There have been a great many films made about the subject of cloning.  Without examining all the possible tropes we’ve amassed from these various productions, it’s still interesting if not worthwhile to highlight a few themes that generally bubble to the surface.
 
First up, audiences are often asked to accept whatever the storyteller’s chosen ‘place in the world’ is with these clones.  Sometimes, they’re superior to humans, perhaps even manufactured to serve in climates proven inhospitable to most lifeforms; and this ultimately gives these creations an expendability that figures into the main premise.  While such a perspective may ultimately be proven wrong, viewers are usually led to this conclusion by way of the human characters.
 
Furthermore, screenwriters often go to some lengths to show how such clones are different from us despite mainly achieving whatever goals they can with essentially the same human packaging.  In some cases, this implies that certain traits characteristically tied to flesh and blood people – or maybe even a biological function or two – gets limited or completely removed from their physiology.  The goal here is often to portray these counterparts not only less-than-human but also uniquely ‘as human’ as are you and I; and this, too often figures prominently into the film’s central idea.
 
Lastly, these works typically go to great pains to remind audiences that not only is cloning illegal but also tries to elucidate precisely why such illegality is a necessary component of life.  Sometimes this gets accomplished by limiting the lifespan of the clones to but a few years or giving them a task-specific existence such as service to the military or some scientific organization which monitors them.  Whether or not we agree with this, the point made usually is to promote a clone’s disposability: they’re not fully realized beings but some genetic conglomeration, so it’s imperative that they’re not portrayed as equals.
 
Of course, there are dozens if not hundreds of other attributes that could come into play with any iteration of the classic clone story; but I’ve tried to home in on those few that more commonly get screen time.  To varying degrees, each of the above plays some piece in 2024’s Day Of The Clones, a somewhat bleak addition to the growing pantheon of SciFi flicks exploring this alternative version of life on Earth; and yet I’m still somewhat confused by what writer and director Eric Steele inevitably wanted to say about man playing God.  A good deal of my confusion, however, is owed to the fact that Clones is at best an underwhelming realization, plagued with bad sound, muddled dialogue, and underwhelming vision.  It only occasionally congeals properly; and even with those few good vignettes I’m still at a loss over what to make of it all, especially since it all goes nowhere.
 
(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:
“When homicidal clones take over the world, a guilt-ridden scientist tries to protect a group of humans in an isolated farmhouse. But the child growing in his girlfriend's womb might just spell the end for mankind.”
​

The beauty of dealing in Science Fiction is that – when it’s done well – the future can be anytime.  In other words, all that’s needed to make an ordinary film into a Science Fiction one is to pick up and run with one of SciFi’s big conceits, be it aliens or technology or spaceships or an Apocalypse or whatever main thread is needed to tie a screenplay’s characters and setting together.  In Day Of The Clones, Eric Steele adapts his own work of fiction into a screenplay and directs the action; and – in the pursuit of a story – he’s focused in on cloning and what its implications may very well be for the very near future.  Let’s just say that – like a good many thrillers – it ain’t good.
 
Failed scientist Andrew Callwood (played by Johnny Topping) and his pregnant girlfriend Lindsey (Laura Montgomery Bennett) finds themselves on the run after civilization collapses when an entire race of worker clones rebel against mankind – don’t they always? – and bring our world to the brink of extinction.  Their android Kellogg is all they have to help protect them on their journey into the wasteland; and the three eventually take up residence in an abandoned homestead far outside of the big city.  Though they brush up against a few other survivors, it grows increasingly obvious that these evil clones are obsessed with wiping our world clean of humans, making the last big showdown between us and them a looming reality no one can or will escape.
 
So, yes, one needn’t be a rocket scientist (snicker snicker) to see how Steele and his cast and crew set out to explore the highs and lows of Apocalyptic SciFi with this story.  The issue I have with all of it is that, quite frankly, its so horribly assembled.  As one who has endured a great many independent genre films (and have praised many), Clones is a bit of a mess.  The sound work is so egregiously rendered across the production that it’s damned hard to discern what’s being said perhaps seventy to eighty percent of the time.  While I was able to pick up the highlights here and there, I’ll admit that I had to go back and rewatch several scenes in order to have any possible sense of what was communicated.  While I can’t prove anything conclusively, I’m willing to guess that none of these actors or actresses were miked; and the end result shows … horrifically.
 
Of course, further complicating these sound matters is that all of this talent speaks with reasonably heavy accents, creating an even greater clusterfuck for those of us unfamiliar with certain thick dialects.  Thankfully, this wasn’t always the case – a handful of interior scenes are markedly easy to hear, so some of the meatier character moments are presented in such a way as to make them audible – but I suspect a good number of watchers might turn this one off in frustration before getting to the last third of the movie.  Still, it’s difficult to review anything wherein I can only work off so little; and I suspect a good deal of Andrew and Lindsey’s struggle – that tied into the importance of the birth of their child – is something that I’ll never understand in the current format.
​

Additionally, it’s a bit presumptuous of me – given this predicament – to pronounce any critical judgment over the second characters who show up seemingly for no other reason than to be dispatched.  A soldier named Solent comes and goes so very quickly I’m completely at a loss as to gather any idea of why he even needed to be in the film: as I said, he’s in it for a scene and a meal before deciding the lead couple had nothing to offer him and he vamoosed.  Similarly, a young couple turn up for a slightly longer duration; and yet they, too, seem to fulfill no singular purpose for their own existence except (of course) to sell out the hero and heroine in the fashion audiences expect from such impetuous upstarts.  Again … would like to have known more … but there’s so little to glean from the soundtrack that I have to leave it at that.
 
Now, this is not to say that it’s all bad at the end of the world as we know it.  There are a few sequences – a handful, at best – that employ some surprisingly good cinematography; and the entire production cracks positively of making the best everyone can of their obvious limited resources.  It’s all so jarringly uneven that I can’t help but wonder if one cameraman was on his way out the door when another took over, and this process continued until the film was completed.  (There’s a title card in the beginning that suggests this was completed in the great COVID Years, so that very well might be the case.)  Yes, the production design faulters here and there.  Of course, the flick’s one big special effects sequence plays out like the best a smartphone APP could produce.  But indies function on being lean and mean, and Clones is no different.  It might end with a drought of ideas and narrative originality; and yet I’m still okay giving all involved a nod for giving it a go.  I just wish all of it meant something as the closing scene suggests the opposite entirely.
 
Day Of The Clones (2024) was produced by Vamoose Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Random Media and Warner Archive.  As for the technical specifications?  Well … while I’m no trained video expert, I can still see and hear that a good deal of Clones is a bit of a mess.  Its audio work is particular underwhelming; and – minimally – I think a good deal of confusion could’ve been averted if the disc had English subtitles.  It’s just painfully awful to make out what’s been said far too much of the time.  The cinematography works – there’s a glaring continuity error in the last reel that involves night-time switching to day and back again – but that’s the least of its worries, to be honest.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Honestly, I couldn’t even access a disc menu on this one, so you’ll have to tell me if you ever find out.
 
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
 
The difficulty I have in discussing an independent feature like Day Of The Clones is that I come away feeling as if the story, its characters, and its potential message should’ve been more important; and yet the sad truth here is that this one is so underproduced in the sound department – muffled microphones (if any) and thick accents make for an awful combination – that I’m honestly amiss as to what might be some very key elements.  Where did all of these clones come from?  What caused them to go awry?  Why were they all crafted in one (or two) man’s image?  Without knowing a bit more – and I’m entirely uncertain if these particulars were in here, the audio is so bad – I feel like the whole affair might be best chalked up to ‘lost in translation.’  I’ve no issues with the dour finish – Science Fiction and Fantasy proved long ago that they’re best joined at the hip with desolation – but the collective journey of these particular characters started out, seemed almost entirely, and finished up seemingly pointless.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Random Media and Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary DVD of Day Of The Clones (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​

Confession time: I’ve been a fan of the works of Dashiell Hammett for decades.
 
If I remember correctly, it was a college professor who recommended Hammett to me back in the day.  I’d written something for a creative writing class that the teacher was impressed by, and he encouraged me to check some prose crafted by Raymond Chandler, Thomas Pynchon, and Hammett as part of my summer reading.  Well, Pynchon just never quite took.  I tore through four of Chandler’s novels over several weeks.  Then, I settled in on Hammett, almost immediately falling in love with The Maltese Falcon and some of the stories involving his Continental Op.  Afterwards, I briefly recall picking up a copy of The Thin Man, but – like some of the sentences and ideas slung around by Pynchon – it didn’t quite have the same feel as his other stuff.  Some of it might be owed to the fact that I couldn’t get into the characters as easily as I could the more traditional and/or hard-boiled private detectives; so, I let that one go.
 
A few years later, I discovered The Thin Man film series on home video.  Similar to my experience with the novel, the first film – simply titled The Thin Man (1934) – was a bit zanier and frenetic (at times) than I prefer my mysteries; and, yet I was somewhat captivated by the work of William Powell and Myrna Loy in the roles of Nick and Nora Charles onscreen respectively.  I think it was one of the first times that I saw what I viewed as screen chemistry working on a level I fully appreciated in a classic film.  The two strutted about as somewhat effete socialites without a care in the world and yet they were completely likable, almost as if they were daring the audiences to think less of them in the process.  It was some delicious work, indeed, and watching it now a few decades later it’s clear to see why their match-up launched a series of productions that lasted across six films from 1934 through 1947.  Even Wikipedia.org reports that audiences saw this husband-and-wife team working so effortlessly together that they fully believed Powell and Loy were married in real life!
 
That, my friends, speaks volumes about the effectiveness of true talent, great writing, and excellent production values.
 
Thankfully, the good people at Warner Archive have recently re-released The Complete Thin Man Collection on Blu-ray so that I can rediscover these stories one at a time for my readership as I think they remain the kind of screen gems that should never ever go out of style.  Next up is 1941’s Shadow Of The Thin Man, a light-hearted whodunit directed by W.S. Van Dyke based on a story credited to Hammett (for characters only, I’ve read), Irving Brecher, and Harry Kurnitz.  This time, Nick and Nora – along with Nick, Jr. and Asta – are pulled into a murderous affair involving a big city gambling syndicate that might implicate members of the press, the police, and beyond.
 
Why, it’s an offer that this dynamic duo just couldn’t refuse …
 
(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 jockey has been shot dead at the racetrack. Famous detective Nick Charles and his wife Nora happen to be on the scene and Lt. Abrahams asks for Nick's expert help.”
​

Ah, the times … the times they are a'changing …
 
As Fate would have it, this fourth installment in the theatrically popular Thin Man series does begin to show a bit of wear.  Some of the luster has worn off, and – dare I say? – Shadow doesn’t quite have the same feel as the previous three flicks.  (Feels can be difficult to quantify, but I’ll try to do my best.)  I’ve read that the original writing team departed – perhaps having worn thin on the premise – and it kinda/sorta shows as this outing features much less drinking and the usual romantic and sometimes comically cynical banter between Nick and Nora.  While they do occasionally embrace that sense that these former newlyweds have grown into a somewhat more traditional married couple, they still hurl a few effective barbs here and there, reminding audiences more of what came before than it necessarily bodes well for this mild thematic shift.  That, and Shadow has a bit more campy, screwball humor (for those who like that sort of thing, I don’t), but the conclusion remains the same: all of the usual suspects will be called together for that big finish wherein Nick will provide the master class of framing the ultimate guilty party in a big reveal.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, it’s sometimes necessary to remind readers that the Achilles’ Heel to any ongoing film series can, in fact, falling into the trap of repeating oneself. 
 
Audiences show up expecting a bit of cinematic comfort food.  The territory should be familiar, and it should all taste the same.  But there should still needing that extra flavor – that succulent newness – that is also a reward when experiencing an all-new story.  So while viewers accept ‘more of the same’ graciously, maybe even hungrily, we’re still waiting for the ‘what else ya got’ delivery, that special something-something which should be baked into the main plot.  In conceiving one for an ongoing series, I’ve always insisted that storytellers should still never use lesser, cheaper ingredients in concocting their main course.  Here's where I’m not entirely convinced the scriptwriters for Shadow were up to the challenge as what they instead brought new to the affair was little more than some predictable screen lunacy accomplished by – ahem – slow motion photography or even speeding up film for chuckles.
 
Erm … isn’t that kind of schtick beneath Nick and Nora?  Especially a Nick and Nora as sober as they are in this adventure? 
 
I’d read a bit of commentary online suggesting that the addition of Nick, Jr. – as played by Dickie Hall – may’ve been the single greatest contributing force for such changes: what with a young child brought into the action, could there and should there be as much wild partying and living life to the fullest as inhabited the first three features?  Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to showcase the mother and father making the necessary adjustments required of the nuclear family?  Well, the problem I have with such suggestion is that Nick, Jr. really disappears from all of the action so quickly into the script that I (and probably most others) may’ve forgotten he even exists come the last reel.  (Seriously, I thought about calling child protective services.)  As a character, Nick Jr. is used (understandably) for comic relief than anything else; and – on that level – it all works just fine.  Hell, it’s even funny a time or two.  But shouldering the blame for this tonal shift onto the kid?  Nah.  That’s a bit of a stretch.  Simply, he wasn’t around enough.
 
Rather, I’d point to the fact that Shadow’s overall plotline grows a bit cumbersome fairly quickly to any diminishing returns.  After some comic domesticity being created solely for laughs, the action transitions to Nick and Nora enjoying a day at the racetrack wherein a jockey involved in a previous controversy is found ‘murdered.’  (Or was he?)  Naturally, the police hope the masterful detective will assist (or do they?), and he eventually does; but the truth therein is that the jockey’s ‘murder’ truly evolves to be nothing more than a plot device that gets exploited when the real killing – that of reporter Whitey Barrow – takes place.  It’s only after this that Nick fully becomes entrenched in the investigation, and this is where Shadow does finally shape up in its more traditional (or established) packaging.  Yes, it might grow a bit convoluted stylistically, but that’s part of the procedure in order for Nick to showcase his vast mental prowess in the big finish.
​

Still, there’s a surprising amount of little incidents that – come the ending – I kept wondering how it all came together in retrospect.  The audience is taken on a wild ride from the Charles’ home to the racetrack to a night on the town to a wrestling match then to a fight-filled seafood restaurant … and there’s barely a chance to catch one’s breath before some solutions are postulated in the process of finding one central and meaningful story in here.  It goes without saying that it’ll involve murder, but what’s all of this other fuss cluttering the picture?  Unlike the first three flicks, Shadow feels a bit forced at times – almost as if the screenwriters were struggling to mimic a structure instead of letting a good yarn unfold organically – and it was hard to swallow some of the deliberated inserted comedy when it all used to feel so natural only a film ago.
 
Ahhh … the times … the times they are a’changin’ …
 
Shadow Of The Thin Man (1941) was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been handled by the fine folks at Warner Archive.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, there’s nothing film-specific in here – just a few shorts drawn from the era – and that’s still a bit disappointing for this cinephile.  I’d like to have something of greater substance to enjoy, but that was not meant to be.
 
Recommended.
 
When chemistry of its players mattered, The Thin Man series rarely disappoints, but I still struggled a bit with Shadow Of The Thin Man (1941).  The first three installments founded a more congenial tone – along with much more drinking and swinging – than this one did; and the central story for this installment doesn’t show up for a time, leaving the audience left with mostly a few antics here and there to tide us over.  Those showing up solely for Powell and Loy to work their magic are still rewarded, but the mystery seems to have fallen into an even lower gear than it should’ve in this series.  Some good laughs get brushed over by obvious comic relief; and here I thought all of us deserved a bit more.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Shadow Of The Thin Man (1941) – as part of their The Complete Thin Man Collection – by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​

When she was in her teens, the lovely Olivia Hussey earned the chance to grace the silver screen in one of the greatest works of literature ever conceived -- William Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet.

This celebrated adaptation helmed by Franco Zeffirelli not only went on to win two Academy Awards, but it truly established the young actress as a force to be reckoned with.  Even as a young woman, she could command the screen with some of the entertainment industry's very best; and I can't imagine a more auspicious beginning to any acting career.

​While other ladies might've used that professional goodwill to stick with only highbrow productions, Hussey was curiously flexible, pursuing roles across about every genre imaginable.  When magazines and critics were penning columns about her beauty, the lady was simply staying true to her craft, following her heart wherever it led.

Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net might know her name from such projects as 1974's Black Christmas or 1982's Turkey Shoot; and yet there's a lot more to her profile that deserves a bit of rediscovery.  Hopefully, this blurb on her passing will inspire others to seek out and explore some of her other performances: she leaves us an incredible 54 different titles that should demonstrate hers was about a unique talent as any.

Our prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Olivia Hussey.

May she rest in peace.

-- EZ
​

Folks, I do so hate reporting on passages during the silly season, but Death takes no holiday -- as it were -- and I've the unfortunate task of mentioning the death of model and actress Dayle Haddon today.  It's even more tragic given the circumstances that her death appears to be linked entirely to an accidental gas leak, something that during normal times of the year might have been avoided.

Undoubtedly, Haddon's name isn't one well known around these parts.  Her IMDB.com profile indicates that she hadn't done anything professionally in over two decades; and, even whilst she was in the business, her portfolio involves just over two dozen screen appearances.  Fate being what it is, I suspect a good deal of these are forgettable, but Science Fiction fans might recognize her for the time she appeared opposite the hunky Jean Claude Van Damme in 1989's Cyborg.  I have a vague recollection of sitting through that flick -- it was a bit of a home video sensation back in the day -- but I truly only remember thinking "What do people see in this thing?"

​However, audiences of a slightly earlier era -- those genre fans of the 1970's -- might known the lovely lady better for her work aboard Spermula (1976).  Though I've not had the chance to view this one myself, I can say it's been recommended to me by some.  As best as I understand it, the story involves a future society who travel back in time for the purpose of neutering the male of the species by way of some aggressive fellatio.  (Yes, you read that right.)

So ... while most obituaries might avoid such sex talk while regaling readers of trivia, I'd like to think that maybe Haddon wherever she is prefers being remembered with a wink and an evil laugh.

​She was Spermula, after all.

Our prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Dayle Haddon.

May she rest in peace.

-- EZ 
​

Low budget and/or independent filmmaking is certainly an experience not for everyone.
 
Generally speaking, the best indies are capable of making the best of what resources they have available, using just enough of what’s out there to service whatever story elements are required to lift a particular tale to whatever modest heights it can achieve.  The hope is that this greater creative freedom of expression will also serve everyone involved, leaving ample room for contributions both before and behind the camera.  Furthermore, it’s often been argued that these smaller features can create a greater sense of intimacy between the storyteller and the audience because all of the layers normally between them with the big studio production has been stripped away: what everyone is left with is bare bones myth-making, the likes of which might have a few intrinsic flaws because of the nature of guerrilla shooting but won’t stop short of trying to realize something special despite missing some of the usual theatrical niceties.
 
Alas, that just isn’t the case with 2024’s Alien Love, a somewhat bizarre and increasingly irrelevant amalgam of small(ish) and rarely important sequences involving a beautiful young woman coming to grips with the fact that her astronaut husband is no longer who he was before that cursed space flight.  Having been to NASA perhaps a dozen times, I’ve picked up a lot of casual knowledge regarding how space flights transpire; and yet none of this public knowledge seems to have been a part and parcel of star and screenwriter Nathan Hill’s effort.  Directed by Simon Oliver, this undercooked melodrama never quite achieves orbit with any of its individual plotlines, instead touching back down to land repeatedly with one nebulous development after another.  While the whole ‘returning to Earth in another guise’ has been done before, dare I say it’s never been quite this uninteresting? 
 
(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:
“Astronaut Ryan Van Hill-Song returns from space, a hero. His wife, Sadie, suspects his time in space went wrong and discovers they're pregnant. NASA sends men to track them down.”
 
Having cut my teeth at a very young age with a great number of flicks exploring aliens, I was most attracted to the idea at the heart of Alien Love.
 
Set against the backdrop of a NASA mission, astronaut Ryan Van Hill-Song (played by Nathan Hill) returns to our world after a brief mishap in the heavens found him separated from the American space agency for a few minutes.  Though the officials assure his wife Sadie (Ira Chakraborty) that her husband was never in any real jeopardy, it becomes increasingly clear to the woman that her man is not quite himself.  While she can’t quite put her finger on what may’ve caused his increasingly reckless decisions, she does what any faithful spouse does and tries to make the best of it.  But an unanticipated pregnancy – with her body seemingly enduring some unimaged stressors – puts Sadie in the position of needing to get to the bottom of this mystery before she possibly gives birth to the first human/alien hybrid!
 
You see what I mean?  That definitely sounds like an interesting story.
 
Sadly, that isn’t what director Oliver and screenwriter Hill deliver.  The vast majority of what they do call Alien Love invests serious screen time in jogging, wandering, and general listlessness.  The film never quite finds a pace comfortable with so much obliqueness: neither Hill nor Chakraborty are given strong enough material to make their individual or shared scenes have any textual relevance, and we’re instead taken on a minute-by-minute recounting of daily routines that infrequently involves a light plot development or two.  Why, it’s almost like they had no idea where this was all going!  I think that’s the likely conclusion audiences will make with the stunningly befuddling last scene.
 
Now – ahem – this is exceedingly low budget storytelling, and I’ve absolutely no problem with that.  Those of us who’ve made small careers out of exploring some of these lesser productions and direct-to-DVD releases have grown used to what I’ll dub ‘no frills’ storytelling … and, yet, that’s the central problem to so much of Love, that being there’s no story really being told.  Revelations are made.  Events happen.  Occasionally, people react.  But there’s no organic flow to any of it.  Instead, viewers are dragged from one unimportant scene to another, rarely given any greater context than ‘this is what’s happening now.’  No tissue grows between us and its characters.  No shared dependence gets introduced at any point.  Lacking any strong emotional undercurrent or connectivity, so much of Ryan and Sadie’s journey are just signposts in life.  There’s no flavor to their relationship or their individuality.  When we aren’t given characters we can invest in, we don’t care … and this one closes with no care whatsoever.
​

Of course, it doesn’t help matters that so much of Love has such dull, lifeless cinematography.
 
So many scenes are crafted as if Oliver only had a single camera, and the fact that there’s so little visual interplay offering multiple perspectives slows this thing down to a crawl even when the opposite is supposed to happen.  The only sequence I recall having any modest cinematic tension was the Aliens Anonymous stuff.  What saddens me about that (beyond the obvious) is that nothing fundamental to the central story is learned there; and – if push came to shove – it could be excised from the film entirely and nothing would be lost.  That and the fact that there’s a huge continuity error in the big showdown – it involves an agent’s missing jacket that miraculously returns for the finish – truly smacks of amateurism when it’s needed least.
 
At the risk of sounding like a fuddy-duddy, I couldn’t help but also notice that there appears to be a significant age difference between this supposed married couple.  At first, I thought that perhaps I had misheard a line of dialogue, mistaking that Sadie and Ryan were actually married, so I backed it up to ensure I knew the extent of their relationship before continuing.  Though I’m not aghast at the prospect of a man marrying a woman fifteen or twenty years younger, it grew increasingly difficult to see these two characters in an authentic pairing as the feature wore on.  Perhaps Hill should’ve stepped aside from his material and let a younger actor be cast?  His midsection, too, isn’t the kind seen on most astronauts, either.
 
Still, it’s ultimately hard to figure Alien Love out.
 
It closes with a scene that tries to make some big statement about life in the universe; and yet the characters making that very statement are already on record as not believing we are alone.  Am I truly to be surprised in that closing scene as they are despite their already being on record as to knowing aliens exist, or was this just another glaring storytelling hiccup?  Sorry, folks: to paraphrase The X-Files ‘the truth is out there’ … mostly because no one felt it was a necessary component of this narrative mess.
 
Alien Love (2024) was produced by NHProductions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Sector 5 and Warner Archive.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds to be acceptable across the film’s 75-minute running time: there’s no great cinematography in here – well, maybe a snippet or two – so it’s hard to find positives amidst so much plainness.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Well, on that count, it’s a nice collection (if you’re inclined to spend time with them) as the disc boasts an audio commentary, deleted scenes, bloopers, stills galleries, interviews, and the theatrical trailer.
 
Alas, folks … this one is honestly Hard To Recommend.
 
It isn’t as if Alien Love (2024) is a bad film because – as a modestly produced independent feature – it is what it is.  However, there’s no escaping the fact that the flick is utterly void of any real story, instead stringing along a few characters around a few interesting ideas, none of which get any true resolution in the last confusing reveal.  Given the fact that everyone involved already knows that we’re not alone in the universe, why is there any surprise when the big saucer threatens to land on anyone’s lawn, especially the agents of ‘NASA Intelligence’ who’ve previously confirmed that the aliens are here?  It’s an utterly confusing finale that stinks like the storytellers ran out of money and had to make do with what they had.
 
Good grief.
 
Even fans of independent cinema deserve better than this.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Archive provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Alien Love (2024) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ
​

Have you all heard the word 'mockbuster?'

For those who haven't, 'mockbuster' is a term applied to a current or forthcoming potential blockbuster, one that hopes to capitalize on the hype another studio has created in order to reap some benefits resulting from a confused audience seeing a knock-off when they believe they're seeing the real thing.  While there are a handful of small(ish) studios who currently specialize in such efforts, I'm going to avoid naming names in order to -- ahem -- protect the guilty.

In any event, 1996 saw a film released under the title of The Craft that generated a bit of buzz by casting four attractive young actresses in the guise of a coven of witches infiltrating a Catholic prep school.  Though I don't know anyone personally who thoroughly loved the film, I'm aware that it perseveres even today in boasting a small cult following probably owed more to sensationalizing these lovely tweenies in delicious Gothic attire.  When everybody loves a bad boy, what's a bad girl to do?  Why, they'll go about exacting retribution by way of learning how to cast spells and such.  That's basically what you get with The Craft as I understand it.

Well, because industry trades tried to paint a picture of The Craft performing greater than the sum of its -- ahem -- lady parts, imitators did try to deliver a little something similar: 1996's Little Witches didn't get a theatrical run (from all research I've been able to conduct) but did hit home video stores shelves in roughly the same timeframe and with a somewhat similar advertising hook.  Witches cast a bevy of young heartbreakers in key roles -- many of which who according to IMDB.com got out of the business not long after appearing in this one -- and dressed them up to look like Catholic school girls to the delight of sex fetishists everywhere (I've heard).
​

Alas, I've not seen this one, and there's very little information online regarding its overall production and/or reception.  What I have read, however, has been a bit unkind, with many suggestions hinting that producers wanted it to be even more depraved sexually than it might exist in its current form.  There are even some indications that director Jane Simpson and its stars have kinda/sorta disowned all of it, never a good thing to hear about anything that was fast-tracked on the heels of another picture's potential reputation.

Whatever the case, methinks it's best to consider this one under the adage of 'Buyer Beware.'

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

-- EZ
​

Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for what I call 'the perfect movie.'

Despite what others might tell you, I will always assure you that, yes, there are perfect movies.  There may not be a lot of them.  There may not be a lot of them that are properly classified as Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror release.  There may not be many that -- in all honestly -- survive the test of time and perhaps mean even more to audiences today than they did back when they were originally released.  But these productions are out there; and they continue to prove themselves with each passing year, refusing the vanish into the background of noise or fade away into the ash heap of film history.  These films deserve to be celebrated, and they deserve to be recognized as perfect films by fans who keep them alive.

One such flick is -- most definitely -- 1999's Galaxy Quest which turns an incredible 25 years young today.

I don't believe that there's any need to enumerate the long list of reasons why I consider it a perfect film -- perfect casting, perfect story, perfect editing, perfect tone, etc. -- so I'll dispense with such activity.  While I've only come across a small handful of genre fans who don't revere the project as much as most, I'll accept that there could be more out there.  Yes, Galaxy Quest takes a few swipes at fandom in general as well as piling on just a bit about Star Trek's time as a cultural movement; but it does so with a knowing wink, never meaning to disparage stars or their followers but instead celebrating just how all of this admiration might look from the outside peering in.  Dare I ask: "Haven't we all been guilty of adoring a franchise a bit too much?  Maybe even a bit unhealthily?"  It is what I is, I suppose, but I really don't think that Galaxy Quest meant for any of us to accept less of ourselves when it comes to being fans.

According to IMDB.com, the film first premiered on this day in 1999 behind the Maple Curtain up in the Great White North (aka Canada); and it then opened on U.S. screens on Christmas Day.  If I remember correctly, I believe I originally saw it on New Years' Day -- with a wifey and a few college friends who were together for the silly season -- and three out of four of us just flat-out loved it.  (There's always one in every crowd, am I right?)  It wasn't as if our fourth smiler disliked Quest; I just don't think she caught all of the references, not being a Star Trek enthusiast in any respect.  But for the three of us, this one was pure cinema gold.
​

Like so many of you, I've followed the news off and on over the years about emerging ideas to continue the story in whatever fashion -- I'm familiar that there was talk of theatrical sequels as well as an Amazon Prime series -- but ... sigh.  I just don't know how you do that.  Given the fact that one of the principle players has passed away -- a very key role -- I'm far more inclined as this point to just let sleeping dogs lie.  While producers could always recast, I just don't feel that would re-capture the magic of this true original ... a rare perfect gem of a film that deserves to stand alone on its own merits.

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and NEVER RETREAT, NEVER SURRENDER!

-- EZ 

Folks, I'm honestly surprised that I have to admit to never having seen 1985's Star Knight (aka El caballero del dragón).  

Of course, it should go without saying that there are a great many flicks across all of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror that I haven't seen, so let me give that opening statement a bit of greater context.  I'm surprised specifically because it comes from the 1980's and has a bit of a cult reputation -- not necessarily a cult film, directly -- and I did watch so many of those back in the day when I had vastly more free time.  It's the kind of release that would've dropped onto my radar because it fits a specific bill ... and yet, alas, I've not seen this one.  Chiefly, that's all I meant.

As you may or may not know, a good number of these imports -- FYI: it's Italian, I believe -- had some VHS releases on the fast and cheap, back in the days when distributors were hungry to get anything and everything they could into the U.S. marketplace.  I've no doubt I probably happened across it on the shelves of the nearest Blockbuster; but for some reason it just never rose to the top of the pile.  Shame on me for waiting so long.
​

IMDB.com indicates that the project was scripted by Andreu Martín and Miguel Ángel Nieto with some additional scripting duties attributed to director Fernando Colomo.  It looks like this film was reasonably early in Colomo's career (his first citation shows in 1975), and the storyteller has gone on to a rather storied existence: presently, his resume includes 20 big wins across a variety venues -- festivals and academy types.  Google.com doesn't give any overall impression on the director's catalogue, but it does indicate that he does a good deal of his own screenwriting on top of producing and acting.  The better portion of Martín and Nieto's libraries respectively are Italian entries; and -- as I don't know any Italian (language) or Italians (people) -- I'm at a loss to add anything further regarding them.
​
Star Knight stars Klaus Kinski, Harvey Keitel, Fernando Rey, Maria Lamor, and Miguel Bose in prominent roles.
​

As according to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:

"When a dazzling craft illuminates the sky above a medieval European village, the townspeople fear mayhem while the ruling party prepares for battle with the mysterious "dragon in the sky." After Princess Alba is discovered missing, the quest for power and the young girl's affections drive Klever to free her from the strange cosmic knight. But is that her desire? Worldly boundaries are crossed in this gothic sci-fi tale of power, greed and the universal language of love."

​The citation of the film's reception over at Wikipedia.org strongly indicates that the flick was a bit of a financial disaster, but it gives no clear indication as to any reason.  Having not seen it, I'm remiss to say a bit more; and information pretaining to it is understandably light on the World Wide Web.
​

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

-- EZ
​

Hey there and Happy Thursday, gentle readers!  How the hell have you been?

I know, I know, I know ... where have I been with these casual chitchat posts?  Life throws you curve balls throughout your existence, folks, so when I need to dial those back for posterity's sake then I do.  That's mostly what's been up.  I've had a few issues that have kept me away from the lighter side of things, but that's what we all sign up for once we're birthed, am I right?  Oy vey!

In any event ...

I did want to drop on with a little post today to -- first and foremost -- wish everyone a Happy Thursday.  I do hope the Silly Season hasn't been too challenging for any of you.  I know it's a time for celebration and reflection, and -- from what I've read -- there's also a great deal of depression that reals its ugly head this time of year.  Certainly, I don't wish any of that upon you, my faithful readership, and I do hope from the bottom of my soul that you're reaping only the best life has to offer this time of year.  Minimally, I think that's what each of us deserves.

Another reason for the random post is that I've found it necessary to reiterate SciFiHistory.Net's policy as it applies to my posting (or not posting) Coming Attractions.  You see, behind the scenes, I've been asked of late in the past few weeks to put a great handful of these up on behalf of studios, marketing peeps, distributors, etc.; these movers and shakers have no doubt come here in the past and noticed that I do occasionally engage in such behaviors.  While I believe a good many of these requests think it's just something I do, that's honestly far from the case.

My policy has always been this:

In order to keep SciFiHistory.Net from just being a free advertising outlet for so many studios or independents, I as a practice do not post Coming Attractions without charging a modest fee.  (Yes, you read that right.)  Now, that policy does not apply to studios and independents that I have an established relationship or I'm asked to additionally provide a review for the current or forthcoming feature.  Honestly, there are plenty of sites that do that stuff for free; and hats off to them.  But in order for me to manage my free time I usually do not throw just anything up on the MainPage without considering its impact to the readership.  Clicks are great ... but my blog is my blog, and I talk about what I want, promote what I want, and also seek to make a buck or two in order to keep it up and running.  As I said, if you want it for no cost, then let me watch and review: honestly, you couldn't ask for a better price considering what other sites do actually charge.

So, here's a reminder: don't show up expecting something for nothing, folks.  That's one of the oldest rules in the book.

Of course, none of that applies if I -- in my responsibilities as editor -- reach out to you.  That's me doing what I do.  Still, when you knock on my door with a request for promotion, I -- like any website owner -- do expect to be paid for my services.  (And trust me when I add that my prices are ridiculously low ... so there.)

In any event ...

Happy holidays to each and every one of you out there in cyberspace!  I'll try to post up a few more information tidbits as time allows.

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan (readership is up an incredible 25% this year) ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

There are a great many thrillers that dabble in the realms of the Fantastic.

Honestly, a lot of these don't exactly touch on the favored elements SciFiHistory.Net generally cherishes -- like Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror -- but the adopt a lot of the same theatrical flavor.  Christopher Nolan's Memento (2000) almost instantly comes to mind: while I wasn't as big a fan of the effort as were so many, I still appreciated what the director set out to accomplish with spinning a narrative that was fractured into pieces alongside the mind of his chief participant.  It made for some compelling cinema; and that doesn't come along every day of the week.

Thus, when I see it, I do try to pass along such possibilities; and that's what I'm doing today by posting the trailer for the forthcoming Gazer.  Written (in part) and directed by Ryan J. Sloan, the film stars Ariella Mastroianni, Jack Alberts, Renee Gagner, Frank Huerta, and Marianne Goodell in prominent roles.  Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

"Set on the outskirts of Newark, New Jersey, GAZER follows Frankie, a young mother with a rare degenerative brain condition called dyschronometria which disables her from correctly perceiving time. Prone to paranoia and frequent 'zone outs,' she uses self-recorded cassette tapes to keep herself safe and present in our modern, high-tech world. Unable to find steady work with her condition, she desperately takes a job from a mysterious woman with a dark past."

As I've not seen this one, I really can't say much more about it.  I can tell you that -- according to IMDB.com -- it has received some positive praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.  It's been my experience that such attention can be either good or bad; so I'll just leave it with the trailer below and allow you folks to make up your own minds about all of it.

You know what to do.
​

Here's a bit more that's been passed along to yours truly by way of the film's press release.
​

​Synopsis: Gazer follows a young mother (co-writer Ariella Mastroianni) who, due to a unique condition that progressively affects her perception of time, is trying to save money for her daughter’s future before it’s too late. She takes a risky job from a mysterious woman with a dark past, which leads her to become entangled in a tense web of revenge, deceit, and murder.
 
More About The Film: Gazer is Sloan’s debut feature. The film was shot on a shoestring budget over weekends in the spring and fall for two years while Sloan worked as an electrician and Mastroianni in film programming in New York. Shot on 16mm, and co-written by its magnetic lead actress, Gazer is not only a fresh perspective on the legendary paranoia thrillers of the 70s and 80s, but also a masterful tribute to, and bold reinvention of, the work of many great cinema artists over several generations.
 
116 Minutes | Rated R