I'm not as well versed with international film history as I'd like to be -- perhaps even as I should be -- but with the amount of reading I do in genre I'm very familiar with the name of writer/director Ruggero Deodato.  It might not be for the reason I should recognize it, but -- as they say -- it is what it is.  Essentially, I was introduced to his work via an audio commentary track wherein the man was given credit for completing a certain picture early in his career even though his name doesn't appear as the director in the credits.  Apparently, this happened from time-to-time in Italian cinema; I can't speak to the efficacy of the information, and I'm only passing along a little something something that I had heard.

In any event, these film scholars went on into an entire verbal sidebar on Deodato's career, and they discussed one of the most fascinating things I'd ever heard occurring to any filmmaker as a consequence of assembling a project and putting it out into the marketplace for mass consumption.

Though I've only seen bits and pieces of -- ahem, pardon the pun -- Cannibal Holocaust (1980), I am more than well aware of the flick's reputation.  Now, I'm not going to trouble my readers with even a casual accounting of all that's been said and written about the film, mostly because I do try -- when dissecting history -- to avoid passing judgment on any person and/or factoid out there.  Suffice it to say, there's a lot of water -- bloody water -- under the bridge that was Cannibal's production, and one might do well to review the picture's Trivia Page alone over at IMDB.com.  Seriously, it's an incredible amount of whatnot.  But those speaking on the commentary track did mention Deodato's criminal charge resulting from a marketing tactic employed with the project.  I've not verified it, and again I'm only passing on what I've heard.

Allegedly, the film's release caused a stir in its native Italy, so much so that the depiction of actual deaths of stars in the picture caught the attention of the highest authorities imaginable.  Deodato was first charged with obscenity for his role in bringing the story to life; and -- when the onscreen talent couldn't be located -- the charges were upped to three counts of murder!

Yowza!

Now as the story goes, everyone involved with Cannibal's cast had to sign contractual agreements to disappear from public life for several months.  (I believe it may've even been up to a year.)  This was designed as a marketing tactic to further create the illusion of their demise onscreen from the film.  Deodato and producers wanted to fashion as authentic deaths as he could, so what better way to do that -- on top of all of the bloodshed -- than to have the actors and actresses quite literally gone from society?  Because these folks were out of the spotlight, these authorities believed that they were actually murdered -- snuffed out, as they say -- and Deodato was to be brought to justice for his part in the violent affair.

Even IMDB.com reports that the director had to contact the producers who in turn reached out to the talent and have them appear in court -- on his behalf -- in order to have the charges fully dropped.

To this day, that remains one of the wildest things I've ever heard from Horror film history, and it'll likely stick with me until my last days.

Alas, none of us lives forever, and word reached the Information Superhighway this morning of Deodato's passing.  Out of respect for his body of work and the legacy he leaves behind, I wanted to pass along that story.

Thoughts and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Ruggero Deodato.  May he rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Every now and then, a reader will reach out to ask me about a particular film.
 
I know, I know: “Well, you write about film on your site, so why is that even worth bringing up?”
 
Well, the answer is a bit more complex than what I’ll provide today, but in the interests of keeping it respectful and reasonably non-controversial I’ll answer that I’ve always felt that not every Science Fiction, Fantasy, and/or Horror release that comes out is worth the investment in mental exercise.  This isn’t to say – or even imply – that perhaps I disliked something or found it unfulfilling in any way; it’s just that sometimes after I watch something and consider it I find that I have very little of substance to say about it.  For whatever reason, the picture didn’t touch me or connect on any way that moved me to the point of dissecting it any further than that … merely watching it.
 
If you haven’t guessed, then this brings me to Avatar: The Way Of Water (2022).
 
Yes, yes, yes: I’ve seen it.  The wifey and I took it in on her day off.
 
Coming out of it, I did have some minor inspiration to put down a few thoughts with the clicking of keys on the keyboard, but as I ruminated over the flick a bit more I just couldn’t even find a starting point.  I kicked it around a bit, even went online and read some of what others had written to see if I could get a bit more excited about the prospect, but I failed miserably.  Now – several days later – I’ve received a few emails (not a lot, just a few) from folks who wanted my thoughts on it (stranger things have happened), so I do feel a bit compelled to post something.  Out of respect to the readership, I’ll try to be as succinct as I can.
​

Avatar (2009) certainly deserves a mountain of praise for its visual artistry – as does the sequel – but some of my issues with it lie in the fact that I just don’t see this world as conceived and crafted by legendary director James Cameron as being all that original.  Anyone who has watched a fair share of SciFi and Fantasy live action and/or cartoons over the years can arguably pick out bits and pieces of both Avatar flicks that they’ve seen elsewhere, perhaps even in Cameron’s own pictures.  Indeed, many online even today consider the first picture a note-for-note rip-off of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest (1992); I’ve always stopped short of calling it an outright theft as, thematically, they may merely deliver the same message by different tracks.  It’s a valid comparison, still, and that’s part of why I find this universe so blasé: as I said, we’ve seen it before.  Elsewhere.  It’s just Cameron’s interpretation.
 
In fact, Cameron’s Titanic – one could argue if one were inclined – is also the director’s particular version of a story that’s been told before on film and television.  It isn’t as if the sinking of the famed ship was unheard of before he decided to tackle it.  What he brought to the whole desperate affair was a contemporary storytelling sensibility – one with immeasurably more visual flash – and I think that’s ultimately what excited viewers.  Much like George Lucas engineered the technology to update space fantasies with his original Star Wars, Cameron applied the same approach and has been rewarded (on more than one occasion) with huge box office receipts.  Viewers are drawn to this incredibly immersive palette, and that’s where I tend to fall off the boat.
 
Where Avatar and its follow-up fail – as best as I can simplify – is that I’ve little to no investment in any of its characters.
 
In the original, Jake Sully (played by Sam Worthington) at least had a minor character arc.  As a paraplegic, the Marine had been cut off from the world-at-large (to a degree) because of his physical limitations; and this new science – the kind that could transport his consciousness into a body with seemingly no limitations – delivered a life-changing experience he couldn’t deny.  Once he had found himself and all of his original instincts again, he was almost duty-bound – as a character, at least – to act upon it.  This became a natural ‘hero’s quest’ for the man, and he carried that motivation through the film’s closing moments.
​

Furthermore, in this world, he was surrounded by the Navi, a spiritually driven people that challenged him to see and interpret circumstances differently.  These supporting players – some big, some small – helped him on the aforementioned quest (of sorts), albeit this was a more intellectual exercise than it was visible moments of heroism.  While this spiritual awakening redefined Sully, I could easily see these changes as perhaps returning him to his core beliefs – things he had learned long ago but lost somewhere along the road through life – so it wasn’t destroying the man so much as it was getting him attuned to his heartstrings.  This new person was better equipped for the quest anyway, so it had to happen one way or another.
 
However, the Sully of The Way Of Water truly has no grounding other than his commitment to family.  Yes, yes, yes: all of what motivated him in Avatar is in there somewhere, but it’s clearly relegated to the backseat in favor of delivering an otherwise predictable affair – the rematch with his previously fallen foe, Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang).
 
Sigh.
 
Really?  Cameron makes his audience wait over a decade for a sequel – with three, four, or five more yet to come (the reportage has been a bit confusing) – and all he has in the tank fundamentally was a rematch?
 
Don’t get me wrong.  As I wasn’t any big ardent fan of the first film, I had little to no investment whatsoever in returning to this particular universe.  In fact, when the wifey suggested we take it in, my initial impulse regarding sitting through a four-hour film was that I could happily wait for it to be available on cable or DVD.  But as I mulled it over – hearing about how visually striking it was – I decided that, yes, this was one that I should see on the silver screen.  Spectacles, after all, seem to be growing rarer and rarer in the cinemas; and I’m glad I did partake of this adventure up in the lights.
 
But … really?  Just a rematch?  On water?
​

What’s next?
 
Another rematch?
 
In the air?
 
Walking on fire?
 
In space?
 
In the dreamworld?
 
Again, I’m sorry, folks.  I’m not trying to rain on the whole genre parade.  Really, I’m not.  I’ll always concede that when it comes to sheer visual audacity that Cameron is in a league of his own most of the time, but so much of The Way Of Water just felt like elongated repackaging of the first film, right up to the similar beats of the traditional Cameronesque blockbuster ending.  In fact, my initial thought was that the feature had, probably, eight or nine different endings … up until the time when the director truly decided his story was – finally – over.
 
Well … over until the next one starts it up again.
 
Dare I suggest that Cameron himself might be his own worst enemy?
 
I’m all in favor of auteurs continuing to spin yarns of this epic scale.  Nothing big or bold deserves to be forgotten, but The Way Of Water will likely end up – for me – in the same category as the first: I’ll see it once and never revisit it.  Perhaps he could use a partner, though, in the editing suite?  Somehow who might encourage him to wrap the saga all up a bit sooner?  A bit tighter?  With little to no sacrifice of the sheer spectacle?
 
His recent interview comments even come to mind.  On December 27th, it was reported that he deliberately shortened the flick by an astonishing ten minutes – ten whole minutes out of the remaining three hours plus – because of what he called excessively and unneeded gunplay.
 
Why … I wonder who wrote and filmed that excessive and unneeded gunplay, Jim?

​-- EZ

I've yet to enjoy all of Blake's 7's goodness.

I know, I know: "how can you call yourself a SciFi enthusiast?"  Well, I am, and I do.  It's just that when I was growing up 'on this side of the pond' (as they say) Blake's 7 wasn't something that was widely available.  In fact, I'm not sure if it ever was available in the black hole of middle America where I grew up.  We had Doctor Who -- it was broadcast on PBS out of Chicago -- but I've no active recall of Blake's 7.  Don't worry: if I live long enough, I'll get around to it.  I've read it's being rebooted anyway, so -- if that's true -- a bargain DVD set of the original will more than likely come available and give me a chance at redemption.

Why am I bringing this up?

Well, I've just read the notice involving the passing of actor Stephen Greif.  Among the many projects on his resume, IMDB.com notes that he had a five-episode run on the BBC serial.  From what I can see online (in fan spots), it looks like he gave that work in particular a pretty memorable performance ... so I wanted to get the word out so's folks in that particular fandom were aware.

Thoughts and prayers are offered to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Greif.

​-- EZ

There was a time when Star Trek Message Boards (ask you father or grandfather, kids) were all the rage in cyberspace.

Boasting a reasonably safe space where like-minded fans could come together, there were boasts about all kinds of topics, most of which related to preferences, likes, and dislikes.  Occasionally, debates would break out, but -- in all honesty -- I hardly recall them being laced with the kind of vitriol found today on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.  Most of the posts were benign, harmless observations meant to inspire some intellectual exchange between members, and you could practically count on every few months some fellow or missus would put up a poll seeking to find consensus around which of Trek's guest stars were the best-looking.

Ahem.

As you can guess, this wasn't always well-received.  I think that some folks consider such 'contests' to be laced with misogyny, and I say that even despite the fact that both ladies and gents were perfectly at-ease sounding off on the good or bad looks of both sexes.  Perhaps some of the randier comments did come from the men directed at the female guest stars, and I always tried to look past those.  Ultimately what mattered, I think, was that these forums allowed folks to debate such choices while remaining civil; and it's sad they've largely fallen into the trash heep of history in favor of the largely anonymous state of social media today.

In any event, I'm comfy admitting that one of my top choices -- the lovely Maggie Thrett -- never scored as well with these board audiences, and that's okay.  I only speak for me.  I only pontificate on what I find attractive or interesting or desirable -- depending upon the post -- and this actress was alluring as heck in the first season outing, "Mudd's Women."  (Yes, yes, yes: I realize that today's viewership would find this hour extremely chauvanistic, but the 1960's were a different era ... and Star Trek -- as TV art of its day -- was a product of that generation and their ideals.  So sue me.)

Of course, I'm not bringing this up to spur any controversy regarding the depiction of males and/or females in Science Fiction.  It's merely a reflection that popped into my head when word reached me last week of the lady's passing.  Though her career in the spotlight was brief -- her IMDB.com profile boasts fifteen different projects -- I think she'll likely always be remembered by Trek enthusiasts for her time going where no man had gone before.

Thoughts and prayers are issued to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Thrett.  May she rest in peace.

​-- EZ

In the modern era of Hollywood, marriages don't seem to last all that long.

Now, I'm not complaining.  I offer that up just as an observation, perhaps even a minor commentary on the nature of relationships in the entertainment business.  I supposed when you're surrounded by those that studio execs and production houses have found to be those most befitting being captured on film, maybe it's easier to fall in and out of love.  I guess if a couple get a ten-year-run, then that's something to be praised .... but Star Trek's Walter Koenig and his wife Judy Levitt had an impressive run, indeed.  By all accounts I've read, their marriage began in 1965 and endured an incredible 57 years in the limelight, all the way to her passing just the other day in December, 2022.

Along the way, Levitt even squeezed into some small roles within the wider world of Star Trek on the television screen.  In fact, she was seen as among Starfleet's top brass in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, arguably one of the franchise's finest entries.

Thoughts and prayers are offered to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Levitt.  May she rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Good afternoon and Happy Tuesday, readers!

Apologies to all of the regulars who frequent this space.  I realize that the original content for the MainPage area of SciFiHistory.Net has been exceedingly slow as of late; alas, it happens every holiday season, as each and every one of us ends up being whisked away into the realm of other responsibilities.  Plus, the wifey and I enjoyed our seasonal escape for Christmas, and my time to blog is always the first casualty.  Truer words were never typed.

But -- in the spirit of being thankful, one of the most prominent themes this time of year -- I thought it only appropriate to once again point out when I do still feel like a kid.  No, I'm not talking about getting and opening presents; I'm talking about actually getting some replies from the endless Tweeting I do.  It isn't easy being one of the hardest 'SciFi Influencers' out there in cyberspace, but I do try to engage with everyone -- the fans, the professionals, and everything in between -- at every opportunity.

This morning, Joe Vaz was kind enough to Tweet a reply to one of my posts.  For those who don't know, he's one of the talents aboard Death Race 2 from 2010; and he shared a quick reply about his experiences on the set of the flick.

This is what I mean when I saw -- even as an adult -- I still feel like a kid.  Every time an actor, an actress, a director, a screenwriter, or anyone tagged in one of my Tweets takes the time to pen a quick reply, I do feel like a young'un.  It takes me back to the days when I'd just sit in the seat of a theater waiting for the lights to go down and for the picture to begin.  It harkens back to those days of reading the newspapers or the latest issue of Starlog Magazine (or any of the reasonable knock-offs) hoping to glean any little tidbit of information about something either in-the-pipeline or on the cusp of theatrical release or television broadcast airing.  When talent takes the time to acknowledge fandom -- like so many do -- then yes ... I'm a kid again.

I'm thankful for each one of them who takes a moment to respond -- in whatever way -- as their engagement inevitably brings us closer together in an otherwise wide, wide world.  These people are part of why I do what I do -- and why I'll keep at it in some fashion always -- until the day I'm six feet under.

As always, thanks for reading ... 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 episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Three teens meet their favorite pop star and realize she’s not at all what they imagined.”
 
Audiences – of a certain age – have always had a fascination with their respective teen pop stars.  Though I’ll risk offending a certain portion of my readership by suggesting that the King of Rock’n’Roll himself Elvis Presley might be considered a teenage pop star, I do believe he kinda/sorta ‘fits the bill;’ granted, his pelvic gyrations probably meant more to the young ladies, but it stands without question that he was at the forefront of inspiring a generation of American teenagers to embrace his music.
 
And the list goes on and on from there.  Ricky Nelson.  The Beatles.  Michael Jackson.  Madonna.  Spice Girls.  Britney Spears.  Miley Cyrus.  Whatever flames these respective performers fanned, it warned the hearts of millions around the world, and the resulting phenomena paved the way for a veritable cavalry of second and third-tier soloists and bands.  The only difference, truly, between the days of old and modern times is that the widespread use of social media has practically put fans and their stars face-to-face in real time.
 
That’s the foundation behind “Queen Bee,” the second half of Creepshow’s third season premiere.
 
Debra (played by Hannah Kepple), Trenice (Olivia Hawthorne), and Carlos (Nico Gomez) are obsessed with pop sensation Regina (Kaelynn Harris), so much so that they’re constantly battling amongst themselves – in conventional, non-bloody ways – for the title of ‘Number One Fan.’  But their dueling gets set aside when they learn that not only has the starlet disappeared from public life in order to deliver her baby in private but also she’s checked in and reserved the entire floor of the local hospital for supreme privacy!  As Debra’s mom just happens to be a nurse – with a key card that can grant them access to the secured floor – the trio decide this is their date with destiny: they’ll sneak into the clinic in hopes of finally catching a glimpse of mother and child.
​

Well … this is Creepshow, after all, and the episode is titled “Queen Bee,” so a thinking man should be able to predict more than a fair share of what goes down once the kids find themselves in the thick of it.  Regina turns out to be something other than human – a little something something from the Insect Kingdom with a habit of commanding a hive all of her own (a wonderful narrative parallel from entomology applied to the music business) – so it’s entirely understandable how she’s amassed an army of global youth to her cause.  Before the episode is over, our three heroes will have succumbed to the wishes of the Queen Bee, and the hospital’s overnight cleaning staff are gonna have to spend countless hours of overtime putting these rooms back into their proper shape for the day shift.
 
Beyond the obvious cleverness of the writing (the script stems from screenwriters Erik Sandoval and Michael Rousselet), Bee is largely forgettable, I’m afraid.  It’s the kind of thing audiences have all seen before, in this form of mild variations.  While some spirited banter between the teenagers is a good starting point, nothing develops that pushes any boundaries.  The episode does boast some solid creature effects – most of them appear traditional and not CGI – and I suppose that alone might be cause enough for those of us who celebrate Horror to tune in; it’s only 30 minutes, after all, so it isn’t as if we’re making a lifetime commitment.  Director Greg Nicotero keeps things moving as a steady pace … but, in the end, the lack of freshness just had this one feeling like it needed a bit ‘sting.’
 
Creepshow: Season 3 (2021) was produced by Shudder, The Cartel, Monster Agency Productions, and a few other participants.  (A complete list is available on IMDB.com.)  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Shudder and RLJE Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights and sounds for this season to be extremely high quality.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, the Season 3 packaging boasts the show’s Comic-Con panel, some behind-the-scenes footage, some behind-the-scenes photographs, and an included comic art booklet.  It’s a nice collection – could be better – but nice enough.
​

Mildly Recommended.
 
“Queen Bee” boasts a concept that’s been done before – maybe even to death, it’s sad to say – in Horror, Fantasy, and Science Fiction.  Missing even a modest freshness, a compelling central performance, or creative twist, the resulting misadventure winds up feeling a bit of a slog in places.  Because our leads are teens, the hijinks are fairly tame if not downright lame in a few spots.  Some impressive creature work elevates this fare more than does the performances; alas, it’s still a bit leaden with predictable circumstances and an all-too-obvious ending that never tries for anything other than the routine.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me a complimentary Blu-ray of Creepshow: Season 3 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

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the episode’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Jacks’ mother is taken from him, but her garden leaves more to remember her by than he first thought.”
 
It’s been said that boys do love their mother.
 
Why, one can go all the way back to the days of the Greeks when there was a little tragedy called Oedipus Rex that – ahem – truly explored the idea of the mother/son bond; and – even since – productions on stage and screen have been trying to recreate that maternal magic, albeit not with the same sensuous angle.  While any thinker or writer could go to some immeasurable lengths to fathom the possible twists and turns of said relationship, there’s no escaping that what matters most is that central ethereal connection between the two players.  It’s been shown to inspire the male child to go to extreme measures to both honor her wishes while also cherishing her memory (be she gone or merely removed from the picture), and that’s the spark that makes Mums work on any narrative level.
 
IMDB.com reports that the installment was directed by Rusty Cundieff (Tales From The Hood 1, 2, and 3); and Greg Nicotero and David J. Schow adapted a short story from Joe Hill.  For those who don’t know, Hill is the novelist/son of critical darling Stephen King … so ‘the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree’ as the saying goes.  (No, no, no.  I’m not offering that up in any disparaging way.  I’m simply using the phrase.)
 
But …
 
Mums’ biggest weakness – so far as this reviewer is concerned – is the fact that the hour’s obvious and lazy politicking nearly ruins the good idea.  Both Hill and his father Steve (a rampant Progressive on Twitter) apparently subscribe to the mainstream news’ popular depiction of the middle American male – that being that the Bible Belt is filled with right-wing militia who abuse women, worship guns, and plot the demise of each and every government agency.  In that respect, Mums feels all too often like an NPR-fueled left-wing fantasy, one that sadly bears little resemblance to the real world but ‘makes the grade’ so far as CNN and MSNBC is concerned.
 
What can I say?  It is ‘fiction,’ after all.
​

Bloom (played by Erin Beute) is a recovering addict trapped in an abusive relationship with Hank (Ethan Embry), an obvious somewhat hillybilly control freak who’s secretly planning an ‘Oklahoma City style’ terrorist attack on the United States government.  Fearing for her and her child Jack’s safety (Brayden Benson), she tries to flee his clutches, but Jack intercedes, takes her into the woods, and murders her, eventually opting to hide the body in the flowerbed – a pastime she enjoyed cultivating in concert with young Jack.  Once the boy – ahem – plants the magic seeds Bloom’s left behind in that garden and accidentally moistens them with his blood, a plant-life of her – somewhat resembling Swamp Thing – takes hold … and it’s understandably hungry for those who’ve made their lives a living Hell.
 
To the script’s credit, Mums introduces a somewhat surrogate mother: Beth (a curiously luminous Malone Thomas) is suddenly all-too-happy to answer the ticking of her own biological clock by stepping up to replace the displaced Bloom.  (Naturally, Hank insists to his son that mom’s only away in rehab, the lying stinker!)  She practically dotes over the boy as if he were her own – which the audience eventually learns is perhaps owed to her and Hank’s secret romantic tryst – and Jack responds in kind very quickly.  Of course, when he discovers the role Beth played in seducing his father as well as ratting out his mom in the process, Jack willingly sacrifices his new mom to the hungry maw of his newly growing mums … pun intended, as it’s damn literal!
 
Still, Mums works best when it sets the author’s politics aside and just delivers on its fantastical premise. After all, who among us couldn’t find a few uses for a bed of man-eating plants?  In days of old, magic beans meant an entirely different Jack was on course to climb a beanstalk and face-off with a heavenly giant; but in the era of the Creepshow, these sprouts could only have been understandably intended for a much darker purpose … and, apparently, mommy approves.
 
Maybe they should’ve called it ‘Edible Rex?’
 
Creepshow: Season 3 (2021) was produced by Shudder, The Cartel, Monster Agency Productions, and a few other participants.  (A complete list is available on IMDB.com.)  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Shudder and RLJE Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights and sounds for this season to be extremely high quality.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, the Season 3 packaging boasts the show’s Comic-Con panel, some behind-the-scenes footage, some behind-the-scenes photographs, and an included comic art booklet.  It’s a nice collection – could be better – but nice enough.

​Recommended.
 
Look past the obvious Leftist vent of the storyteller, and Mums is about as efficient a half-hour of storytelling can get.  It’s trim, relatable, and – in the final regard – even just bloody enough to savor.  It posits just how far a son is willing to go to exact the proper vengeance on behalf of his dearly-departed mother, and dad likely never knew what hit him … though he probably went down in some easy swallows into the earth.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me a complimentary Blu-ray of Creepshow: Season 3 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

Yes, yes, and yes: I’m on record as being one of webdom’s biggest fans of anthologies.
 
While I won’t get into all of the specifics as to why I enjoy this storytelling format particularly, I am comfortable admitting that the constantly shifting narratives – along with a never-ending supply of qualified guest stars – just makes it so damn easy to sit back, relax, put all of your everyday troubles on pause, and decompress.  I’m not required to keep up with the characters – mostly because they’re changing with each successive installment anyway – and I’m not invested in any long-form elements that perhaps demand my undivided attention to the details.  Simply put, I’m entertained … and since when is it a crime for any franchise to show up, do its job, and get out of the way?
 
However, I’m no member of whatever particular streaming platform that grants me access to the latest incarnation of Creepshow in its freshest run.  Instead, I get to go ‘old school’ on this program, picking up the latest and greatest DVD release so that I can take it in entirely at my leisure.  That fact alone might honestly raise my opinion of it to be as high as it is – I’m downright gaga with some of it and just happy with the rest – but I’ve rarely had as much fun with such visual trickery as I’ve had with Season 3.  It’s just good, bloody fun – well, some bloodier than others – and that brings a smile to this ol’ face.
 
(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:
“Creepshow, the anthology series based on the 1982 Horror Comedy classic, is still the most fun you’ll ever have being scared!  A comic book comes to life in a series of vignettes, exploring terrors ranging from murder, creatures, monsters, and delusions to the supernatural and unexplainable.  You never know what will be on the next page …”
 
At this point, I’m not going to trouble readers with any more specifics concerning my delight with Creepshow: Season 3.  I’ve waded through the first half of this season – it’s a quick and easy watch, but I’m likely gonna rewatch a few of them to try to come up with a bit more analysis of them – and the show continues to impress from my first exposure with Season 2.  (Yes, yes, yes: I’ll be going back to the well, at some point, to purchase Season 1 because there’s no way I’m gonna pass up having a bit more fun with all of it.)
 
But what I will be doing in the days ahead is crafting some individual episode reviews for the franchise’s better installments from the season.  There’s one in particular I’ll likely avoid – the story requires some political leanings that I don’t quite agree with nor support – but, otherwise, these are some nice gems that make for pure escapism … the time of thing both movie houses and TV networks used to be thrilled to provide but have since kinda/sorta moved on into what they feel is more … erm … impactful storytelling.  I guess we ‘regular Joes’ just aren’t the sought demographic these days, and that’s a shame because Creepshow continues to tickle the wicked fancy in just the right ways.  It’s a pleasure – maybe a guilty pleasure – and it deserves to be seen by the widest audience possible.
 
Yes, it’s that good.
 
So – as they say – watch this space (meaning SciFiHistory.Net’s MainPage), and the reviews will be up very, very soon.
 
Creepshow: Season 3 (2021) was produced by Shudder, The Cartel, Monster Agency Productions, and a few other participants.  (A complete list is available on IMDB.com.)  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Shudder and RLJE Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights and sounds for this season to be extremely high quality.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, the Season 3 packaging boasts the show’s Comic-Con panel, some behind-the-scenes footage, some behind-the-scenes photographs, and an included comic art booklet.  It’s a nice collection – could be better – but nice enough.
 
Highly Recommended.
 
Apologies, folks, as I’m a bit late in getting to this release (COVID, my birthday, and the holidays have taken a toll on my schedule), but I’ve had nothing but fun in viewing the first half of Creepshow: Season 3.  Granted, not each and every story I’ve watched thus far are homeruns – one’s a bit politically-themed, and I usually detest when politics are used to deliberate craft a story – but the cast and crew continue to prove why maybe – just maybe – more production houses ought to invest in some equally high-quality anthology.  It’s just great brain candy – never meant to be taken all that seriously – and meant to be digested in fun and fright.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me a complimentary Blu-ray of Creepshow: Season 3 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

In 1967 – while shooting footage somewhere in the wilds of Northern California – filmmakers Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin captured less than a minute of film depicting the legendary Bigfoot marching quickly away from the two men on a quest to disappear back into the nearby foliage.  Naturally, a controversy arose from this that exists to this day – did they, in fact, concoct a hoax or did they stumble across a true creature in its natural habitat.  Depending upon what you believe – or how far you’re willing to go in your own research of the topic – these 53-seconds have been debunked or authenticated.  I prefer to think that it’s just one more mystery that we’ll never solve.
 
Since those days, there have been a good handful of films – big and small – that have tried to explore the various Bigfoot myths (and, rest assured, there are many tales from history suggesting the existence of such a creature); but perhaps none have had enough star power, special effects, and good storytelling behind them to truly break through with an entirely skeptical public.  As such, the monster remains more of a thing drawn from local folklore – maybe even an old wives’ tale – instead of a bona-fide possibility of a lifeform just beyond our reach.  When the truth is as elusive as the beast, Hollywood usually won’t invest much in it; as a consequence, Sasquatch doesn’t have the intellectual cache that perhaps ghosts, demons, and superheroes do.
 
Still, congratulations to director Joy Houck Jr. and screenwriter Jim McCullough Jr. for giving the giant a reasonably intelligent fictional expose: their Creature From Black Lake (1976) may not have spent a lot of cash on crafting what could’ve been the seminal exploration of a Louisiana legend, but their completed project has just about everything the traditional ‘monster movie’ requires to make the grade.  Made in the era when drive-in movies typically tried to capitalize on boobs, guns, and gratuitous violence, this Creature stayed true to its formula and, instead, tried to put down footprints of a completely monstrous variety.
 
(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 exploring the Louisiana swamps encounter a Bigfoot-type creature.”
 
I’ve often written in this space of my fondness for monster movies, and despite its share of drawbacks Creature From Black Lake rises to the level of, minimally, B-Movie goodness by steering clear of traditional Grindhouse elements in favor of trying to give those of us who hold out hope for a real Bigfoot a sign that the creature could be something.  While other storytellers might’ve gone in for more glitz, gore, and gags, this Creature sticks to a fairly mainstream presentation, portraying an effective yarn of two college boys heading out into backwoods territory in hopes of proving that the Sasquatch is more than just a bit of local lore.
​

Director Houck Jr. brought together a respectable cast for his Bigfoot tale.  Screen legend Jack Elam plays Joe Canton, a trapper who lost a buddy to the hairy beast a few years back and keeps his eyes (eye?) peeled for a possible rematch.  The late Bill Thurman might not have a big resume, but in the 70’s he was certainly a familiar face for audiences; and he played Sheriff Billy Carter with an understated Southern efficiency.  Not to be trifled with, Carter just wants his town left alone by anyone who would seek to given credence to the Bigfoot legend.  Dennis Fimple – a veteran of supporting roles in many television projects – was perhaps a bit old for the part of Pahoo; IMDB.com suggests the actor would’ve been in his mid-thirties at the time, a bit too much in his prime to pass for a legitimate college student, but his goofiness makes it work well enough.  Lastly, John David Carson certainly looks like a lead player; I think had the script given him a bit more to day – and perhaps tied up some of its loose ends a bit more successfully – this could’ve been a greater opportunity in his career.
 
As happens all too often with smaller, independent films, Creature’s biggest problems evolve from an under-developed story.
 
Screenwriter McCullough Jr. never quite taps anything more than a quick and fanciful look at the central creature; while visually that might help to elevate the level of suspense needed to make this one a respectable hit with the drive-in crowd, it certainly didn’t have the legs to stand aside pictures at the traditional cineplex.  Smaller budgets typically require the talent to fashion a script that meets the requirements of the checkbook instead of authentically delivering moments that might transcend the ordinary.  Instead of tying the events of this narrative up in a grand finale, Creature goes for the easy way out, never bothering to really address the proper who, what, and where of how the thing came to be much less what’s next for it and our cinema heroes now that the finale has been reached.  It just ends – with a modest nod to a job well done – but never even gives our two-man team of intrepid outback explorers so much as a scene to tell us what it all may’ve meant to them or their respective futures.
 
Creature From Black Lake (1976) was produced by Jim McCullough Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Synapse Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, wow!  Honestly, it oughta be a crime for a B-Movie of the bygone 1970’s era to look and (mostly) sound as good as this one; I can only guess that the production benefitted from having a behind-the-scenes crew committed to providing their A-game even though the project was probably viewed as a bit half-baked at the time.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then be prepared to spend time with the following:

• This Blu-ray boasts an all-new 4K restoration from the original 35mm camera negative;
• An audio commentary with author/filmmaker Michael Gingold and film historian Chris Poggiali;
• An all-new ‘looking back’ featurette with the film’s Director of Photography Dean Cundey;
• The original theatrical trailer, along with a radio advert; and
• New translated optional English subtitles.

 
Recommended.
 
As I said above, I have a lingering fondness for monster movies.  While I’ll admit that Creature From Black Lake is probably not going to shake any bridges or burn any barns with today’s audiences, those of us who can appreciate a bit of cheese from a few decades early might find a few nuggets of joy and suspense in its 95 minutes.  Honestly, I’ll happily concede all of it could’ve used a leaner cut, some stronger characterization, and (as always) a few more bucks … but then it might’ve sacrificed the charm of B-Movie magic.
 
In the interest of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Synapse Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Creature From Black Lake 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