• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

Reviews

Review: Three Thousand Years of Longing

Three Thousand Years of Longing (2022)

review | Three Thousand Years of Longing

ALSO ON CINELUXE

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

George Miller’s meditation on folklore, myth, and storytelling almost works but falls just short of its goals 

by Dennis Burger
November 4, 2022

I spent most of George Miller’s Three Thousand Years of Longing consumed by thoughts of “bukimi no tani genshō,” aka “The Uncanny Valley.” The term, on the off chance you’re not familiar with it, is often used to describe our discomfort with 3D animations, especially of humans, that are almost lifelike but just miss the mark. And indeed, there’s a lot of 3D animation in this film that’s almost excellent, but that’s not the main reason I struggled so much.

Instead, I think it’s because Miller almost made a really wonderful film here but dropped the ball in a few key areas. For one thing, Three Thousand Years of Longing purports to be a story about the value of storytelling. Indeed, it’s an adaptation of A.S. Byatt’s excellent short story, The Djinn in the Nightingale’s Eye, from the collection of the same name. 

The thing is, if you’re going to tell a tale about the power of tales, then the tale you’re telling needs to be powerfully told, and there’s just something a little too detached about the way Miller tells this one for it to truly resonate. It falls prey to its own criticisms, approaching folklore and mythology a bit too analytically and intellectually, with not nearly enough heart. This despite the fact that leads Tilda Swinton and Idris Elba give it their all. The reality is, the trappings and style of the film—combined with the way it was shot—make their best efforts seem merely almost sincere, almost heartfelt.

The biggest thing working against this film’s humanity is its visuals. Shot by an out-of-retirement John Seale at 4.5K in ArriRaw, and finished in a 4K digital intermediate, the imagery hasn’t been film-looked at all. No faux grain, no synthesized halation, just straight, pristine, impossibly sharp out-of-the-box video with a bit of color grading. And while that unvarnished look works well for the scenes in which Swinton and Elba merely sit in the same room and speak to one another, when there’s any digital effects work—and there almost always is—the shocking clarity of the picture shines a laser beam on the disquieting nigh-verisimilitude of the computer graphics. 

Even the most banal FX work—a composite of Swinton’s character riding a bus through the streets of London, for example—isn’t quite stylized enough to register as intentionally stylized but isn’t quite believable enough to fool the eye. Every shot involving any amount of compositing also looks more like a popup book than a proper motion picture. But that doesn’t seem to be an intentional aesthetic choice. So we’re left with this weird middle ground where the viewer can’t quite buy into the fairy-tale reality of the story.

The one major exception is the sound. This is, without question, the best Dolby Atmos mix of the year so far and Kaleidescape presents it wonderfully. It’s an aggressive one, and I know I’m on record as not liking those, but what makes it work is that sound designer/supervising sound editor Robert Mackenzie demonstrates a masterful understanding of the way our brains process audio in the real world, and as such the mix doesn’t feel like it’s glomming to every surface of the room. Instead, it uses sound to transform the listening space. 

I’ll give you just one example—one of my favorites. Early on, there’s a lecture being given in an auditorium, and the mix employs Atmos to excellent effect to recreate the acoustics of the space. But it’s not voices merely bouncing off the ceiling and the walls that makes it work—it’s the timing of such. There’s a delay between the reverberance of the ceiling and the reverberance of the rear wall that’s absolutely transformative. 

Creative intermixing of sound effects both diegetic and dramatic provides some much-needed glue I wish had been mimicked in other areas of the making of the film. Had the script benefited from one more pass to reinforce the themes and trim some fat, and had the finished digital intermediate been printed to 35mm then scanned back to digital to smooth over some of the razor-sharp edges and add some organic chaos, I think Three Thousand Years of Longing could have really worked. 

In its released state, though, it teeters right on the edge of “noble failure” territory. It’s not a failure, mind you. In fact, it’s one of the year’s most ambitious and fascinating major-studio releases. But the fact that it comes so close to being something special without crossing that threshold makes it incredibly frustrating.

Dennis Burger is an avid Star Wars scholar, Tolkien fanatic, and Corvette enthusiast who somehow also manages to find time for technological passions including high-end audio, home automation, and video gaming. He lives in the armpit of Alabama with his wife Bethany and their four-legged child Bruno, a 75-pound American Staffordshire Terrier who thinks he’s a Pomeranian.

PICTURE | The imagery hasn’t been film-looked at all—just impossibly sharp video with a bit of color grading, which shines a laser beam on the flaws in the computer graphics

SOUND | The best Atmos mix of the year so far—an aggressive one, but it doesn’t feel like it’s glomming to every surface of the room, instead using sound to transform the listening space 

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

review | Creature from the Black Lagoon

also on Cineluxe

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

The movie that made guys running around in latex monster suits a thing would seem like a curious choice for a 4K HDR makeover

by Michael Gaughn
November 3, 2022

You can’t lump the work of an entire decade of filmmaking under one umbrella but the movies that best define the ‘50s all exhibit a kind goofy optimism—which is kind of weird given that the culture was grappling with the recent shocks of global war, economic depression, and genocide and with the new threats of nuclear annihilation and ever-lurking Communism. But I guess unbridled prosperity cures all ills. You can feel that almost reckless sanguinity almost everywhere in the era’s movies—in the musicals and comedies, of course, but also in the melodramas (something Douglas Sirk had a field day with), noir (Kiss Me Deadly), and even sci-fi and horror. That odd ebullience is still seductive—which helps explain the continuing appeal of Mid Century Modern. And of what would otherwise be tedious monster movies like Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Universal recently brought out some of its classic horror films, like Creature, The Mummy (1932), Phantom of the Opera (1943), and Bride of Frankenstein, in 4K HDR. My first instinct was to go for Bride of Frankenstein, which remains fascinating, mainly because it shows the monster genre veering into self-parody almost from its inception, but I thought Creature, being more recent, would be a better candidate for HDR. I should have trusted my gut. 

This is the kind of film that fascinated me as a kid but became harder to slog through once I developed a sense of how movies are made and what they’re capable of expressing. It’s a necessary skepticism that comes with the loss of innocence—the tradeoff of naive pleasure for insight—but some films can be really tough going once you can see their technical and aesthetic seams are showing.

Creature was a cut above the usual monster flick of the day but still far from A-list. The presence of Whit Bissell alone (who last appeared in these pages via Invasion of the Body Snatchers) tells you you’re solidly in the realm of the lucky to have an acting job. That impression is bolstered by the presence of Richard (It Came from Outer Space, Tormented) Carlson, who looked equally out of place in whatever film he was in and was probably one of the least convincing actors to ever have his name above the title. And then there’s the lone female presence, the oddly visaged Julie Adams, who obviously got the role solely on the strength of her breasts.

There’s also the defining ‘50s trope of kill what you don’t understand (actually a shade more enlightened than our current paradigm of kill anything that moves), here tempered a little by Carlson’s pleas—until the creature snatches his girl and then all bets are off. And of course the monster starts by polishing off the coolies before working his way up the ethnic pecking order. 

The two things that are fair to expect from even a B-level horror movie are some kind of sustained mood and at least a yeoman-like effort to create tension within the set pieces. What Creature has instead is a bunch of alpha males swarming all over the desirable female, a boat stuck in a lagoon, and an iconic latex monster suit—and a both rote and turgid score. You come to dread hearing the monster’s theme more than seeing the monster himself.

But enough with beating up on a defenseless old movie. Let’s discuss the transfer. To sum it up before laying out my case: This is another instance of 4K HDR accentuating all the flaws of a film that wasn’t that well shot to begin with and whose elements have likely deteriorated over time. That’s not to say HDR and black & white can’t be friends—just look at Shadow of a Doubt to see a movie—and the experience of a movie—brought back with all its original impact intact. 

But Creature is all over the map visually, with some shots crisp, some so soft they look like VHS (and that is not an exaggeration), some in nicely gradated black & white, some in a muddy wash vaguely resembling sepia. Everything going in and out of dissolves looks like it’s been dipped in acid, and some of the underwater photography is so vague it resembles a 16mm art film—Maya Deren Meets the Creature. 

Given that, it seems almost unfair to bring the movie out this way. It’s unfortunately becoming common with UHD releases of older titles that you have to look past the compromised footage while waiting for the good shots to show up, which isn’t a very pleasant way to watch a film. Of course, as many classics as possible should be re-released in 4K—we’re all better off being able to see 2001, Singin’ in the Rain, Vertigo, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in that format. But here—and I admittedly haven’t yet seen any of the other titles Universal has released in its horror bundle—I have to wonder if this wasn’t more about “let’s get them to buy the title yet one more time” than anything else. 

It was literally hard to see what the extended dynamic range brought to the presentation. The flashbulb whites made the “In The Beginning . . .” shots of primordial creation look blown out and the flames streaming off the creature look animated (they aren’t). The flame in the lamp that hangs over poor Whit Bissell right before he’s attacked was so vivid it looked matted in. And you’d at least expect the lagoon in a movie with “Black Lagoon” in the title to look blacker. It didn’t. 

I’m not sure what fans of the film will make of this presentation. Maybe, having looked past its visual flaws in the earlier incarnations they’ll be willing to forgive them being heavily underscored here. My take is that drawing too much attention to the technical lapses makes you that much more aware of everything else that’s wrong. But you can’t expect a well-intended but inept ‘50s creature-on-the-loose throwaway to look like Citizen Kane.

Sorry—bad example.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | All over the place—4K crisp and then VHS soft, with some occasional instances of blown-out HDR brightness

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Against Burgers

also on cineluxe

Sign up for our monthly newsletter to stay up to date on Cineluxe

Against Burgers

A century of awards shows & marketing has created the myth of the high-quality movie but most films are on par with what you can pick up at a fast-food drive-thru

by Michael Gaughn
October 31, 2022

It’s not exactly a newsflash that a huge swath of the global populace, seduced by marketing and absurdly low prices, gorges itself on fast-food hamburgers. Or that any preferences burger eaters might have tend to be driven more by blind adherence than discernment. Most would be unable to convincingly articulate their reasons for preferring a Big Mac or Whopper or Monster Angus Burger or Big Bacon Cheddar Triple. The quality of the burger or how it’s physically presented has little impact on their opinion because quality and taste tend to run a distant whatever to almost every other consideration.

That’s not really all that different from how we consume mainstream movies. A steady diet of blockbusters is no healthier than a steady diet of super-sized hamburgers. Given that, what’s the value of reviewing movies—or of movie reviews—that are the equivalent of slinging beef?

You wouldn’t expect a website about fine dining to devote all its reviews to fast-food joints. And yet most sites that cover entertainment spaces and put any emphasis at all on gear tend to slobber over films that are the cinematic equivalent of junk food. And that’s because most of the people who write for and frequent these sites are gear enthusiasts who just want stuff that will look and sound good when it blows up on their systems. Indistinguishable from the ignorant bloviators who consume almost all the oxygen on social media, they’re not movie fans in any meaningful sense at all. 

I suppose it’s conceivable that someone could come up with a blockbuster that significantly transcends its lowly origins or that a movie franchise could produce something other than empty calories—I’ll leave those arguments for another day—but I’d like to make the case for seeking out and savoring better fare. It doesn’t help that most contemporary filmmakers have become masters of conjuring up the illusion of substance or that audiences are willing to so eagerly buy into their scam. Think of it as the equivalent of going to a more upscale chain restaurant or coffeshop, businesses that thrive on the pretense that they offer something significantly better than their roadside brethren but really exist to be able to guarantee the exact same experience no matter which of their many locations you visit. Exhibiting individual flair or creativity is not only not required but is likely to get you run out of Dodge.

The pervasive ability of filmmakers to mimic “significant” gestures, to take something shallow and sophomoric and dab on enough touches that reek of art to make the gullible believe there’s more depth to their—in reality and very much deliberately—superficial work is a deeply troubling trend, partly because it makes it seem as if we have a substantial mainstream cinema. Sorry, but any industry whose first priority is to establish and sustain patronage levels that exceed McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Hardee’s combined can only create anything of real value purely by fluke—for the same reasons none of those chains will ever be able to produce subtly nuanced, flavorful dishes for the masses. These filmmakers are indistinguishable from con men, doing the equivalent of putting chopped chicken liver on a triple-patty faux-cheese white-bread abomination so the easily duped will believe they’re eating foie gras.

And then there’s the lingering influence of the moribund man cave. Spending tens of thousands of dollars—and often significantly more—to do nothing but create a kind of drive-up window in your home seems the height of absurdity—or maybe the most alarming sign of cultural decay. I’m not saying this is what always happens—and I know from experience that it’s not—but the possibility that we will come to inextricably conflate high resolution and massive screens and increasingly more elaborate surround with more and more mindless content—that we’ll substitute art (or, more accurately, the possibility of art) for all-consuming and ultimately numbing sensation generators ought to induce a pang if not a shudder. It’s the cultural equivalent of being super-sized, what ought to be the most sensitive and responsive part of your being become so calloused that what was once the pursuit of rich and diverse entertainment becomes nothing but a perfervid quest for an ever bigger thrill. 

And what does this elaborately ground beef have to do with reviewing movies? Pretty much everything. “Garbage in / garbage out” pertains here just as much as it does in every other facet of life, and there’s something both farcical and tragic about the prospect of people creating six- and seven-figure garbage disposals and calling them theaters. The same discernment ought to pertain to movie night as it does to dining out but rarely does. When it comes to helping to expose people to movies, there ought to be a kind of responsibility to avoid the consensus-driven pile-ons that define most reviewing—Rotten Tomatoes has that kind of groupthink more than covered. The best thing we can all do for each other is to stop shouting out our preferences just to show what club we belong to—believe me, nobody cares whether you prefer Sonic to Jack in the Box or even Five Napkin—and instead share, rather than impose, our passions and our enthusiasms, and hope that our fervor, sincerely expressed, can open some eyes beyond the trivial and expand some palates beyond the bovine, and help lead to a cinema that’s both flavorful and satisfying and doesn’t taste like something that was shoved across the counter in a paper wrapper. 

“Sorry, but any industry whose first priority is to establish and sustain patronage levels that exceed McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Hardee’s combined can only create anything of real value purely by fluke.”

“And what does this elaborately ground beef have to do with reviewing movies? Pretty much everything.”

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Travelin’ Band

Travelin' Band (2022)

review | Travelin’ Band:
Creedence Clearwater Revival at the Albert Hall

This Netflix documentary-slash-concert film convincingly creates the sense of being at the band’s legendary RAH set

by Adam Sohmer
October 28, 2022

Travelin’ Band: Creedence Clearwater Revival at the Royal Albert Hall reminds me more of the Tarantino/Rodriguez Grindhouse twofer than it does a typical concert film. Featuring a 36-minute documentary followed by the complete 50-minute 1970 performance, the film gives a detailed overview of CCR’s rise to popularity up to that point before it gives way to the show. Both pieces work, although the former left me with the impression that director Bob Smeaton could give fans more of a deep dive than the straightforward, just-the-facts-ma’am story narrated by Jeff Bridges.

For a nine year old like me who was as obsessed by music as my friends were by sports, there were two leaders of the pack: The Beatles and Creedence Clearwater Revival. Thanks to parents and other relatives who followed my direction at holiday times, I owned the complete collections of both groups’ albums by the time their respective runs as bands came to an end. 

The new film shares all sorts of links with Beatles projects. Travelin’ Band director Smeaton’s credits include the behemoth Beatles Anthology of 1995. And then there is Giles Martin, son of George and remix master of Beatles albums who along with Sam Okell—another veteran of recent Beatles updates—showed up to bring the original two-channel 1970 soundtrack up to 21st-century standards. (More on that later.) 

Aside from a TV special originally broadcast in the ‘70s and now MIA, not to mention unauthorized biographies pumped out since the time home video was brought to the masses, there is no qualified, authorized documentary on what is arguably one of the most popular rock & roll bands of the past 50-plus years.

Not that the members are quiet about their respective histories in the band. Rhythm guitarist Tom Fogerty left the group in 1971 when the group was at its pinnacle after the release of Cosmo’s Factory, deciding he didn’t have ample opportunities for recording his music. Ironically, CCR followed his departure with 1972’s Mardi Gras, the one and only of the band’s albums to feature songs written individually by all three remaining members. The album spawned the Top 10 single “Sweet Hitch-Hiker,” written and sung by John Fogerty, but otherwise came and went without leaving much of an impression on their fanbase. Soon after, the band split, with plenty of anger and lawsuits between Tom Fogerty and his former bandmates right up to modern times. (Fogerty succumbed to AIDS and leukemia in 1991.) 

There is no reason to dwell on the acrimony that shadows the legacy of the band to this day. Even in the documentary portion of Travelin’ Band, the band doesn’t come across as a four-headed unit as much as it does a vehicle for John Fogerty’s music. JF is rarely seen smiling with his colleagues, who praise him and his music when interviewed by the rock press and, as the April 1970 concert at the Royal Albert Hall draws near, news footage and documentary footage of CCR’s then-tour of Europe.

The concert, which was held a few months prior to the release of the singles-packed Cosmo’s Factory, is the real Royal Albert Hall concert, not the post-breakup alleged RAHC released by Fantasy Records that was, in fact, the band in its three-member configuration. As many times as I saw them on programs like Ed Sullivan and The Johnny Cash Show, this is the first time I experienced the breadth of their talent as a cohesive live band. 

Unlike the unseen Woodstock set that ultimately made it to an audio-only release, the RAH set is on fire, with CCR in their prime. The near-complete lack of stage banter makes room for a solid, head-spinning performance that, while it offers no surprises, is as exciting and pitch perfect as any band of the era. 

Surviving clips of their TV appearances belie the band’s knack for rocking out as a real band rather than simply playing note-for-note renditions of their biggest hits. As distant as they seem in the documentary footage, on stage the quartet has a blast blaring through nearly an hour’s worth of fan favorites.

Smeaton’s cut is interesting and solid enough to hold the viewer’s attention, though I wonder why nothing was done to clean up the ultra-grainy image that is reminiscent of Super 8mm home movies. I understand Travelin’ Band was not produced with a Beatles Anthology-size budget, but over-the-counter video technology could sharpen the heavy grit of the surviving film.

Or maybe it did. Though there are no specific details available about the editing process, I trust Netflix gave Smeaton a reasonable budget to make it watchable. In any case, for film stock that supposedly sat untouched for 50 years, the image is more than watchable, if not exactly on par with Get Back, also produced from half-century-old 16mm film stock that Peter Jackson magically turned into a 4K masterpiece that looks as if it was shot within the past few years.

Sonically, Martin and Okell deserve massive kudos for bringing the excitement of the show to the fore, with just enough crowd noise to remind the viewer it is a live show. My 5.1 system placed me in what sounds like the front mezzanine of a 3,000-seat theater, not an arena, with sonic imaging to match the position of the instruments on the stage and just the right amount of echo in the rear. And, like their Fab Four output, bass and drums are noticeably clear and resonant without dominating the mix.

As Jeff Bridges spoke over the last frames of the show in his best Sam Elliot epilogue voice, I was left both satisfied with the concert and hoping for a more detailed authorized documentary with modern-day interviews and commentaries by current and vintage stars alike. But, considering Fogerty’s bald-faced hostility toward his former bandmates, I suspect Travelin’ Band will be the final word in CCR documentation for some time to come. The concert portion of the show makes it well worth the time.

Longtime consumer and professional technology specialist Adam Sohmer is president and owner of Sohmer Associates, LLC, a Brooklyn, NY-based public relations & marketing communications boutique agency catering to leading audio, video, and wireless brands.  Find him on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

PICTURE | Derived from film stock that supposedly sat untouched for 50 years, the image is more than watchable if not exactly on par with what Peter Jackson was able to do for The Beatles: Get Back

SOUND | The surround mix places you in the front mezzanine of a 3,000-seat theater, with sonic imaging to match the position of the instruments on the stage and just the right amount of echo in the rear

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Tales of the Jedi

Tales of the Jedi (2022)

review | Tales of the Jedi

ALSO ON CINELUXE

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

This Disney+ animated series proves you can still tell a family-friendly Star Wars tale that has real emotional depth

by Dennis Burger
October 27, 2022

For the better part of 15 years I’ve been begging anyone who would listen to give Dave Filoni’s brilliant animated series The Clone Wars the chance it deserves. But even the most devoted Star Wars fans in my life have largely written the series off, either due to the fact that it’s animated or that the first season is an uneven slog. No amount of pleading has convinced most of them that by the third season it starts to become some of the best television ever made. 

If nothing else, the new Tales of the Jedi lowers the barrier to entry into Filoni’s CG take on this beloved mythology, and if that’s all it accomplished it would be a stunning success. At just over 95 minutes split across six short films ranging from 12 to 19 minutes each, this anthology series is an easily digestible snapshot that demonstrates why the writer and executive producer is such a gifted storyteller.

But it’s actually much more than that. Breaking from the serialized storytelling tradition of The Clone Wars, The Bad Batch, and Rebels before it, Tales of the Jedi is a collection of parables focused more on tonal and thematic through-lines than narrative ones. It’s a study in contrasts, an exploration of right and wrong, dark and light, strength and weakness. It explores what happens when ideology comes into conflict with principles, when rhetoric doesn’t match reality, and how circumstances out of our control mold us as humans—but it also underlines our responsibility to avoid blaming circumstance. 

The visual style will be familiar to anyone who has followed Clone Wars and Bad Batch, but it’s a further evolution thereof. What started as an homage to Supermarionation in CGI form has grown into a style of its own. Dolby Vision is employed here to paint with light and shadow, almost as a sort of literal manifestation of the series’ emotional themes. But it’s never showy. 

Take the first episode, for example, which takes place in the small village where Ahsoka Tano (one of two characters at the center of these interwoven parables) was born. As her mother emerges from their hut, the HDR is used to force the viewer’s eye to react to the transition from interior to exterior at exactly the same time as the characters. It’s almost a form of forced empathy, and if it didn’t work it would be just a gimmick, but it works. 

I’m almost inclined to describe the imagery on the whole more in terms of cinematography than composition. There were a couple of times I found myself trying to figure out what lenses were used in certain shots, which is ridiculous, of course. The series was rendered, not shot. But it’s easy to forget that at times—not because the animation is or attempts to be hyper-realistic but rather because it’s consistent and artful enough to make you buy into this highly stylized reality. 

The Dolby Atmos mix functions similarly, not wowing you for the sake of wow but rather enhancing the environments and moods. Height-channel effects tend to be more ambient—at least as far as I noticed. At some point, I just stopped thinking about the sound mix altogether, which is how I like them.

I will say this about the sound, though: Composer Kevin Kiner returned to do the score for Tales of the Jedi but I found his music for this one almost unrecognizable. He has crafted a musical soundscape that somehow finds common ground with Vangelis and Philip Glass alike without aping the style of either. It’s frankly some of his best work to date. I keep saying that, I know, but he keeps getting better.

You’ll no doubt hear quite a bit about how Liam Neeson teamed up with his son, Micheál Richardson, to voice Qui-Gon Jinn at different stages in his life in the middle installments of this short series. You’ll also likely hear about Bryce Dallas Howard’s participation. I guess that’s the sort of thing marketing teams and PR companies focus on these days, but Tales of the Jedi doesn’t succeed or fail based on who voiced whom or which character secrets are revealed.

As I write this, Andor is in the middle of proving that you can craft an adult Star Wars story without pandering to Gen-X nostalgia or devolving into grimdark edginess. Tales of the Jedi proves you can still tell genuinely family-friendly stories in that galaxy far, far away, with rich emotional depth, deeply resonant themes, and without making every aspect of the story a callback to one that’s already been told.

Whether you’re seven or 77, whether you’ve seen every Star Wars cartoon ever made or you just barely know the difference between a lightsaber and landspeeder, there’s something here for you. And if this is what it takes to convince you to get off your butt and finally watch The Clone Wars, all the better.

Dennis Burger is an avid Star Wars scholar, Tolkien fanatic, and Corvette enthusiast who somehow also manages to find time for technological passions including high-end audio, home automation, and video gaming. He lives in the armpit of Alabama with his wife Bethany and their four-legged child Bruno, a 75-pound American Staffordshire Terrier who thinks he’s a Pomeranian.

PICTURE | Dolby Vision is employed to paint with light and shadow, almost as a sort of literal manifestation of the series’ emotional themes, but it’s never showy 

SOUND | The Atmos mix doesn’t wow you for the sake of wow but rather enhances the environments and moods, with the height-channel effects tending to be more ambient

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Mighty Aphrodite

Mighty Aphrodite (1995)

review | Mighty Aphrodite

Woody Allen’s last completely solid film until Vicky Cristina Barcelona looks surprisingly good on Amazon Prime

by Michael Gaughn
October 23, 2022

I don’t have a tremendous lot to say about Mighty Aphrodite because, although it’s a solid enough film with some genuinely funny moments and clever enough twists and decent enough acting, especially from Mira Sorvino, it feels lighter than it should be. That seems to have been deliberate on Woody Allen’s part, and I think he went there partly because he didn’t want the bluer material to hit too hard and partly because he didn’t want the Greek tragedy conventions to get too ponderous, but it just seems like the movie should have a little more meat on its bones. 

The big irony is that, coming from any other filmmaker, Aphrodite would have been something of a miracle, since it’s virtually impossible to find movies that rely on wit instead of flat-out jokes and on subtle character interaction instead of a gratuitous succession of puerile clichés. But from Allen, you wish—as with films like Sweet and Lowdown and Melinda and Melinda—that he’d tried a little harder. You can’t really fault the execution, but the base material would have been well served by a little more rumination and revision.

There’s something genuinely sad about Sorvino’s character, and even though Sorvino is terrific at playing her both hardened and naive would-be porn star for laughs, she manages to work in some wistful and defiant notes that cry out for more support from the script. I’m not saying that sensed absence really hurts the film—it holds up well and is enjoyable enough—but it feels like a bit of a missed opportunity.

The one false note is Helena Bonham Carter as Allen’s wife. She brings her trademark high-strung brooding mannerisms to the role, and little else. You easily believe that she’d aspire to open a gallery in Tribeca, but it’s just not believable that she’d be married to Allen. That’s partly his fault—his persona has rarely been convincing when his character is in something other than show business, and while you can imagine him having a brief relationship with someone like Carter, it’s impossible to buy into the idea they’d have a long, let alone happy, marriage.

The presentation of Mighty Aphrodite on Amazon Prime is surprisingly good—especially given how compromised Bullets Over Broadway, from the previous year, looks on the same service. Given that both films apparently came from the same distribution chain, you have to wonder what’s up. Carlo DiPalma’s cinematography is subtle, especially for a comedy, but always appropriate and effective, and sometimes striking. Skin tones look natural and interiors look realistic, if a tad muted, and the whole of it is a crisp and clean and accurate enough transfer.

If you feel a movie review isn’t an appropriate place to comment on the attempts to savage Allen and obliterate his works, stop reading here. But it’s impossible to watch Aphrodite now and not be reminded that Sorvino was one of the people who turned on Allen based on hearsay and a kind of herd instinct. This film was both the beginning and pinnacle of her career—she won an Oscar for her role, then disappeared into the usual show-biz netherworld of endless dead-ends. I realize this is considered passé at a time when people don and shed professions on a dime (something I’ll refrain from commenting on for now), but there is something—a lot, actually—to be said for dedication to your craft, a focus that ought to preclude indulging in public denunciations based on thin innuendo. But if it wasn’t for that kind of shameless blaming—and the public’s endless hunger for more—there wouldn’t be any social media.  

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | The presentation on Amazon Prime is surprisingly good, especially given how compromised Bullets Over Broadway looks on the same service. Skin tones look natural and interiors realistic, if a tad muted, and the whole of it is a crisp and clean and accurate enough transfer.

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Bullets Over Broadway

Bullets Over Broadway (1994)

review | Bullets Over Broadway

related reviews

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

One of Woody Allen’s best, this comedy about the absurdity of creating was also one of his last completely satisfying films

by Michael Gaughn
October 17, 2022

Bullets Over Broadway comes from the end of Woody Allen’s last consistently strong period as a filmmaker. After that, and Mighty Aphrodite in 1995, he would wander in the woods for the next three decades, managing to come up with something truly worthy only about once every 10 years. A lot has fed into that protracted “lost” period (some of which I’ll speculate on below) but the sad truth is that, somewhere around 1996, Allen lost touch with the elements essential to sustaining his work. 

Bullets shows him radically reinventing himself as a filmmaker, a process he’d begun with Husbands and Wives two years earlier but didn’t fully realize until this film. He succeeds mightily, forging a vigorous and responsive and seemingly resilient style that consistently heightens the material. Why he wasn’t able to carry forward and build on what he’d wrought and why it instead led to embarrassing messes like Everyone Says I Love You just two years on remains one of the great mysteries. Allen must have kept the formula in a jar somewhere, though, since he was able to bring it to bear again, in full force, almost 15 years later for Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

In Bullets, he took a looser, higher-stakes approach to his fondness for long-take master shots and semi-improvisational dialogue and applied it to larger, more diverse ensembles in a way that essentially drove the whole work. It’s a nervy form of filmmaking, one that could have easily unraveled if he hadn’t had sufficient confidence in his abilities. It also could have easily become mannered, but applied to the world of Broadway theater, and to the crafting of a play in particular, it feels like a natural extension of the fictional environment.

But there are frustrations. Allen, with his career-long belief that the best way to keep material fresh is to avoid working it too hard, rarely lets his scripts steep enough, and there are moments here that feel embryonic rather than fully fledged and gags that just feel like gags instead of arising naturally from the situations. 

It also takes a few minutes for Bullets to get up on its feet, partly because of its unusual visual style, which ultimately yields big dividends but does take some getting used to, but also because Dianne Wiest’s first scene gives the impression she’s going to lean a little too hard on Norma Desmond throughout. Some more screen time needs to pass before it becomes apparent there’s a character there and not just a lot of derivative posturing.

The bigger problem is the inadequate John Cusack in the lead. He doesn’t have the range to convincingly play a self-important struggling playwright, and his failed attempts to rise to the challenge create something of a void at the center of the film. Allen has always relied on casting the flavor of the month as a way of ensuring some box office for his movies—something he slyly comments on in Bullets through the Cusack character’s difficulties with casting his play—but it doesn’t do him any favors here. 

Fortunately, the combined efforts of Wiest; a surprisingly strong Jennifer Tilly; Chazz Palminteri, in a nicely modulated performance; the rock-solid Jack Warden; the always enjoyable Jim Broadbent (in an underwritten role); and even Tracy Ullman, during the moments when she’s able to rise above her trademark schtick, more than compensate for the presence of the seemingly lost Cusack. 

Thanks to Palminteri, Bullets includes one of the best moments in all of Allen’s work as he and Cusack sit at the counter in a pool hall talking about writing. It’s a seemingly simple scene but the way Palminteri begins to open up, convincingly showing his character is something more than a stereotypical goon, the whole accompanied by the tapping of cues and crack of billiard balls, becomes the almost imperceptible pivot for the whole film. (Allen would largely recapture this 22 years on in a couple of the key exchanges between Jesse Eisenberg and the otherwise unexceptional Blake Lively in Café Society.)

Of all the older movies I’ve looked at recently, Bullets Over Broadway most cries out for a better presentation. Not that it’s unwatchable in HD on Prime but the saturated, constantly bordering on soft, heavy on grain images are ill served by this jittery transfer. Some scenes, like one between Warden and Cusack in a steam bath and the ones in the mob boss’s apartment, with its vast stretches of off-white walls, are full of distracting noise. Luckily, the cinematography is strong enough to punch its way through how it’s presented here, offering a tantalizing glimpse of how Bullets would likely look if it were treated to a straight 4K transfer. 

This is such a good film—one of Allen’s best, although not quite at the level of Annie Hall, Manhattan, or Stardust Memories or the much later Blue Jasmine—that it’s sad Allen wasn’t able to continue to fruitfully mine the vein he’d struck here. You just need to compare Bullets to his effort to cover the same thematic ground in 2005’s Match Point to realize how badly he’s been flailing in his late period. 

There are many possible explanations for those struggles, none of them completely satisfying, but I would point to two big factors. The more simplistic one is that Allen always needed an onscreen anima to define his work against—Diane Keaton up to 1980 and the more problematic—but no less fruitful because of that—Mia Farrow from ‘80 to ‘92. He tried to fill that void for a few years with Scarlett Johansson, but that only resulted in one great film, Vicky Cristina. That Allen, for obvious reasons, was far more distant from Johansson than he was from either Keaton or Farrow, and that she has no discernible comedic chops, made her a comparatively meager source of inspiration.

The more substantial explanation is likely that not just the movies but the culture had changed so drastically that it no longer provided fertile ground for sustaining Allen’s form of romantic fantasy. As I mentioned when reviewing 12 Monkeys, it was around 1995 that films became colder, nastier, and more cerebral, in the detached, game-playing sense. They suddenly stopped being about lived experience and, as the children of the Regan era began calling the shots, became movies about movies instead, divorced from realistic cause and effect, only tenuously tethered to reality. While Allen’s films have always been about fantasy and often about people yearning for lives more like what they see up on the screen, they need that credible anchoring in the messiness of day-to-day urban life, that more emotion-based grounding, to have any resonance at all. Come the mid ‘90s, all of that disappeared from the culture, likely forever, and Allen’s efforts since to build movies on memories of a more substantial world have, not surprisingly, almost inevitably failed. 

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

PICTURE | Bullets is watchable in HD on Prime but the saturated, constantly bordering on soft, heavy on grain images are ill served by this jittery transfer

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Fright Nights

Fright Nights

Alien has never lived up to its potential on the home screen. DVD and LaserDisc versions were overly grainy and noisy, and the previous remastered Blu-ray version couldn’t do the shadow and black-level detail justice. All of that is made right with this 4K HDR version, which looks fantastic. Fortunately, the restoration isn’t heavy-handed, getting rid of the bad bits of noise and deterioration while keeping Scott’s look and stylistic feel solidly intact.    read more

If the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a B movie, then Carnival of Souls is a solid C—a wild fling at moviemaking by a bunch of naive and repressed Midwesterners meant for second, or third, billing at Kansas drive-ins, a kind of Bergman-goes-to-Topeka thing that must have confused the hell out of the 2 a.m. hangers-on expecting to get off on something like Chain-Gang Girls. And yet somehow out of that impossible equation came art.   read more

I told myself I was going to make this one a quickie and not belabor my points. So, Point No. 1—this is the only good Tim Burton movie. Point 2—it features Johnny Depp’s best performance, by far. Point 3—it’s astonishing Martin Landau did such a great job of playing Lugosi without getting much help from behind the camera. Point 4—Ed Wood died at the box office, not because it’s not a great film—it is—but because it doesn’t fit within the all too predictable definition of what a Burton film is supposed to be. And because it committed the unforgivable sin of being in black & white.    read more

This is a better movie than the original—better acted, more artfully shot, with a more coherent script and more competent direction, but such praise is relative. This is still a glorified after-school special with a false edge, filled with out-of-touch musical numbers and lazy references to modern culture that will lose what chuckle-worthiness they have before the inevitable Hocus Pocus 3 comes out in a few years.    read more

Muppets Haunted Mansion ends up being a pretty good time, mostly due to the antics of Pepe combined with the gorgeousness of the imagery. If you have kids, I’m also pretty sure they’ll love the whole thing. And that is the thing I like best about this special. Fun Halloween specials that can be enjoyed by the whole family are few and far between and it’s nice to see another one added to the mix, even if it’s not quite as good as it could have been.
read more

A Quiet Place 2 is like a classic horror film where suspense and what you dont see provides much of the scares, which is perfect for people who dont like what the modern horror genre has become. The violence is mostly bloodless, and not the focus of the film. Not only does it make for a great night at the movies, I think it actually plays better in a well-designed home theater outfitted with an array of Atmos height and surround speakers for the full experience.   
read more

This latest Scream is the first film in the series not directed by franchise creator Wes Craven. But it remains true to the spirit of the franchise and brings back key cast, including Randy Jackson returning to voice Ghostface, with some quick cameos and voiceovers from actors that have been in the earlier films. I did find the violence to be a bit more brutal and gorier, and the language to be a bit saltier, so definitely not suitable for younger viewers.    read more

Anyone can come up with a list of scary movies, but here are 21 Halloween films that are big on both scares and quality

by the Cineluxe staff
updated October 10, 2022

We’re happy—and a little surprised—to be able to offer a selection of Halloween movies this year that ranges from family-friendly to classic to offbeat to hardcore shockers. The selections also range from features to series to specials and from true reference-quality (The Shining) to decent enough but worth watching just for the experience (The Masque of the Red Death). Since we don’t choose films for review anticipating rounding them up by theme, it was a nice to see them fall into place here with a decent balance and variety. With 21 films to choose from, there should legitimately be something for everyone. 

Beetlejuice is one of the worthiest UHD HDR remasters I’ve seen to date (almost on par with The Wizard of Oz), and the film itself is such a joyous (and ironic) celebration of life that it stands on its own.    read more

The series is slow in parts but definitely picks up near the end. There are some nice King-esque jump scares along the way, along with tons of general creepiness as we slowly move towards solving the mystery of who is The Kid and how did he get here, along with the overall question of, “Why is Castle Rock so rotten?”    read more

If there’s an inherent value in a piece of pop cinema being able to both capture the angst of an era and use it as a springboard to perfectly project the trajectory of the culture, then Body Snatchers has that, and in spades. The film was too easily dismissed at the time and subsequently as an expression of Red Scare paranoia. It’s not. It’s a low-budget B-movie depiction of the loss of self, or soul—depending on how you want to parse that—uncannily prescient, and done with a power that lends it a continuing relevance it never would have achieved as an A-list project.   read more

Loosely based on the short story by Edgar Allen Poe, The Masque of the Red Death is a heightened and slightly campy tale of a pandemic plague that sweeps medieval Italy. The Raven, on the other hand, has no intention to be authentically scary in any way. Peter Lorre plays the Raven in bird and human form in a highly comedic performance. And it has a fabulous supporting cast: Boris Karloff, a very sexy Hazel Court, and a very young Jack Nicholson—in tights, no less.     read more

The Masque of the Red Death

The Raven

It ought to be a mess, and yet Nightmare remains one of the most charming and heartfelt holiday films I’ve ever seen. And, yes, it would be more accurate to call Nightmare a “holiday” film than a Christmas film because although it appropriates all the trappings of our modern commercialized, paganized melting-pot celebration of the nativity, the story makes it abundantly clear the trappings of Christmas are hardly the point.    read more

Nobody needs to convince you to watch Rosemary’s Baby. Its reputation as a horror classic is unassailable and secure. But I would urge you to first scrape away as many of the accreted conventions Polanski’s shocker has spawned and try to see it as if all those other films had never happened, as this is the place where it all began.    read more

This release of The Shining will quickly become the jewel of any serious film collection. But it’s not there to be revered but watched. This film’s impact hasn’t diminished a jot since the day of its release. And this 4K HDR version takes us all the way back to that first day without compromise.  
read more

JUMP TO

Without The Birds, there would be no Jaws—and, arguably, no Spielberg, since he lifted so many of his filmic mannerisms from this brutal and detached end-of-the-world tale. The really ironic thing is, while this is far from Hitchcock’s best film, it’s still better than Jaws. I realize that conclusion is heresy to the popularity = quality crowd but it underlines the vast difference between what an adult with adolescent tendencies and a perpetual adolescent with no interest in growing up can do.    read more

The myth of Dracula isnt one I think needs retelling. It, and vampires in general, have been done to death over the past couple decades. But whenever Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss write a project together, Im intrigued.    read more

It is a surprisingly good horror movie that thankfully relies more on scares than gross-outs to keep you glued to the screen and huddled under your blanket. Don’t go into it expecting a faithful adaptation of Stephen King’s book (although, given how poorly that one has aged, that’s probably a good thing) but do go in expecting a very satisfying reinterpretation of parts of the novel—one that absolutely works on its own terms, whether you have any intention of watching the sequel or not.    read more  

One relatively recent trend that warms my dark heart is the reemergence of horror as a legitimate genre of cinema. This isn’t to say that I don’t get a kick out of schlocky B-movie suspense but for most of my adult life, horror movies have been little more than that, leaving legitimate attempts at making serious films in the genre—like Rosemary’s Baby and Kubrick’s The Shining—in the distant past. So to see Jordan Peele’s Get Out, Darren Aronofsky’s Mother!, and Ari Aster’s Midsommar embraced in recent years as art is, if nothing else, a step in the right direction.    read more

Anybody who cares about movies beyond junk-food event flicks needs to make the pilgrimage to Hitchcock at some point in their lives, and there are far worse places to start than Psycho (like, say, Family Plot). Whether it gets under your skin on your first viewing is a matter of blind luck, but it will stick with you. If you haven’t seen it in a while, your best chance beyond the local revival house will be these UHD and HDR releases. And if you’re a rabid fan of the film, you should have already hit the download button by now.    read more

The teen-slasher genre had been stagnating in the ‘90s when along came Wes Craven of Freddy Krueger and A Nightmare on Elm Street fame to totally upend and breathe new life into the genre with Scream. It’s hard to believe Scream is celebrating its 25th anniversary but the good news is that Paramount has given it a 4K HDR transfer.    read more

Stranger Things 3 is such a tonal, structural, and narrative departure from what’s come before that it can take hardcore fans of the series a few episodes to get into this year’s batch of eight episodes. That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with the first couple episodes. In fact, the show’s creators demonstrate time and again their ability to lovingly mash up, remix, riff on, and reassemble 1980s pop culture in new and inventive ways. It’s simply that this time around, they’re being a little cheeky about it.    read more

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Carnival of Souls

Carnival of Souls (1962)

review | Carnival of Souls

related reviews

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Given how it was made, this classic horror movie shouldn’t be a classic, or even a movie, and yet it remains one of the most influential films to come out of the genre

by Michael Gaughn
October 10, 2022

If the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a B movie, then Carnival of Souls is a solid C—a wild fling at moviemaking by a bunch of naive and repressed Midwesterners meant for second, or third, billing at Kansas drive-ins, a kind of Bergman-goes-to-Topeka thing that must have confused the hell out of the 2 a.m. hangers-on expecting to get off on something like Chain-Gang Girls. And yet somehow out of that impossible equation came art.

To give a quick, urban-legend take on its genesis for those unfamiliar with the film, Herk Harvey, a staff director at Centron, best known for its ‘50s industrial-arts and hygiene shorts, stumbled upon a Bergman film, which inspired him to take his one and only stab at feature filmmaking by grafting European art cinema onto the American exploitation horror movie, the whole thing done on zero budget. By rights, the result should have been a disaster, and in some ways it is; and yet, miraculously, out of that compost heap emerged a very beautiful and, in the best sense, haunting little film.

(Just so it doesn’t sound like I’m unfairly dumping on the decidedly staid Centron, it was something of a filmmaking powerhouse, within its lane, and the place where Robert Altman got his start.)

The best explanation for why Carnival of Souls works is channeling. The filmmakers, by their own admission, had no idea what they were doing so they had no choice but to surrender to what was in the air. And the cultural winds were so strong at the time that they ultimately steered Harvey and his team safely into a very snug little harbor. 

This is completely naive, seat-of-the-pants filmmaking—the kind of thing a lot of us hoped would become legion in the wake of camcorders and cellphones and The Blair Witch Project, but we got a bunch of unimaginative dolts aspiring to make superhero movies instead. By aping arty gestures without understanding them, Harvey and friends were somehow able to conjure up a film that bears an uncanny resemblance to Polanski’s Repulsion (which was three years in the future at the time) and that can actually pretty much hold its own against that other more carefully crafted and deeply felt film.

Souls’ ineptness is actually a virtue. Taking a trained New York actress and dropping her in the middle of a bunch of well-intended but obviously unsophisticated Midwestern actors heightened the sense of the main character’s extreme alienation. A lot of the movie’s justly famous atmospherics can be attributed to the disparity between the onscreen action and dubbed dialogue that sounds like it was recorded in somebody’s closet. The Foley work consistently maintains an earth-to-Alpha-Centauri distance from whatever it’s trying to enhance or depict. And only about a quarter of the shots work but they’re just strong enough to keep the film from unraveling completely. This is a movie held together with chicken wire, spit, and a prayer. 

That lays bare a fundamental truth about all mainstream filmmaking, no matter what the budget: The audience almost always contributes at least half the experience of a movie—sometimes considerably more. Producers figure out what people will respond to and then provide just enough emotional and intellectual triggers to allow audience members to fill in the blanks with their own projections. That explains why most films have no staying power—people move on to new fads and preoccupations, so they’re no longer able to bring anything relevant to watching the film. It also explains why most movies that do hang in there are wrapped in a nostalgic glow—because the viewer has commingled it with the emotional resonance of their own memories from the time they first saw it. It also helps to explain why franchises—the safest and least creative moviemaking bet there is—have spread like the plague.

That’s not to say there isn’t a substantial movie here. Candace Hilligoss somehow managed to craft a legitimate performance while having to contend with throw-it-at-the-wall direction and lousy continuity. You keep wondering if she’ll be able to bring any consistency to her character but then the roadhouse scene happens, where she convincingly conveys the sense of clinging to whatever shred of reality she can find because she knows letting go will mean she’ll disappear forever. I didn’t realize until this viewing how much of what’s best about Souls can be attributed to Hilligoss. They could have pulled off all the spooky atmospherics they wanted but none of it would have mattered if she hadn’t been able to rise several levels above the material and the circumstances. That makes it all the more amazing that the filmmakers were able to create a powerful and fairly nuanced portrait of radical dissociation while having no real grasp of their own subject matter. 

There’s something—a lot—to be said for naivety. Movies have gotten thinner and thinner—and longer and longer—as each successive generation has found the basics of film technique working their way deeper and deeper into their DNA. Practically every sentient being now knows how to make a presentable movie. But it’s become almost impossible to find anyone who knows to how to do anything meaningful with the tools once they’re given to them. I realize it’s an impossibility, but a new take on cinema that took its cues from Carnival of Souls wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen to us—not by a country mile.

Michael Gaughn—The Absolute Sound, The Perfect Vision, Wideband, Stereo Review, Sound & Vision, The Rayva Roundtablemarketing, product design, some theater designs, a couple TV shows, some commercials, and now this.

SOULS ON PRIME
I know it’s my job but I don’t know what to tell you about the UHD presentation on Prime—mainly because this is such an unorthodox film it’s hard to know what matters. Although it’s been repackaged in all kinds of ways, Souls has never looked great—and, given the shooting circumstances, it’s not hard to understand why. To say that watching a subpar version can add to the creepiness is true up to a point, but it’s also a bit of a cheat. I’d prefer to see something that comes as close as possible to what Herk Harvey actually shot. 

This presentation doesn’t do that. Yes, it’s UHD but it’s been processed with such a heavy hand that everything looks waxy. Occasional shots do look exceptional but it’s frustrating to have them be the exception and not the rule. All I can say is that, if you can get onto this film’s wavelength—something that can be hard for the increasingly jaded to do—the presentation isn’t likely to have much impact on your experience one way or the other, which is praising by faint damning.

The last thing I want to do is find myself in the middle of an aspect-ratio pissing contest, but the film is presented in 1.37:1—the ratio of the negative and how the usually definitive Criterion has chosen to offer it as well. But IMDB says it was meant to be seen at 1.85:1, which, if true, helps to explain what seem like some unusually bad compositions and why camera gear appears in the top of the frame during the whirling dancing shots near the end. I can’t say it ought to be shown 1.85 because I’ve never seen it that way—just curious why it’s not.

M.G.

Sign up for our monthly newsletter
to stay up to date on Cineluxe

© 2022 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Castle Rock

Castle Rock (2019)

review | Castle Rock

This Stephen King-derived Hulu series can be slow at times but definitely delivers the requisite shocks and scares

by John Sciacca
January 31, 2019

“There is a lot of history in this town. Not all of it good . . .”

You might recall a post entitled “Exclusive Content Causes FOMO & Piracy” where I opined how all of these streaming providers coming up with their own content was really frustrating viewers. One of the shows that inspired that post was Castle Rock, a new Hulu original series that takes place in the Stephen King multiverse. 

Now, this is a show I really wanted to see when it was announced, as it checked all of my must-see programming boxes. J. J. Abrams involved? Check. Stephen King an executive producer? Check. Set in the Stephen King world with tons of King Easter eggs? Check. A solid cast featuring several actors who’ve previously been in King adaptations? Check. But, as much as I wanted to see Castle Rock, I was not willing to add another streaming subscription to my monthly credit-card statement. 

Fortunately, you can now experience Castle Rock without a Hulu subscription by purchasing the series on disc (4K UltraHD, Blu-ray, or DVD) or via digital download in HD quality at the Kaleidescape store, which is how I watched. 

Before I get into my review, we need a little background. The problem with turning a Stephen King novel into a film is that when you try to compress 800-plus pages into a two-hour runtime, you end up chopping out so much material that the results are often just pale reflections of the original. Or you go the other way, trying to stretch something that worked well as a 10- to 20-page short story into a two-hour feature that just blunders around lost. (Two of King’s best adaptations—Shawshank and Stand by Me—were actually novellas, providing just the right amount of source material.)

King adaptations tend to work especially well as miniseries, where the source material can be given the room it needs to develop story and characters over multiple hours. Hulu showed they knew how to handle this perfectly with its 2016 eight-episode miniseries 11.22.63, which also happened to be the first pairing of Abrams and King. 

Castle Rock is a 10-episode series that takes place in a small, fictional Maine town that will be familiar to King fans. (Other King works set there include The Dead Zone, Cujo, The Dark Half, Needful Things, and The Mist.) It’s important to stress that while King does get an executive producer credit, he wasn’t involved in crafting this story, or apparently much with the production, and that it isn’t based on any of his stories. 

Rather, Castle Rock is a new tale set in King’s established world and features numerous subtle and overt connections and allusions to previous King works. These include Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Scott Glenn); Diane “Jackie” Torrance (Jane Levy), niece of The Shining’s axe-wielding Jack Torrance; references to a certain rabid dog; events from The Body (which became Stand by Me); the Juniper Hill Psychiatric Hospital; and a certain prison no one wants to visit called Shawshank. 

The opening episode, “Severance,” does a nice job laying the groundwork for what to expect from the series along with introducing us to several principal characters, including death-row lawyer Henry Deaver (Andre Holland), who has his own troubled past connections with Castle Rock. He returns to the town after mysterious prisoner The Kid (Bill Skarsgard), who has apparently been kept locked in solitary confinement in a hidden section of Shawshank for years, utters Deaver’s name and nothing else. And there’s recently retired Shawshank warden Dale Lacy (Terry O’Quinn), who had been keeping The Kid locked away for reasons known only to himself. 

The series is slow in parts but definitely picks up near the end, with Episode 7, “The Queen,” being especially good and featuring a fantastic performance by Sissy Spacek as Ruth Deaver that really deserved some kind of award nomination. Another standout was the gore-filled eighth episode, “Past Perfect,” that actually had my wife scream out. 

There are some nice King-esque jump scares along the way, along with tons of general creepiness as we slowly move towards solving the mystery of who is The Kid and how did he get here, along with the overall question of, “Why is Castle Rock so rotten?” 

The video is mainly a palette of muted browns, grays, and cool blues but images are clean and detailed. Even better is the 5.1-channel DTS-HD audio mix, which does a wonderful job of keeping dialogue understandable while still delivering a lot of sonic atmospherics that certainly add to the experience when watched on a surround system. 

I appreciated the brief “Inside the Episode” rundowns for each episode by the series creators/writers, which offered some explanations and pointed out some of the Easter eggs. The download also includes two new features: “Castle Rock: Blood on the Page” and “Clockwork of Horror.” 

Be sure to watch a couple of minutes into the credits after the final episode, “Romans,” as you get a nice glimpse into what might be in store for the second season Hulu has already committed to. 

Probably the most experienced writer on custom installation in the industry, John Sciacca is co-owner of Custom Theater & Audio in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, & is known for his writing for such publications as Residential Systems and Sound & Vision. Follow him on Twitter at @SciaccaTweets and at johnsciacca.com.

PICTURE | The video is mainly a palette of muted browns, grays, and cool blues but images are clean and detailed

SOUND | The 5.1-channel DTS-HD audio mix does a wonderful job of keeping dialogue understandable while still delivering a lot of sonic atmospherics that certainly add to the experience when watched on a surround system

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

© 2023 Cineluxe LLC

Scroll to top

sign up for our newsletter

receive a monthly recap of everything that’s new on Cineluxe