pedigree is solid.  But I think my issues with it could very easily have been corrected with a slightly different edit, and the resulting story could very well have elevated the effort even further in the minds of those who worship All Things Genre as much as I do.  So, yes, I think the current incarnation is a bit … well … goofy … and, yet, it still has some of ‘the right stuff’ required to turn out grand.
 
So … why don’t I do this?  Let me explain as briefly as possible what I dislike about the film – that is my purview, after all, as a critic – and you can either agree or disagree.  Then after I get that out of the way, I’ll tell you what changes I’d make in order to deliver an edit that would’ve given audiences something to think about.
 
It isn’t uncommon for a feature’s footage to get re-used creatively, and that is my biggest bugaboo about Running.  The film’s opening sequence presents the audience with a backstory; and in it our hero Ben Richards (played by Schwarzenegger) – as an aerial police officer – is shown both defying orders to fire on defenseless rioters and resisting the arrest put forth on him by his fellow guardians of the peace.  Later in the story, viewers are presented a second draft of this exact same footage, but – this time – it’s been cleverly edited to give the appearance that Richards’ act of defiance was firing on the helpless crowd; necessarily, his resisting arrest is now depicted as his fellow workers trying to stop him from butchering untold dozens of men, women, and children.
​

Succinctly, I hate when films employ the tactic of using footage specifically constructed as our theatrical presentation and then re-use the same obviously professionally shot scenes – with edits, music, and effects – as if it is now an entirely different perspective.  This was well before the day of police officers being supplied with body cams and the like, but – stick with me here, folks – wouldn’t it have been incredibly inventive if this police helicopter had some internal recording device, be it a camera and/or audio?  Then this footage could’ve been used at this point instead of re-using exactly what the audience already saw!  That way, there could be a freshness to the presentation, instead of such an obvious storytelling trick.
 
Or … let me take this idea one step further because, quite frankly, Running Man employs a bit of trickery in its second half that honestly already opened this door.  I’m quite surprised that no one involved in pre-production saw this idea and leapt at it.
 
Late in the film, the audience is let in on the fact that gameshow host Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) and his production company executives aren’t above outright fabricating reality for the sake of its entertainment value.  To that end, The Running Man airs footage of last season’s alleged winners, all of them presumably living it up in paradise.  While we later learn that these tiny moments have been manufactured digitally, we really get a view behind the curtain once Killian and his co-conspirators begin creating scenes of Richards’ and Amber Mendez’s (Maria Conchita Alonso) demise at the hands of Captain Freedom (Jesse Ventura).  Because the script supposes that such technology exists, why didn’t they merely create said faux footage of Richards’ carrying out his campaign of death on the unsuspecting citizenry?  Wouldn’t that have swung open the door for even more vivid carnage?  Also, it could’ve given Richards an earlier indication that ‘something was afoot’ – it could’ve given him the chance to say a line like “that’s impossible as the helicopter had no in-flight recorder” or something – and such a development would’ve been a bit more organic.
 
Still … I have one more suggestion, and here’s where I think The Running Man could truly have been something special, almost on par with a good deal of what Paul Verhoeven achieved with Schwarzenegger a few years later with 1990’s Total Recall.  (Yes, yes, and yes: I do believe Total Recall is one of the highpoints in the actor’s whole career, but that’s an argument for another day and another time.)
 
Imagine that instead of opening up with this helicopter preamble with Richards and the other police defenders that the film merely opened with our hero’s prison escape.  The set-up in the aerial sequence is clearly intended to show that Arnold was our leading man, but suppose we went into all of this truly not knowing?  Imagine how the first half of the film could’ve played out if we didn’t know if Richards was a good man or a bad man?  Don’t misunderstand me: yes, Richard would ultimately be the hero of the film, but we wouldn’t know what really went down until vastly later in this story.  This nebulousness of his morality would’ve kept us watching much more closely at the signs along the way; and it could’ve mirrored those sentiments of “is this real or is this a memory implant” that fueled the wild ride that was to become Total Recall.  This rather simple edit could’ve allowed director Glaser to use the already shot helicopter footage later in the film; and it could also have kept Mendez’s suspicions as to what was really on the ‘unedited footage’ chip she steals from the television studio.
​

If you haven’t noticed, I kinda/sorta get jazzed more by stories that are cerebral instead of visual circuses.  I don’t mind all of the colorful splash and bloody killings, but I think the entire affair is enhanced when we – as viewers – are tasked with material that challenges our perspective.  Am I watching a good man, or am I watching a man who did something bad and is now trying to find whatever redemption is available in this tarnished future?  This minor change could’ve given Running Man some greater intellectual stuffing; and I think audiences might even have enjoyed it.
 
As it is, Running Man feels as if it was too deliberately crafted to be an Arnold epic.  The one-liners are, frankly, a bit atrocious; and such verbal chicanery often cheapens what could’ve been a stronger moment.  Glaser should’ve let his strongman be a bit quieter – hell, the script even gives Arnold the chance to repeat the line he made famous a few years earlier in The Terminator (1984) so there’s no doubt all of these quips were intended – and I’d argue that the result would’ve been admired by more than just the same audiences ultimately lampooned within the satire.  Was that the intended point?  To make the viewers feel guilty as they’re little more than those shown on screen?  I’m never a big fan of being insulted by any production, so color me offended, if you must.
 
Though my complaints don’t stop here, I’m perfectly comfortable leaving this as is.  To me, The Running Man will always be that flick that truly missed an opportunity to be greater than the sum of its parts (and its central message), and it could very easily have been positioned as one of the smartest and savviest in all of the former governor of California’s professional career.  Instead, it took the easy way out, giving the lion’s share of the attention to the narrative gimmick of having a good man running for his life.  Yeah, that’s clever, but – as I said – it’s still a McGuffin … and McGuffin only work and last for so long.  A smarter story – along with smarter characters – could’ve made this one for the ages.
 
The Running Man (1987) was produced by TAFT Entertainment Pictures, Keith Barish Productions, Home Box Office, and Braveworld Productions.  According to a quick Google.com search, the feature is (presently) available for rental or for purchase on such platforms as Google Play, iTunes, Vudu, and Amazon.com.  (FYI: I watched it on Prime Video, in fact.)  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds to what the platform advertised as a 4K restoration were astoundingly grand.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no special features to consider.
 
Recommended.
 
It isn’t as if I don’t enjoy The Running Man (1987) because it has its charms, albeit few.  My take on the film is that it didn’t quite go far enough – its satiric notes ring true but could’ve been expanded in so, so, so many ways – and instead invests in too much of what had become the usual Schwarzenegger spectacle of offing villains in wildly spectacular fashion following by a cutting, tongue-in-cheek pun.  In fact, I could make a case that the picture could’ve been strengthened by not having the Muscles from Brussels in it entirely, giving some other leading man from the day a chance in the limelight.

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers ... and welcome to ... FRIDAY!  (cue celebratory music)

Well, well, well ... we made it yet again to Friday.  Doesn't that feel great?  Doesn't that just feel damn exceptional?  I know, I know, I know.  It's early, and the lot of you don't want to get all that excited about it just yet.  You'd rather wait until this afternoon when the cold harsh reality sets in that the work week is over.  I hear you.  And I salute you.  Thank you for continuing in the fight.  You're all heroes, each and every damn one of you.

But ... I've not a lot to report today.  I didn't get to any screenings and/or general whatnot yesterday as I had a bit of personal business to take care of.  Also, I had my volunteer work in the afternoon, so there's that.  I'm hoping to get some films watched over the weekend, but I'm also tied up with some volunteer stuff on Saturday, so it's honestly going to be a bit tough this time around.  If I can, then I'll get something up on the MainPage -- even if it's just one of these daily announcements -- but look for some very slim pickings over the next two days.  Sorry, peeps: that's just the way the Death Star explodes, if you catch my meaning.

Also, I'm off today with the wifey as we're celebrating a wedding anniversary.  (Actually, it's tomorrow, but we're both busy with stuff tomorrow, so we're entertaining ourselves today.)  

So ... in that respect, I'm going to leave you to yourselves and, of course, today.  There are some interesting trivial nuggets on the page; and I do have a few extras I'm trying to get up in that space before I get out the door.  Keep checking back, you know, as I'm always (ALWAYS) updating individual pages when I obtain new information, additional requests, and/or research discoveries.  SciFiHistory.Net is always growing, and I'm glad that you're glad to have found this special place that celebrates All Things Genre.

Here's the link ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks even more for sharing ... thanks even more for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ