Strange to see other episodes ranked ahead of "Valley of the Unicorns", which is far and away the most visceral, exciting, and dramatic episode of the series. D&D was a kids' show, so in all honesty, a lot of the action was inert -- nothing at stake, nobody seriously in danger. But Kelleck the Wizard is one of D&D's truly fantastic villains, genuinely evil and scary. His delivery and lines are excellent: "Then all shall call ME master!" The final battle with Venger is also extremely satisfying from a dramatic standpoint, as is seeing Kelleck get his head handed to him. Last of all, Eric delivers some of his funniest lines, like "What's the fastest way out of here?!"
Reviews
31 Reviews
This episode matures as we do
25 August 2022
I've adored this episode ever since I was too young to fully understand it, even if I couldn't say why. Now, almost 50 years later, the answer is clear. Not just for the universal romantic implications, which make me go a big rubbery one... The score for Metamorphosis is also exquisite, as are the sets. Where on Earth (or space) did the Trek set designers come up those striking background colors, wafting with fog? Whatever asteroid the Companion and Cochrane live on, it sure looks gorgeous. Also a shout-out to childhood fave Glenn Corbett, who freaked me out in an old 1973 sci-fi TV movie called Stranded In Space aka The Stranger (made infamous as an MST3K episode).
Segment "All Dash Away" is fantastic, but raises several questions
13 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This film is pretty much as dreary as other reviewers indicated - with the striking exception of second segment "All Dash Away", which is tight, frightening, and unforgettable. So good in fact, that it doesn't belong anywhere near this disappointing collection.
Summary: Two odd women in a grungy van run into nice family man Eric Turner in a deserted store parking lot on Christmas Eve. After discovering his birthday is December 25, Sasha and Frankie saddle him with the vicious entity living inside their van - a demon (call him Tether) that will slay Eric and murder his family if he ever ventures more than 25 feet away. Branding Eric frees them of their bondage, whilst trapping him until he can rope another Christmas-birthday sucker to take his place.
"All Dash Away" makes excellent use of its contained setting - basically three characters in a deserted Wal-Mart parking lot. Like Stephen King's "Thinner", a victim must hand off the curse to be rid of it, bringing up all sorts of interesting moral quandaries. And in the best storytelling fashion, "All Dash Away" also raises more questions than it answers.
But after several viewings, I have a few questions myself.
First off, Sasha and Frankie seem quite unimaginative to me. They've spent three furtive years living out of this dirty van, tethered within 25 feet of a flesh-eating demon. Eric strikes me as a smart guy... Perhaps he might come up with a few interesting wrinkles. For instance, why hide his predicament? Why not come clean and reveal his secret to the world, which according to the established rules, shouldn't be a problem? Unlike Sasha and Frankie's paranoid approach, this opens a world of possibilities.
If Eric breaks the barrier, the demon will kill him and his family anyhow. As long as he obeys the rules, they are safe. So why not go home? 25 feet is a surprisingly wide radius. With an abundance of caution - plus some creative parking and construction - he could sleep in his own bedroom, shower in his bathroom, and eat in his own kitchen with his family.
Next option: Ask the government for help! Seems to me the authorities would be quite interested in a murderous demonic threat to mankind, and happy to assist Eric with his plight. Did anyone ever try an exorcism over the past 2000 years? Or how about just putting a shotgun to Tether's head and pulling the trigger? There were no vans in Christ's time. So where did Tether live back then - a closet, perhaps? This suggests it can be safely removed from the van, maybe to some secure facility for testing.
But even if Tether is indestructible, the government could still help Eric other ways as well. Volunteer tether substitutes could be found and exchanged on a regular basis, thereby managing the length of the curse for each victim. How about sentencing criminals born on Christmas Day to serve as tethers in their cells? More importantly, does a tether even need to be human? Perhaps dogs or rabbits could be bred on Christmas Day and branded as tethers, dozens at a time.
Finally, a nagging plot hole. Frankie and Sasha have been trapped by the Tether's curse for three years; if they can successfully brand Eric against his will, they will apparently both be freed. Which raises a question: If only one handoff victim is required to transfer the curse, then how did two people like Frankie and Sasha ever become branded at the same time?
Sequel, please.
Summary: Two odd women in a grungy van run into nice family man Eric Turner in a deserted store parking lot on Christmas Eve. After discovering his birthday is December 25, Sasha and Frankie saddle him with the vicious entity living inside their van - a demon (call him Tether) that will slay Eric and murder his family if he ever ventures more than 25 feet away. Branding Eric frees them of their bondage, whilst trapping him until he can rope another Christmas-birthday sucker to take his place.
"All Dash Away" makes excellent use of its contained setting - basically three characters in a deserted Wal-Mart parking lot. Like Stephen King's "Thinner", a victim must hand off the curse to be rid of it, bringing up all sorts of interesting moral quandaries. And in the best storytelling fashion, "All Dash Away" also raises more questions than it answers.
But after several viewings, I have a few questions myself.
First off, Sasha and Frankie seem quite unimaginative to me. They've spent three furtive years living out of this dirty van, tethered within 25 feet of a flesh-eating demon. Eric strikes me as a smart guy... Perhaps he might come up with a few interesting wrinkles. For instance, why hide his predicament? Why not come clean and reveal his secret to the world, which according to the established rules, shouldn't be a problem? Unlike Sasha and Frankie's paranoid approach, this opens a world of possibilities.
If Eric breaks the barrier, the demon will kill him and his family anyhow. As long as he obeys the rules, they are safe. So why not go home? 25 feet is a surprisingly wide radius. With an abundance of caution - plus some creative parking and construction - he could sleep in his own bedroom, shower in his bathroom, and eat in his own kitchen with his family.
Next option: Ask the government for help! Seems to me the authorities would be quite interested in a murderous demonic threat to mankind, and happy to assist Eric with his plight. Did anyone ever try an exorcism over the past 2000 years? Or how about just putting a shotgun to Tether's head and pulling the trigger? There were no vans in Christ's time. So where did Tether live back then - a closet, perhaps? This suggests it can be safely removed from the van, maybe to some secure facility for testing.
But even if Tether is indestructible, the government could still help Eric other ways as well. Volunteer tether substitutes could be found and exchanged on a regular basis, thereby managing the length of the curse for each victim. How about sentencing criminals born on Christmas Day to serve as tethers in their cells? More importantly, does a tether even need to be human? Perhaps dogs or rabbits could be bred on Christmas Day and branded as tethers, dozens at a time.
Finally, a nagging plot hole. Frankie and Sasha have been trapped by the Tether's curse for three years; if they can successfully brand Eric against his will, they will apparently both be freed. Which raises a question: If only one handoff victim is required to transfer the curse, then how did two people like Frankie and Sasha ever become branded at the same time?
Sequel, please.
Lisa Hartman in a nun outfit???
24 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I assume nobody under age 40 will ever read this review, nor many other Fantasy Island user reviews... nor should they. Anyhow, this is an above average episode with a fantastic 70s cast. But that final shot of Lisa Hartman in a nun's habit almost made me never want to watch television again.
A who-dunit cannot work this way
19 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
There are two tried-and-true methods to construct a good Who-dunit:
1) Introduce a group of characters in the first act, one of them a killer. The killer proceeds to eliminate other characters until his/her identity is revealed in the final act -- hopefully the last person the audience expects. Example: Agatha Christie, especially "The Mirror Crack'd".
2) The killer is revealed in the first act, and the protagonists must establish his/her guilt by the denoument. This approach is more procedural in nature, but can still work very well. Example: the 1999 Millennium episode "Nostalgia".
The one thing a script CANNOT do is introduce a previously unknown killer in the final act. This is a violation of trust, and an audience cheat of the first order. "Field Of Fire" sets up a space station who-dunit, then introduces a character we've never seen before (with motives we care nothing about) in the last ten minutes, and pins the entire scheme on him. Eye-rolling, amateurish screenwriting.
The lone aspect that somewhat redeems "Field Of Fire" from the trash heap is Leigh McCloskey's smarmy and entertaining performance as Joran. Otherwise, another standalone disappointment from Season 7.
1) Introduce a group of characters in the first act, one of them a killer. The killer proceeds to eliminate other characters until his/her identity is revealed in the final act -- hopefully the last person the audience expects. Example: Agatha Christie, especially "The Mirror Crack'd".
2) The killer is revealed in the first act, and the protagonists must establish his/her guilt by the denoument. This approach is more procedural in nature, but can still work very well. Example: the 1999 Millennium episode "Nostalgia".
The one thing a script CANNOT do is introduce a previously unknown killer in the final act. This is a violation of trust, and an audience cheat of the first order. "Field Of Fire" sets up a space station who-dunit, then introduces a character we've never seen before (with motives we care nothing about) in the last ten minutes, and pins the entire scheme on him. Eye-rolling, amateurish screenwriting.
The lone aspect that somewhat redeems "Field Of Fire" from the trash heap is Leigh McCloskey's smarmy and entertaining performance as Joran. Otherwise, another standalone disappointment from Season 7.
STILL missing Morgan + Wong from season 2
30 July 2021
Without rehashing my complicated up-and-down experience with the series back in the late 90s, "MATM" is an enjoyable and informative summary of an orphaned yet beloved show and the talents involved in bringing it to the screen. What a blast, hearing season-by-season commentary regarding various episodes from the actors and crew who put it all together. Heck, just watching him talk made this aspiring writer want to work for producer Chip Johannssen.
However, "MATM" suffers from one glaring shortcoming -- the obvious elephant in the room being the absence of Glen Morgan and James Wong, producers for Season 2. Given all the controversy surrounding their chosen direction (including a bold world-ending pandemic to close out the season), finally hearing from Morgan and Wong would make "MATM" a 10 out of 10. THIS is what fans like me are dying to see; 20+ years later, we still argue about whose vision was better, Chris Carter's or Morgan/Wong. (I'm a Season 2 fan, for the record.) Practically every interviewee dances around this sensitive topic, and there is obviously plenty of bad blood remaining. Not hearing from M+W inevitably detracts from the tale.
For this reason, "MATM", while hugely enjoyable, is merely a more detailed rehash of the 2004 season-by-season documentaries available on the DVD collection sets with 15 more years' perspective thrown in. Still, definitely worth watching for fans.
However, "MATM" suffers from one glaring shortcoming -- the obvious elephant in the room being the absence of Glen Morgan and James Wong, producers for Season 2. Given all the controversy surrounding their chosen direction (including a bold world-ending pandemic to close out the season), finally hearing from Morgan and Wong would make "MATM" a 10 out of 10. THIS is what fans like me are dying to see; 20+ years later, we still argue about whose vision was better, Chris Carter's or Morgan/Wong. (I'm a Season 2 fan, for the record.) Practically every interviewee dances around this sensitive topic, and there is obviously plenty of bad blood remaining. Not hearing from M+W inevitably detracts from the tale.
For this reason, "MATM", while hugely enjoyable, is merely a more detailed rehash of the 2004 season-by-season documentaries available on the DVD collection sets with 15 more years' perspective thrown in. Still, definitely worth watching for fans.
One of the series' finest
27 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
In their death-throes -- long after they'd likely overstayed their welcome -- several classic series have managed to cough up a masterpiece in their final season that measures up to the series' best. (Twilight Zone's "Nightmare At 20000 Feet" comes to mind, as does Star Trek's "All Our Yesterdays".) For me, "Nostalgia" is Millennium's example. Along with perennial favorite "Somehow, Satan Got Behind Me", this episode ranks in my top 3 for the entire show. I could watch these two episodes once a week, and sometimes I do.
You can read Darren Mooney's indispensable reviews to get an in-depth study of Millennium's third-season mood swings. But if the show desired to return to the Season One 'serial killer of the week' format, "Nostalgia" should have been the template. An entire season of shows like this would have been fantastic; in fact, this episode would stand out in just about any procedural show's repertoire.
"Nostalgia" is odd, in that it feels out of place during the series' wrap-up. The show literally has only two weeks to live; it's the definition of a 'stand-alone' episode, neither anticipating the series finale nor even mentioning the Millennium Group. But it is also Emma Hollis' finest hour -- the moment she finally emerges from under Frank's wing. Instead of hanging on his every insight, she and Frank work as a seamless investigative team, practically finishing each other's sentences. About time, right? A perfect example occurs around 21 minutes, when Frank leaves the room and yet Emma knows precisely what to do next without any prompting from her former mentor.
One other aspect of "Nostalgia" that bears repeating is its innovative procedural structure. The killer is revealed less than 10 minutes in, leaving our protagonists to establish his guilt in a town that hasn't been very interested in doing so.
Finally, a word about the script's stately and satisfying pace. 44 minutes? Come on! "Nostalgia" feels like it packs two hours of wonderful plotting, events, and characterization into that brief window. I've seen all of Michael Perry's Millennium scripts, including the over-praised "Mikado", and none of them so much as hints at the subtlety and storytelling efficiency of "Nostalgia".
Two weeks later, Millennium was gone. And while I may have disliked much of the third year -- and while I remain a staunch fan of the Morgan/Wong second season -- "Nostalgia" makes me ache for the show every time I cue it up.
You can read Darren Mooney's indispensable reviews to get an in-depth study of Millennium's third-season mood swings. But if the show desired to return to the Season One 'serial killer of the week' format, "Nostalgia" should have been the template. An entire season of shows like this would have been fantastic; in fact, this episode would stand out in just about any procedural show's repertoire.
"Nostalgia" is odd, in that it feels out of place during the series' wrap-up. The show literally has only two weeks to live; it's the definition of a 'stand-alone' episode, neither anticipating the series finale nor even mentioning the Millennium Group. But it is also Emma Hollis' finest hour -- the moment she finally emerges from under Frank's wing. Instead of hanging on his every insight, she and Frank work as a seamless investigative team, practically finishing each other's sentences. About time, right? A perfect example occurs around 21 minutes, when Frank leaves the room and yet Emma knows precisely what to do next without any prompting from her former mentor.
One other aspect of "Nostalgia" that bears repeating is its innovative procedural structure. The killer is revealed less than 10 minutes in, leaving our protagonists to establish his guilt in a town that hasn't been very interested in doing so.
Finally, a word about the script's stately and satisfying pace. 44 minutes? Come on! "Nostalgia" feels like it packs two hours of wonderful plotting, events, and characterization into that brief window. I've seen all of Michael Perry's Millennium scripts, including the over-praised "Mikado", and none of them so much as hints at the subtlety and storytelling efficiency of "Nostalgia".
Two weeks later, Millennium was gone. And while I may have disliked much of the third year -- and while I remain a staunch fan of the Morgan/Wong second season -- "Nostalgia" makes me ache for the show every time I cue it up.
Mentally Apart
(2020)
Suffers from Second Act Atrophy
28 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
No hardcore spoilers, just covering my behind.
"Mentally Apart" is a not-bad low budget film that suffers from its construction. As a failed writer myself, I can tell you firsthand that this type of story carries a tremendous challenge of "second act atrophy". This means the second act consists of a lot of Sound And Fury, but doesn't advance the plot one bit -- you could effectively fast-forward the middle 45 minutes, and not miss them at all. The story desperately searches for ways to fill run-time before it gets to the Big Reveal. This is always a near-fatal script flaw, and M.A. doesn't escape it. The middle act is dreadfully slow, with nothing to show for it.
Speaking of the Big Reveal, I saw it coming after 30 minutes. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. But (minor spoiler) -- there is a serious Cellphone Hole at the end of Mentally Apart. Cellphone location can be tracked minute by minute, even years after the fact. Please tell me how months could have gone by without a knock on the door? You'll understand my point when you watch the film.
"Mentally Apart" is a not-bad low budget film that suffers from its construction. As a failed writer myself, I can tell you firsthand that this type of story carries a tremendous challenge of "second act atrophy". This means the second act consists of a lot of Sound And Fury, but doesn't advance the plot one bit -- you could effectively fast-forward the middle 45 minutes, and not miss them at all. The story desperately searches for ways to fill run-time before it gets to the Big Reveal. This is always a near-fatal script flaw, and M.A. doesn't escape it. The middle act is dreadfully slow, with nothing to show for it.
Speaking of the Big Reveal, I saw it coming after 30 minutes. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. But (minor spoiler) -- there is a serious Cellphone Hole at the end of Mentally Apart. Cellphone location can be tracked minute by minute, even years after the fact. Please tell me how months could have gone by without a knock on the door? You'll understand my point when you watch the film.
Thrilling, memorable - best episode of the series
5 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Having loved this show back when it premiered (age 10), I recently purchased and watched both seasons on DVD for the first time in many years. Instead of the lead page, I decided to post my overall series review here - under the best episode they ever made.
First, the show itself. Top Gun's F-14s never did much for me; from age 10, thanks to Pappy and his boys, I wanted to fly a Corsair F4-U more than anything. Now, on the far side of 50 (!), I realize how sanitized this show really was. WWII pilot memoirs (including Pappy Boyington's) tell the real story of blood, death, and exhaustion. (Pro tip: the most vulnerable part of an airplane is the pilot, not some grey smoke coming out of the wing.)
Each season boasts some excellent episodes (Prisoners Of War and Last One For Hutch in season one; Divine Wind, Iceman, and Operation Stand-Down in season two). Plenty of clunkers too -- the less said about Pappy's Lambs, the better. And the acting took a real dive with the loss of James Whitmore Jr, John Larroquette, and Robert Ginty in season two, leaving the least-talented actors behind to carry the slack. Side note: Who the heck thought adding a cute pinup boy and some feathered Charlie's Angels clones with zero acting skill was a good idea?
Okay, back to Devil In The Slot. For 40+ years, this episode never really left my consciousness. I think I had an old VHS copy, then found it on the Interwebs for biannual viewing. Devil has it all: team tension, deep personal crisis, an unbeatable foe, a fantastic new character (Red West's flinty Sgt. Andy Micklin) - plus cathartic redemption for the worst pilot in the unit. When the triumphant T.J. jumps off that Corsair wing into his fellow pilots' arms, this dusty old man still gets chills.
Devil also features what I consider the greatest exchange of dialogue in the entire series:
PAPPY: Morning, Tommy. You bring your life raft? HARACHI: Not going swimming today, Boyington. Maybe you!
Devil has a truly comprehensive sensibility, up to and including humanizing a hated foe. Does anything beat actually TALKING to your deadliest enemy on the radio before a life-or-death battle? The obvious respect between Pappy and Harachi (an utterly convincing Byron Chung) adds so much to their rivalry, and the imminent dramatic danger. As a bonus, we get to see Harachi's disciplined squadron at rest and preparing for missions on their own forsaken island.
I watched this show as a little kid; caught glimpses for years afterward; and now I finally own the entire series. Having re-watched it start to finish, I can conclusively state that Devil In The Slot remains the finest example of what the artists behind Black Sheep Squadron were trying to accomplish. Congratulations to them all these decades later, and many thanks from an old man born at the wrong time.
First, the show itself. Top Gun's F-14s never did much for me; from age 10, thanks to Pappy and his boys, I wanted to fly a Corsair F4-U more than anything. Now, on the far side of 50 (!), I realize how sanitized this show really was. WWII pilot memoirs (including Pappy Boyington's) tell the real story of blood, death, and exhaustion. (Pro tip: the most vulnerable part of an airplane is the pilot, not some grey smoke coming out of the wing.)
Each season boasts some excellent episodes (Prisoners Of War and Last One For Hutch in season one; Divine Wind, Iceman, and Operation Stand-Down in season two). Plenty of clunkers too -- the less said about Pappy's Lambs, the better. And the acting took a real dive with the loss of James Whitmore Jr, John Larroquette, and Robert Ginty in season two, leaving the least-talented actors behind to carry the slack. Side note: Who the heck thought adding a cute pinup boy and some feathered Charlie's Angels clones with zero acting skill was a good idea?
Okay, back to Devil In The Slot. For 40+ years, this episode never really left my consciousness. I think I had an old VHS copy, then found it on the Interwebs for biannual viewing. Devil has it all: team tension, deep personal crisis, an unbeatable foe, a fantastic new character (Red West's flinty Sgt. Andy Micklin) - plus cathartic redemption for the worst pilot in the unit. When the triumphant T.J. jumps off that Corsair wing into his fellow pilots' arms, this dusty old man still gets chills.
Devil also features what I consider the greatest exchange of dialogue in the entire series:
PAPPY: Morning, Tommy. You bring your life raft? HARACHI: Not going swimming today, Boyington. Maybe you!
Devil has a truly comprehensive sensibility, up to and including humanizing a hated foe. Does anything beat actually TALKING to your deadliest enemy on the radio before a life-or-death battle? The obvious respect between Pappy and Harachi (an utterly convincing Byron Chung) adds so much to their rivalry, and the imminent dramatic danger. As a bonus, we get to see Harachi's disciplined squadron at rest and preparing for missions on their own forsaken island.
I watched this show as a little kid; caught glimpses for years afterward; and now I finally own the entire series. Having re-watched it start to finish, I can conclusively state that Devil In The Slot remains the finest example of what the artists behind Black Sheep Squadron were trying to accomplish. Congratulations to them all these decades later, and many thanks from an old man born at the wrong time.
Breaks every screenwriting rule, but still works
8 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers, obviously.
While ITPM has been rightly praised as among the entire franchise's best hours, I've yet to see the screenplay analyzed for what it ISN'T: i.e., textbook Hollywood writing. ITPM breaks two of the most important rules of screenwriting, and not only gets away with these violations, but benefits from them.
The first, of course, is voiceover narration. The episode is framed by Sisko's narration (both honest and otherwise) -- an approach which "normally" indicates a shortcoming in the action, which should be strong enough to explain itself to the viewer. Yet it's Sisko's unreliable and halting narration that carries us along with him on his journey of moral acquiescence.
The second 'violation' is even more glaring: the heavy use of Exposition, also known as "show, don't tell". Most if not all of ITPM's standard dramatic action takes place offscreen, with the audience subsequently learning about these events from character dialogue AFTER the fact. Posting casualty lists, battles with the Dominion, the assassination of Garak's operatives on Cardassia, the fall of Betazed, Tolar's murder, Vreenak's shuttle exploding: Typically these scenes would be front and center, trying to wow us with action, violence, and conflict. But no: the drama derives from our characters' REACTIONS to these quadrant-altering events. Think about it: Watching Sisko and Garak argue over the ethics of Vreenak's demise becomes far more riveting than actually watching his shuttle explode. I mean, whoa -- that is brilliant screenwriting.
As a huge Garak/Robinson fan, my favorite moment of this episode might be Sisko's first encounter with Tolar. The slippery forger is laying on the baloney super-thick, as one would expect. Then Sisko mentions Garak: "Garak... is HERE?" "Yes." Suddenly Tolar becomes a meek little mouse, slinking away in fear. Talk about a fearsome reputation! Brrrrrrr....
Kudos to the writing staff, especially Ron Moore, for knowing when and how to shatter the rulebook.
While ITPM has been rightly praised as among the entire franchise's best hours, I've yet to see the screenplay analyzed for what it ISN'T: i.e., textbook Hollywood writing. ITPM breaks two of the most important rules of screenwriting, and not only gets away with these violations, but benefits from them.
The first, of course, is voiceover narration. The episode is framed by Sisko's narration (both honest and otherwise) -- an approach which "normally" indicates a shortcoming in the action, which should be strong enough to explain itself to the viewer. Yet it's Sisko's unreliable and halting narration that carries us along with him on his journey of moral acquiescence.
The second 'violation' is even more glaring: the heavy use of Exposition, also known as "show, don't tell". Most if not all of ITPM's standard dramatic action takes place offscreen, with the audience subsequently learning about these events from character dialogue AFTER the fact. Posting casualty lists, battles with the Dominion, the assassination of Garak's operatives on Cardassia, the fall of Betazed, Tolar's murder, Vreenak's shuttle exploding: Typically these scenes would be front and center, trying to wow us with action, violence, and conflict. But no: the drama derives from our characters' REACTIONS to these quadrant-altering events. Think about it: Watching Sisko and Garak argue over the ethics of Vreenak's demise becomes far more riveting than actually watching his shuttle explode. I mean, whoa -- that is brilliant screenwriting.
As a huge Garak/Robinson fan, my favorite moment of this episode might be Sisko's first encounter with Tolar. The slippery forger is laying on the baloney super-thick, as one would expect. Then Sisko mentions Garak: "Garak... is HERE?" "Yes." Suddenly Tolar becomes a meek little mouse, slinking away in fear. Talk about a fearsome reputation! Brrrrrrr....
Kudos to the writing staff, especially Ron Moore, for knowing when and how to shatter the rulebook.
The Domestics
(2018)
By the numbers apocalypse, but cool weaponry
28 November 2018
"The Domestics" is a purely by-the-numbers post-apocalyptic flick, whose influences will be immediately evident to anyone over the age of 30. Even so, it's a decent watch, with a fun cast. But the neatest part for me were some of the characters' weaponry choices. One character uses what looks to be a Henry lever-action repeater, which is cool enough. But Mark carries a WWII-vintage M1A1 Paratrooper .30 caliber carbine (probably a replica), complete with folding stock. Wow! That one blew me away. Not sure I've ever seen that rifle before, outside of WWII or Korean War movies. Makes it a little harder for him to find ammunition after the end of the world, I'll bet.
COVID IRONY UPDATE: So here we are, a year into the pandemic apocalypse. And guess what? Popular calibers like 9mm, .45, and .223 are impossible to find... but good old .30 carbine ammunition is plentiful and cheap. Who would have thought? Way to go, Mark!
COVID IRONY UPDATE: So here we are, a year into the pandemic apocalypse. And guess what? Popular calibers like 9mm, .45, and .223 are impossible to find... but good old .30 carbine ammunition is plentiful and cheap. Who would have thought? Way to go, Mark!
Mandy
(I) (2018)
I must be the only one...
21 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
OK, most of the facts have been stated by prior reviewers. Cage makes three schlocky films per year, some of which are (moderately) worthwhile. And the consensus here is that "Mandy" is a wicked, psychedelic, throwback horror film that everybody's fallen in love with.
Sorry, it just didn't wash with me. This is nothing more than Cthulhu-influenced torture porn. The setup takes way too long. Worse still, in the end "Mandy" winds up being an utterly predictable, by the numbers, "hunt the bad guys one-by-one" revenge flick.
Oh, and re: the big bad "Chainsaw Battle". Have any of you seen "Phantasm II"? It was done 30 years ago, and done with Reggie Bannister. COME ON, YOU MUTHA!! 'Nuff said.
Sorry, it just didn't wash with me. This is nothing more than Cthulhu-influenced torture porn. The setup takes way too long. Worse still, in the end "Mandy" winds up being an utterly predictable, by the numbers, "hunt the bad guys one-by-one" revenge flick.
Oh, and re: the big bad "Chainsaw Battle". Have any of you seen "Phantasm II"? It was done 30 years ago, and done with Reggie Bannister. COME ON, YOU MUTHA!! 'Nuff said.
Diane
(2017)
Not bad, but one glaring fatal flaw
21 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film wasn't bad at all. Performances were good, plot kept me guessing, lots of mystery. I especially liked the detective characters.
But - SPOILER - the film goes out of its way to eliminate the possibility of texting, cell phone contact, or other incriminating 21st century technologies to prevent the police from catching on. Diane specifically tells Steve not to call her, text her, or contact her in any other way - thereby keeping their secret, and (plot element!) preventing anyone from catching them. The detectives even make a point of stating that cell phone records show no calls or texts between Steve and Diane.
The problem is that their CELL PHONES THEMSELVES would give them away. If Diane and Steve spent so many afternoons together in Diane's "secret house", then a simple cell phone location search would reveal this within an hour. Law enforcement uses phone location tracking every day to nail criminals and their cohorts. This one shortcoming shoots a giant logic hole in the plot.
But - SPOILER - the film goes out of its way to eliminate the possibility of texting, cell phone contact, or other incriminating 21st century technologies to prevent the police from catching on. Diane specifically tells Steve not to call her, text her, or contact her in any other way - thereby keeping their secret, and (plot element!) preventing anyone from catching them. The detectives even make a point of stating that cell phone records show no calls or texts between Steve and Diane.
The problem is that their CELL PHONES THEMSELVES would give them away. If Diane and Steve spent so many afternoons together in Diane's "secret house", then a simple cell phone location search would reveal this within an hour. Law enforcement uses phone location tracking every day to nail criminals and their cohorts. This one shortcoming shoots a giant logic hole in the plot.
Amusing, but lazy undramatic plot
23 July 2018
Seeing the Mugato in action is still a thrill for an old Trekkie like me, and the tongue-in-cheek nature of this episode yields a few laughs (many of them unintentional). But my problem with "Fatal Cargo" is a drama-related one. The same things happen over and over again, and that's the plot arc. Brock pushes yellow button... Gorilla goes mad... Somebody either dies or avoids death... Crewmen shoot at gorilla... Brock puts gorilla back to sleep. Repeat. The writer's term for this is "padding". Sorry William Welch, but having your characters do the same thing over and over again betrays a serious lack of dramatic ideas.
A special episode in every way
10 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I hadn't seen this since the early 1980s. What a pleasure to watch. And not just from a dramatic standpoint either. Whitmore is mesmerizing, and Tim O'Connor (Dr. Huer from Buck Rogers to my generation) employs the perfect touch of "this guy is crazy but I'm going to humor him as long as I can". But just knowing how steeply the quality of Serling's output had fallen, especially during Season Four, makes "Thursday" even more special. Unlike the grinding disaster of "Thirty Fathom Grave", "Thursday" makes it obvious that Serling loved the character of Benteen and threw every ounce of his writing talent behind him. In contrast to most Season Fours, this would have made a terrible half-hour show; at an hour it's paced subtly and meticulously, with Benteen manifesting his personality right before our eyes. "Thursday" is nearly Shakespearean in its pathos -- we pity and respect Benteen for his life-saving achievements even as we shake our heads at his mania. The word that comes to mind is 'horrifying'. How could a man who's devoted his life to the memory of Earth stay behind? Worse, how could he possibly expect everyone ELSE to remain with him? Given Serling's masterful writing and Whitmore's portrayal, it all makes excruciating sense in the end.
Voyage to the Jumping of the Shark
27 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I wish I could maintain my youthful enthusiasm of 40 years ago for Season Three. But beyond the fact that this was another dramatically inert Voyage, it also shamelessly cribs footage directly from earlier episodes. The scene of the Merman killing the crewmember in the storage closet after bursting its bonds was taken unchanged from Season Two's "The Menfish". The entire bomb-disposal sequence was also cribbed from an earlier show, "The Peacemaker".
What kind of self-respecting production team pats themselves on the back for finding ways to reuse existing footage to save money? They also kill off Crewman Thompson, only to inexplicably bring him back from the dead for the backup diving team. And after all his years as a wordless extra in every bridge scene, making a poor extra's wages with zero dialogue.
"Mermaid" does get one extra star for making me laugh out loud watching the Merman rampage all over the Seaview. Hilarious. And not in a good way.
One shining moment
16 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The flaws in this episode are readily apparent, and listed by other reviewers. The main dramatic plot device is inert ("The Ryetalin is ready." "NO IT'S NOT!" Repeat.); Twilight Zone's "Walter Jameson" did it earlier and better; after bedding every female in the galaxy, Kirk is ready to throw it all away for an android he met two hours ago; oh, and let's play 'Art Lovers' while the entire ship dies of Rigelian fever. But where Trek Season 3 is concerned, you take your pleasures where you find them. I love Spock's performance in this episode. His genuine adoration and (gulp) joy at finding authentic undiscovered masterpieces by Brahms and Da Vinci is wonderful. But my favorite and most poignant moment is the final scene. What Spock does is totally unethical -- surreptitiously messing with his Captain's mind, even if nobody will ever know. When I was eight years old I couldn't understand why Captain Kirk needed to forget anything, especially after only four hours on the planet. Now, decades later -- having loved and lost several times myself -- this is the sort of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" memory cleanse that I'd probably have paid for several times over. What a controversial yet loving gift. Watching that scene makes me feel 40 years younger, overcome with nostalgia and well-earned understanding.
Flawed, yes. But...
3 April 2018
The other reviewers are spot-on when it comes to this flawed episode. Serling's self-admitted writing fatigue was definitely beginning to set in. Act One starts out with a great premise -- a plane lands with nobody on it -- but by Act Three the episode nearly collapses under the weight of its logical fallacies.
And yet...
Ever since I was 12 years old, every time my plane taxis up to the gate -- and the passengers stand up waiting for the jet bridge to connect and the door to open -- I wonder what would happen if they opened the door and found the plane to be completely empty.
Every single time.
And yet...
Ever since I was 12 years old, every time my plane taxis up to the gate -- and the passengers stand up waiting for the jet bridge to connect and the door to open -- I wonder what would happen if they opened the door and found the plane to be completely empty.
Every single time.
A dramatically inert hour
20 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Having loved the series 40+ years ago, I bought the complete DVD set of "Voyage" to revisit one of my favorite childhood shows in toto. This is my first episode review because unlike other commenters I really feel that the show jumped the shark and lost what made it exciting, and it happens right here with "Night Of Terror".
I was utterly surprised by how much I enjoyed Season 1. Spies, conspiracies, the Cold War, nuclear Armageddon: These were the themes of my 70s childhood, and Voyage brought them all back in exciting fashion, even in black and white. The second season was almost as good and, as a bonus, it was shot in gorgeous color.
Now Season 3 has started, and I feel really old. Not only are these scripts obviously aimed at younger viewers and designed to skimp on the budget, but any logic and dramatic momentum found in earlier episodes has evaporated. Were one to diagram "Night of Terror's" plot, one would see a hodgepodge of TV tropes (monster of the week, characters trapped, hallucinations, etc) with absolutely nothing at stake. 70% of this episode consists of Nelson, Sharkey, and Sprague running around the seismic island doing literally nothing except shouting. Scooby-Doo would follow the same story arc three years later (never a good sign).
I sincerely hope the rest of Seasons 3 and 4 get better, but from what I've heard I expect to be disappointed.
I was utterly surprised by how much I enjoyed Season 1. Spies, conspiracies, the Cold War, nuclear Armageddon: These were the themes of my 70s childhood, and Voyage brought them all back in exciting fashion, even in black and white. The second season was almost as good and, as a bonus, it was shot in gorgeous color.
Now Season 3 has started, and I feel really old. Not only are these scripts obviously aimed at younger viewers and designed to skimp on the budget, but any logic and dramatic momentum found in earlier episodes has evaporated. Were one to diagram "Night of Terror's" plot, one would see a hodgepodge of TV tropes (monster of the week, characters trapped, hallucinations, etc) with absolutely nothing at stake. 70% of this episode consists of Nelson, Sharkey, and Sprague running around the seismic island doing literally nothing except shouting. Scooby-Doo would follow the same story arc three years later (never a good sign).
I sincerely hope the rest of Seasons 3 and 4 get better, but from what I've heard I expect to be disappointed.
The Dinner
(I) (2017)
Bad enough to spark anger
3 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Watching this film made me angry enough to log in here and flay the flesh off of its bones. But in the interest of being constructive (and since others have already flayed it for me), I'm going to offer some measured criticism instead.
To begin with, I have not read the source novel, nor do I plan to. I therefore don't know whether the screenplay's faults stem from the author or the screenwriter. But they are legion. "The Dinner" beats around the plotting bush for over an hour, constantly distracting the characters and therefore distracting us from following what is supposed to be the story. With regard to the MacGuffin (Coogan's and Gere's teenage boys committed a crime, and the parents are trying to decide what to do about it), whatever interesting possibilities are raised wind up frittered away by a poor narrative structure. The story is filled with unannounced flashbacks, the existence of which I was only able to determine by the color and length of Steve Coogan's hair. As for Coogan himself, his Paul may be the most irritating and unlikable character I've seen in years. Yes, he's challenged or unbalanced somehow, and I think his grating personality is intentional. But that doesn't make the film any more enjoyable to watch. In fact, as a group the characters do little except distract and antagonize each other, and therefore us. This is despite the always-reliable Gere and Linney, who do their best with what amounts to histrionic Broadway-style interaction and talky dialogue. How many times can candidate Gere leave the room to take a critical phone call, or flippy Coogan storm out of the restaurant in a huff, before we stop caring?
I think what angered me so much about this film was the business end – the way it so perfectly epitomizes bad Hollywood decision-making from the ground up. Why did the producers green-light it? How did so many accomplished actors read this screenplay and not immediately say NEXT? Why do studios and marketers insist on sandbagging these pages with shill 9-star reviews, all dated right after its release? The people who made this film surely know a lot more about the picture business than I do, so I'm betting they (and the actors) realized all along that they were riding a dog with fleas. Yet nobody thought to yell 'Stop'. Instead here I was wasting an evening, all because I liked Richard Gere back in the 80s.
As for the finale – which was the only reason I kept watching – it was completely unsatisfactory. All plot resolution was simply postponed by the characters, and I guess this was supposed to suffice for an urbane ending. Instead it just left me shaking my head, and wishing I had my two hours back.
To begin with, I have not read the source novel, nor do I plan to. I therefore don't know whether the screenplay's faults stem from the author or the screenwriter. But they are legion. "The Dinner" beats around the plotting bush for over an hour, constantly distracting the characters and therefore distracting us from following what is supposed to be the story. With regard to the MacGuffin (Coogan's and Gere's teenage boys committed a crime, and the parents are trying to decide what to do about it), whatever interesting possibilities are raised wind up frittered away by a poor narrative structure. The story is filled with unannounced flashbacks, the existence of which I was only able to determine by the color and length of Steve Coogan's hair. As for Coogan himself, his Paul may be the most irritating and unlikable character I've seen in years. Yes, he's challenged or unbalanced somehow, and I think his grating personality is intentional. But that doesn't make the film any more enjoyable to watch. In fact, as a group the characters do little except distract and antagonize each other, and therefore us. This is despite the always-reliable Gere and Linney, who do their best with what amounts to histrionic Broadway-style interaction and talky dialogue. How many times can candidate Gere leave the room to take a critical phone call, or flippy Coogan storm out of the restaurant in a huff, before we stop caring?
I think what angered me so much about this film was the business end – the way it so perfectly epitomizes bad Hollywood decision-making from the ground up. Why did the producers green-light it? How did so many accomplished actors read this screenplay and not immediately say NEXT? Why do studios and marketers insist on sandbagging these pages with shill 9-star reviews, all dated right after its release? The people who made this film surely know a lot more about the picture business than I do, so I'm betting they (and the actors) realized all along that they were riding a dog with fleas. Yet nobody thought to yell 'Stop'. Instead here I was wasting an evening, all because I liked Richard Gere back in the 80s.
As for the finale – which was the only reason I kept watching – it was completely unsatisfactory. All plot resolution was simply postponed by the characters, and I guess this was supposed to suffice for an urbane ending. Instead it just left me shaking my head, and wishing I had my two hours back.
Shot Caller
(2017)
Best prison movie since Shawshank
31 July 2017
Like most reviewers on this site, I slog through dozens of mediocre and plain-old awful VOD films every year just to find that one decent horror or action thriller hidden in the haystack. Maybe twice a year I'll hit the jackpot, usually when I least expect it. Thus far in 2017, "Shot Caller" is that film.
After decades of dreary knockoffs, I've found that zombie films and prison films are two overdone genres I usually skip out of habit. But for some reason I chose "Shot Caller" off the slush pile this weekend. Within ten minutes I knew I was watching something really special. What the heck is a film this good doing on VOD and bouncing around the interwebs? I'm no actor or film studio, but I'd like to think that if a screenplay this thrilling landed on my desk I'd jump at it. It employs a 'dual-narrative' structure, in which two distinct temporal threads from past and present converge later on. (If you've seen William Katt's "House" from 1986, you'll know what I'm talking about.) The story's back-and-forth is never forced, and both perspectives ('Money' the protagonist's trial and entering prison; then his parole and what follows ten years later) are riveting. The snapshots of prison life are frighteningly medieval, and totally believable. Some reviewers have questioned the logic of Money's actions along the way, and their point is taken. But the man is confronted with two stark prison alternatives: survive or die. For me these were just interesting plot twists with a mostly satisfying resolution at the end. I was reminded of Edward Bunker's realistic prison novels, which were so realistic because he was there.
Now for the performances. Heck, I don't even watch "Throne of Games" (sic), so I didn't realize who Nikolaj was. But "Shot Caller" is packed with A-/B+ list stars who deliver phenomenal performances, and Nikolaj doesn't disappoint. His transformation from sweet family man to brutal gangster convict is something to behold. These are human beings turned into animals by necessity, although they prefer the term "warriors". There are also plenty of second-tier actors from films such as "Avatar", "Fury", and even "Hitch" that you'll recognize as well, every one of whom is utterly convincing. As for the cops, they're realistic and believable as well. Too many prison films involve sadistic wardens and guards mistreating prisoners, to the point of cliché; by contrast "Shot Caller's" cops are like lion tamers just trying to do their jobs, because the prisoners are scary enough all by themselves.
You're seeing all of these glowing 90% positive reviews here for a reason. Give this underground thriller two hours of your evening, and you'll understand why.
After decades of dreary knockoffs, I've found that zombie films and prison films are two overdone genres I usually skip out of habit. But for some reason I chose "Shot Caller" off the slush pile this weekend. Within ten minutes I knew I was watching something really special. What the heck is a film this good doing on VOD and bouncing around the interwebs? I'm no actor or film studio, but I'd like to think that if a screenplay this thrilling landed on my desk I'd jump at it. It employs a 'dual-narrative' structure, in which two distinct temporal threads from past and present converge later on. (If you've seen William Katt's "House" from 1986, you'll know what I'm talking about.) The story's back-and-forth is never forced, and both perspectives ('Money' the protagonist's trial and entering prison; then his parole and what follows ten years later) are riveting. The snapshots of prison life are frighteningly medieval, and totally believable. Some reviewers have questioned the logic of Money's actions along the way, and their point is taken. But the man is confronted with two stark prison alternatives: survive or die. For me these were just interesting plot twists with a mostly satisfying resolution at the end. I was reminded of Edward Bunker's realistic prison novels, which were so realistic because he was there.
Now for the performances. Heck, I don't even watch "Throne of Games" (sic), so I didn't realize who Nikolaj was. But "Shot Caller" is packed with A-/B+ list stars who deliver phenomenal performances, and Nikolaj doesn't disappoint. His transformation from sweet family man to brutal gangster convict is something to behold. These are human beings turned into animals by necessity, although they prefer the term "warriors". There are also plenty of second-tier actors from films such as "Avatar", "Fury", and even "Hitch" that you'll recognize as well, every one of whom is utterly convincing. As for the cops, they're realistic and believable as well. Too many prison films involve sadistic wardens and guards mistreating prisoners, to the point of cliché; by contrast "Shot Caller's" cops are like lion tamers just trying to do their jobs, because the prisoners are scary enough all by themselves.
You're seeing all of these glowing 90% positive reviews here for a reason. Give this underground thriller two hours of your evening, and you'll understand why.
A Dark Song
(2016)
Intriguing slow-burn film, didn't love the ending
4 May 2017
As other reviewers have noted, if you're looking for an "Insanitarium"-style splatter-fest then this film is not for you. The first hour of "Dark Song" is a mysterious, deliberately-paced psychological thriller with two interesting characters stuck together in a house for months, feeling each other out. An occultist (Joseph) is trying to help a woman (Sophia) contact her dead son. This requires dark rituals, fasting episodes, and sleep deprivation. Their motivations and honesty are both in question, leading to plenty of dramatic tension. What's real, in terms of both past and present? Who's lying to whom? The film takes its time exploring these questions, and for the first hour at least, the viewer's patience is well-rewarded. I especially liked Steve Oram's occultist character, who doesn't fit the classic mold of "actor" or "hero" one bit, and is all the more fascinating for it. I won't go into deeper detail for spoiler reasons, but suffice to say that both characters fall into the logical traps of mistrust, manipulation, and frustration after being cooped up for so long.
My problem with "Dark Song" was its ending. It made sense from a dramatic standpoint, and of course there were several directions it could have taken. The fact that I wasn't satisfied doesn't mean you won't be. But along the way I had some really freaky ideas that I hoped would be explored, and they weren't.
In any case, I still recommend "Dark Song" as a mature, well-made, and disturbing psychological thriller.
My problem with "Dark Song" was its ending. It made sense from a dramatic standpoint, and of course there were several directions it could have taken. The fact that I wasn't satisfied doesn't mean you won't be. But along the way I had some really freaky ideas that I hoped would be explored, and they weren't.
In any case, I still recommend "Dark Song" as a mature, well-made, and disturbing psychological thriller.
Asylum of Darkness
(2013)
A boring, scattershot mess
17 April 2017
I decided to watch this because it stars Tim Thomerson and the late Richard Hatch, both sci-fi stars of yesteryear (Trancers and Battlestar Galactica respectively). The six reviews as of this writing were also above average, praising the twisty, innovative, and unpredictable plot. Well, apparently I watched a different film. This thing is a boring unfocused mess. It jumps from scene to scene with no discernible pattern or purpose, let alone character development. People are slashed, tentacled monsters crawl into orifices, and all to absolutely zero purpose. The excuse (as stated in the IMDb summary) is that the main character is committed to an asylum and therefore insane. But this proves nothing and is no reason to abandon screenplay logic. It is also childishly easy to predict which episodes aren't real. If the six critics listed call this stew "unpredictable", then I recommend viewing 1990's "Brain Dead", starring Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. Now THAT is a disorienting and effective asylum chiller. Or if it's inspired gore you're after, try the blood-spattered "Insanitarium" from 2008 instead. Either one is preferable to "AOD".
Now for the acting. As I said above, it was Thomerson and Hatch that initially drew me in. Somehow I think both of them knew exactly what they were signing up for, and totally mailed it in. I've seen boards that are less wooden. As for the main star (Nick Baldasare), the less said about his sleepy zombie-like acting, the better.
Were I forced to praise something (anything?) about this film, it would be the gore and monster effects, which are fine. Blood is blood, and a gouged eyeball is a gouged eyeball. But there are far better asylum films to choose from. I strongly suggest you do so.
Now for the acting. As I said above, it was Thomerson and Hatch that initially drew me in. Somehow I think both of them knew exactly what they were signing up for, and totally mailed it in. I've seen boards that are less wooden. As for the main star (Nick Baldasare), the less said about his sleepy zombie-like acting, the better.
Were I forced to praise something (anything?) about this film, it would be the gore and monster effects, which are fine. Blood is blood, and a gouged eyeball is a gouged eyeball. But there are far better asylum films to choose from. I strongly suggest you do so.
Drifter
(I) (2016)
Fails Screen writing 101
21 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
No spoilers yet, will let you know.
I wanted to review this film not because it wasted 80 minutes of my weekend -- which it did -- but because it had so much potential that was ultimately frittered away. And not through poor film-making either. The direction was fine, the movie itself is professionally shot, and the effects/gunshots/gore are all well-done. What killed this film was its screenplay, which violated dramatic story guidelines that have been in place for a hundred years for one reason -- they work.
The first half hour of this film is very promising. Two brothers are driving through the desert. Before long, based on human behavior, it becomes apparent that the setting is post-apocalyptic. Very Road Warrior/Mad Max-ish. Lots of scavenging and cold-blooded killing going on.
(Begin spoilers) One of the brothers is damaged or mentally injured somehow, and is fully dependent on his sibling. The other tougher brother is one mean hombre, capable of pistol shots that I would call impossible in real life. He's a very interesting and mysterious character, and between their relationship and deadly challenges we get plenty of dramatic action. They wind up in a deserted town where the survivors hide like mice in dilapidated trailer homes. This town is run by a cannibal army with a vicious Joker-like boss named Doyle. I don't know about you, but I usually eat this stuff up.
(Begin serious spoilers) Then they're captured by Doyle's goons, and the tough brother is killed straight away. Admittedly, this can work in certain dramatic situations. But in "Drifter's" case the tough brother was the best, most interesting character in the film. Taking him away absolutely ruined any momentum it had, leaving only textbook cannibal gore and a dozen characters you care nothing about. I therefore spent the last 45 minutes of the movie bored to tears and wishing it would end. So, if nothing else, "Drifter" serves as an object lesson in dramatic tension: If you have only one good character, don't kill him off till the end.
I wanted to review this film not because it wasted 80 minutes of my weekend -- which it did -- but because it had so much potential that was ultimately frittered away. And not through poor film-making either. The direction was fine, the movie itself is professionally shot, and the effects/gunshots/gore are all well-done. What killed this film was its screenplay, which violated dramatic story guidelines that have been in place for a hundred years for one reason -- they work.
The first half hour of this film is very promising. Two brothers are driving through the desert. Before long, based on human behavior, it becomes apparent that the setting is post-apocalyptic. Very Road Warrior/Mad Max-ish. Lots of scavenging and cold-blooded killing going on.
(Begin spoilers) One of the brothers is damaged or mentally injured somehow, and is fully dependent on his sibling. The other tougher brother is one mean hombre, capable of pistol shots that I would call impossible in real life. He's a very interesting and mysterious character, and between their relationship and deadly challenges we get plenty of dramatic action. They wind up in a deserted town where the survivors hide like mice in dilapidated trailer homes. This town is run by a cannibal army with a vicious Joker-like boss named Doyle. I don't know about you, but I usually eat this stuff up.
(Begin serious spoilers) Then they're captured by Doyle's goons, and the tough brother is killed straight away. Admittedly, this can work in certain dramatic situations. But in "Drifter's" case the tough brother was the best, most interesting character in the film. Taking him away absolutely ruined any momentum it had, leaving only textbook cannibal gore and a dozen characters you care nothing about. I therefore spent the last 45 minutes of the movie bored to tears and wishing it would end. So, if nothing else, "Drifter" serves as an object lesson in dramatic tension: If you have only one good character, don't kill him off till the end.
Raw Deal
(1986)
Slipped through the cracks, but love it now
2 September 2016
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, we never missed an Arnold premiere after Terminator in 1984. His ouvre runs the gamut from good (Predator) to great (T2) to bad (Commando, although I know this cartoon has its admirers) to good silly fun (Running Man). But Raw Deal was one that fell through the cracks over the past thirty years -- I saw it in the theater and then never again, until Starz Action ran it a few months ago. To my surprise, I found myself really enjoying this film. Arnold's acting is horrocious, granted. But as others have mentioned, the rest of the cast is a fabulous tour through 70s/80s tough-guy action heaven. Besides the obvious stars (McGavin, Wanamaker, Davi, Shenar), the backups/extras in Raw Deal read like an anonymous thugazoid 80s highlight reel. There's Sven from Running Man, plus several others from Die Hard and even Action Jackson.
One other thing -- I LOVE LOVE LOVE Kathryn Harrold in this film. Just watching her is a pleasure. What I wouldn't give for a time machine, so I could go back and run my hands through that wild 80s hairdo! Kathryn, I know you're in your 60s by now. But if you're reading this, rest assured that I'm still a fan.
One other thing -- I LOVE LOVE LOVE Kathryn Harrold in this film. Just watching her is a pleasure. What I wouldn't give for a time machine, so I could go back and run my hands through that wild 80s hairdo! Kathryn, I know you're in your 60s by now. But if you're reading this, rest assured that I'm still a fan.
Tell Your Friends