Areola 51

Year: 2007

Director: Eddie Edwards

Format Viewed: Satellite Broadcast

Cast: Molinee Green, Nicole Oring, Valentine Snow, Deborah Wise, Jessica Sweet, et al.

Runtime: 74 min

Rating: TV-MA

Related URLs: Trailer (NSFW)

As astute readers will have already surmised Areola 51 is one of those low budget "late night" movies that cable channels like skinemax apparently have an endless supply of. Why review it? Partly because at the time I am writing this there is virtually no information to be found online and partly because, even though it is a late night T&A flick, it is technically SF and has some VFX that actually look better than the typical Sci-Fi; sorry, SyFylys Channel; original movie. I feel that makes it worth commenting on. The things I endure for the love of the genre and for this site.

* * * WARNING * * *

Don't continue reading BEYOND THIS POINT unless you're interested in hawt sci-fi babes. There may be NSFW content beyond this point. I do not guarantee there will be but there might and I don’t want you getting in trouble with your boss (or whoever).

* * * WARNING * * *

Premise: Alien space babes come to earth to research human sexuality, abduct a sexually frustrated secretary, and probe her for data.

The Reality: Threadbare plot is used as an excuse to film soft core vignettes.

The Story: Areola 51 is a UFO themed alien abduction spoof starring a bevy of bountiful buff babes. Some are porn starlets and actresses from late night erotic series like Co-ed Confidential. Thus some may be asking the question: Is a more explicit version of this movie available? The short answer is I do not know. So far as I can tell this has not been released to DVD. However given the fact Areola 51 is presented as a series of vignettes linked by a framing narrative device of a woman being interrogated by a shadowy man in black type. .

With the vignettes revealed as flashbacks. .

And revealing quite a lot of naked skin (while adding nothing to the threadbare plot or narrative). .

It's possible more was shot than made it into this cable version or that some scenes may have been recycled from previous adult features. (If you were involved with this production or know anything about this movie send me an e-mail or leave a comment and I'll update this review accordingly.) If how much naked skin is in a movie is what most interests you I suggest renting something else. Areola 51 attempts to do what so many similar softcore movies before it has, take the "adult" movie formula and meld it with drama; albeit with less than stellar results. But it's at least more interesting than the usual vacuous nonsense storylines found in these latenight skinemax flicks. An effort was made to make this SF. I wouldn't review it otherwise.

Assessment: This movie is deadly dull boring. The first time I tried to sit through it I was initially intrigued by the VFX. .

Which don't look all that impressive in a screen cap. .

For those asking: Is this really worth watching in the first place? I say. .

Verdict: There is a reason there's not many reviews to be found online for this. Aside from the mélange of soft core cut scenes Areola 51 is an epic snooze fest. Basically the producers took an idea better suited to a 30 minute Twilight Zone style episode and padded it out to near feature length. The easy out would be to say no one expects much of a late night skinemax movie. That's a steaming load. Upon a second viewing I found the movie to not only have moments of absurd hilarity but to have competent, if fleeting, VFX. Sadly Areola 51 never rises above being a limp DTV flick trapped within its formulaic late night T&A prison. If not for the fact I'd decided to record the movie and write a review of it before I'd ever seen it I may not have given Areola 51 a second look. Honesty compells me to note that, aside from an energetic piece of music used during the VFX laden title scroll and an abduction sequence with interesting visuals. .

The movie is deceptively blasé in it's approach to using it's SF thematic elements. Had their been any action to provide forward momentum it might have mitigated the tedium. Alas what Areola 51 attempts to do is take the Scherhazade approach to storytelling and turn it into a "let's tell repetitive stories to an captive audience" as the excuse to show simulated "sex scenes" in the usual clichéd softcore approach of opus filmmaking. The producers likely assumed all would be forgiven because of the gratuitous nudity. They were wrong.

However I am willing to take into account that this appears to be the production company's first feature, at least this is it's first listed credit at IMDB. To the producers I would say Areola 51 would be interesting as an uncensored Twilight Zone episode but, as a feature, sadly lacks scope. I hate to say that because the technical execution showed promise. If the production company produces more SF movies and infuses them with a little more action, retains the gratuitous nudity (perhaps with a little more narrative justification for it's presence), while incorporating more VFX and music (there's just the one song) I'd definitely tune in to watch them. Heck I might even buy a few of their titles on DVD, assuming they ever get DVD releases.

So if you like hawt sci-fi babes then set your TiVO to record this! Otherwise I'd recommend it only for hardcore bad movie masochists and people too embarrassed to buy real porn.

# End of Line

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Gor, Lost in Adaptation or merely Lost? (Fini)

Adapting novels into screenplays to adapt into movies is a lot like translating an ancient text written in a long dead language. The journey from hieroglyphs to contemporary English, French, or German is arduous. Subtle contexts of meaning often get lost in translation. No matter how fluent the translator may be there is no avoiding this. Witness the atrocious, often unintentionally funny, English dubbing of sword-and-sandal imports or the differences in word choice found in different Bible editions. Of course how well a translation retains the spirit and concepts of the original depends on how faithful the translator stays to the source. Good translations take time, witness the years of work that often go into translating classical works. No two translators present quite the same text for the works of Homer, Plato, or even the Bible.

A prime example of how a movie differs from the novels on which it is based can be found in the artwork of Gor. It may not be an entirely fair critique to judge a book (series) by it's cover(s) yet we can learn much from them. .

1. Assassin of Gor, artist Boris Valejo; notice one woman is bound in chains and the other is knelling in supplication to the dominant male. 2. Kajira of Gor, artist unknown; the full scene depicts a male fighting some outlandish Gorean beast as a bound female slave looks on. 3. Outlaw of Gor, artist ?; a female is staked out and bound in chains while two men fight over (her) their prize. 4. Now compare to an actual screen cap from the movie GOR, in which a woman is not only lacking bonds she's wielding a sword in defense of her village.

Obviously, having not read the novels, it's hard to judge whether women wielding swords and being heroic goes totally against the grain of Gor as written. Yet here's another typical quote from a fan site:

"You!" said the trainer, gesturing to another girl with his Whip. "To his feet! Beg for love!" This girl hurried forward and knelt before Drusus Rencius. "I beg for love, Master," she whispered. "You!" said the trainer, indicating another girl. She, too, hurried forward. She knelt before Drusus Rencius, her palms on the floor, her head to the very tiles. "I beg for love," she whispered. "I beg for love, Master."

-Kajira of Gor, pg 139

Most quotes posted on fan sites seem to be snapshots of slave-master relationships; with females predominantly in the submissive role. Even taken out of context they speak volumes. In the novels women are portrayed as submissive chattels whose role in Gorean society is essentially that of eager sex slave. A golden premise for exploitation filmmakers. Alas the opportunity to create a cult classic on par with The Perils of Gwendoline, The Story of O, Emmanuelle, or the infamous nazisploitation Ilsa trilogy was squandered. Like them or loathe them the Gor novels, and Gorean Fantasy, like the works of the Marquis de Sade, have an audience. Even literary purists who would place Gor novels into the nearest garbage receptacle will admit the movies weren't Gorean Fantasy. They may herald this as a good thing, but that's only because John Norman's books have such a polarizing effect; for some.

But so what if the novels aren't well known or well liked? They have spawned a sub-genre all their own. This strange, and often controversial, sub-genre of fantasy exists in a black hole nexus of moral ambiguity. Given the nature of the novels, a faithful adaptation, even sans the Tarns, would likely of had limited appeal. Studios are concerned solely with making money, which too often means pandering to "mainstream" audiences, which begs the question: Why buy the movie rights to such a controversial novel series in the first place? But, having purchased the rights, why then proceed to murder the author's vision and film a counterfeit version of Gor?

Now there's a loaded question. After all there really is nothing new under the sun. Every writer borrows ideas and, like a kitchen alchemist, mixes them together in what they hope will be a winning formulae. Should filmmakers really be held up to a higher standard than the writers themselves?

Yes. Because the filmmaker is not creating they are interpreting, or rather breathing life into the text; or such is the task they should be doing. Alas filmmakers have become like the authors of distant antiquity who borrowed the names of famous biblical or mythological figures to lend authenticity to their own writings. Filmmakers have taken to borrowing the name and title of an established author to pass off their own work, which in any other industry would be considered criminal fraudulence. Sadly filmmakers get away with this time and time again. They've produced counterfeit Bible stories, forgeries of historical events, and, Hollywood's most recent favorite, the remake dubbed a "re-envisioning", which are almost always bogus and patently fraudulent fabrications totally unrelated to the source material. Sometimes they work yet, too often, they do not.

But would the Gor movies really have been any better if the books had been adapted more faithfully? Perhaps. Then again the filmmakers were obviously clueless. As I mentioned in part one of this article I've never read the novels, yet I recognize them for what they are: an derivative blending of Edgar Rice Burroughs style of heroic fantasy laced with undertones of Arabian Fantasy. The scenes of slave girls so many find offensive are no different than the romanticized odalisque of Orientalist painters.

Indeed there exists an entire sub-genre of erotica, which does not have the same stigma attached to it as Gorean Fantasy, that's very similar to it in many ways. It's full of slave girls, masters, and harems. And it has gotten better treatment in it's movie adaptations, why? Is it because Gor was published as genre fantasy rather than literature?

This is the crux of the question about movie adaptations of genre fiction be they pulp planet stories, Harlequin romances, comic book fantasy, hard science fiction, horror, or crime dramas; be they set on distant alien worlds with strange sounding names like Barsoom, Arrakis, Gor, Pern, Amtor, or Middle-Earth. If filmmakers are not going to respect the author's written word and faithfully represent the source material what's the point? Liberties may be taken with narrative accounts of certain figures such as Genghis Khan, Caligula, Nero, or Cleopatra, as indeed the bulk of literary works about such personages is built upon speculation. Yet, even here, there are certain known and established facts about these historical figures that must be abided by.

Novels, unlike distant historical events, are not open to speculation. The authors words are plainly recorded in black and white. Alas filmmakers continue to despoil literary works without repercussion. The Gor movies were low budget productions that wandered far from the source material, thus alienating the fan base. Nor did they provide much for mainstream audiences or genre fans to like. Their plots were a threadbare fabric of generic clichés woven around shallow and transparent characters. Had the eponymous Tarns not been written out and replaced with horses, had there been some attempt to include science fiction elements, had. . If only. . But there wasn't. The Gor movies will never be more than campy, cheesy, unintentionally funny nonsense; and remembered for being as far removed from their source material as an atheist is from an Orthodox patriarch. Perhaps they could have been more, alas we'll never know.

# End of Line

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Gor, Lost in Adaptation or merely Lost?

This article is an extension of last week's series, Reflections on Barsoom, wherein it was noted numerous attempts to bring Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom novel series to the big screen have failed. Also outlined were certain concerns about the current Disney/Pixar movie project. If recent news articles are accurate the project has moved out of development limbo and is being rushed into production. That's almost never a good sign for a movie, especially one being adapted from a novel.

Fans of novels that get translated into big screen movies are all too often disappointed by how Hollywood treats their favorite stories. The most notorious example being David Lynch's Dune. Yet despite Dune's perceived flaws it was far superior to the odd Sci-Fi channel spawned mini series. Alas it too often takes a poorly executed remake for audiences to appreciate these earlier adaptations. Conan the Barbarian was sniped at by fans of Howard's stories yet, compared to the Conan television series, the Conan movies were faithful adaptations. Which brings us back to the subject of our article.

Odds are you've probably never read the Gor novels though you may have heard about them. Having just read reviews for the movies it may come as a surprise to learn the novels have been described as everything from Barsoom with bondage to Taliban erotica. In this article we shall continue to examine the treatment of novel-to-movie adaptations by examining Barsoom's cousin fantasy world. .

Gor, aka Counter-Earth, is the fantasy world of author John Norman as first introduced in the novel "Tarnsman of Gor" (1966). An series of some 20+ odd novels followed. .

The Gor novels are often described as indulgent misogynistic 'adult' fantasy patterned loosely after Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter of Mars series. It is a world in which politically incorrect warriors ride around on gigantic birds; the eponymous Tarns of the first novel; while slave girls gyrate provocatively for their (male master's) pleasure. Dancing girls have been a staple of historical epics since the days of Cecil B. Demille. .

Even when production budgets were sparse, such as in the old Italian sword-and-sandal epics, there were dancing girls. .

However what made the Gor novels notorious were the themes espoused by the author, namely that it is woman's natural state to be subservient to men in all things. This led to the novels being criticized as gutter treatments of heroic fantasy using clichéd science fiction tropes as a crutch to prop up mediocre pseudo sword-and-sorcery. But are such criticisms valid? Here's a typical novel quote from a typical Gor fan site:

The dancing of the female before the male, that she be found pleasing and he be pleased, is one of the most profound lessons in all of human biology. Others are when she kneels before him, when she kisses his feet, when she performs obeisance, when she knows herself subject, truly, to his whip.

- Dancer of Gor, pg 193

But it's not merely the "philosophy" or politically incorrect views expressed by the author that has gotten this series into so much trouble. The terse writing style is off-putting:

He was a Gorean master. I was at his mercy. I wondered if I could have felt so much his, so completely surrendered, if he had not possessed this complete power over my life and body. I belonged to him. But I did not want him to whip me, or put me in the slave box. I wanted only, desperately, to please him. And I knew I must, for I was his slave.

-Captive of Gor, pg 343

Such is the tone of the Gor novels and the nature of the fantasy world. Yet, inexplicably, two movies were produced during the 1980s. It is these curious movies we shall return our attention to next.

In the meantime the curious can use any search engine to discover myriad articles ranging from harsh criticisms like Planet of the Complete Bloody Psychopaths to the slightly less harsh Some thoughts on the Gorean Scandal, apologist tracts In Defense Of Gor, fan favorite Slave Quotes, and sites dedicated to living the idealized 'Gorean lifestyle'. The latter often include illustrated articles showcasing "positions" for slave girls. The Kama Sutra these are not yet the illustrations are often just as gratuitous. Warning many are NSFW!

# To be concluded in part 2

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

Outlaw of Gor

Year: 1989

Director: John 'Bud' Cardos

Cast: Urbano Barberini, Rebecca Ferratti, Jack Palance, et al.

Format Viewed: VHS

Run Time: 90 minutes

Recommended: Yes, but only if you haven't read the novels and are a fan of campy B-movies.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (For fantasy violence and gratuitous hats.)

Gorean Fantasy: Despite assumptions based on the name this form of fantasy has very little- in fact it has next to nothing at all- to do with blood and gore. Rather this fantasy genre is about self-indulgent male oriented slave girl fantasy.

Premise: Tarl Cabot, like John Carter- the character Cabot is all too obviously based upon- is transported to a distant world where he has many fantastical adventures.

The Movie: As the movie begins sad sack Tarl Cabot is drowning his sorrows in a bar with an nimrod friend when his ring starts to glow. Before you can say Holy Batsh*t a flashback of scenes from the first movie plays. As Mr. Morose was not having much fun getting drunk Cabot decides it's time for he and his chum to depart. After hopping into his car and experiencing some cheesy fake lightning effects Cabot and nimrod sidekick wake up in a desert; again with no car in evidence. Cabot is way too excited about waking up in a desert. Conversely his friend whines on and on for what seems like twenty minutes then, for no apparent logical reason, a group of desert nomads- wielding obviously store bought bows no less- appear over a dune and attack! Of course Cabot's nimrod sidekick is totally useless. .

After this ludicrous staged "fight"- in which a day actor can actually be seen dropping his bow from horseback as he starts to fall before Cabot lays a single hand on him- the pair of bumbling buffoons manage to get away and find a city. Actually it's supposed to be some sort of merchant tent-city but the illusion of the would be heroes walking in off the desert is ruined as a farming kibbutz (complete with freshly plowed furrows) can actually be seen in the top of one frame. .

Someone asks them who they are, Cabot gives his name, which leads to a bunch of people yelling "Cabot!" as if they're Lou Costello. (If by some miracle you got that reference that's a example of how dated the gags in this movie are.) Outlaw of Gor tries so hard to be humorous there are times it'll leave you thinking someone had to be two sheets away from brain dead drunk when they filmed this. That any could have actually thought this nonsense was funny is proof drugs impair judgment.

By the way at this point we're actually only 11 minutes into the movie, though it feels more like 111 minutes, and there is only more excruciating lameness ahead. But if you can withstand the juvenile dialogue Outlaw of Gor does have dancing girls. Watching their swanlike display of rhythmic dancing and bold strutting will leave you wondering why these movies have been neglected by the DVD market. Sure the story is about as contrived as a loincloth clad barbarian swinging a bastard sword at a necromancer in a tropical jungle but the dancers are a feast for the eyes and worth the price of admission.

Otherwise Outlaw's laughs derive from the vagaries of low budget filmmaking, such as incongruous costuming and dialogue so bad that, despite giving their best over the top performances, the actors look painfully embarrassed. In short this is a gem of low budget pseudo sword-and-sorcery schlock that makes the Deathstalker movies look like meaningful social commentary scripted by Aristophanes.

Analysis: What does a PG-13 rated Gor sequel get you? An shockingly milksop movie that's so absurd it's unintentionally funny. Yet, sadly, is no closer to being proper Gorean Fantasy than Fantasia. Though it does have a slave market. .

Lots of funny hats and shiny bikini tops. .

And ridiculous dialogue. .

Tarl Cabot: Those Priest-Kings are very dangerous. They have . . unknown powers.

Verdict: See review of GOR.

Availability: Sadly Outlaw of Gor is only available on VHS

#End of Line

Copyright © C. Demetrius Morgan

The Clash of the Titans has begun!

Or has it?

The good news is there's reports circulating that Warner Bros begins production on Clash of the Titans and "will begin filming in studios outside London and will later shoot in various locations in Wales and in the Spanish Canary Islands, predominantly on Tenerife, off the coast of Africa. Further aerial work is set to take place in the diverse locales of Ethiopia and Iceland". The bad news (from here) is: "the movie is currently in pre-production and is slated for an Australian release on April 1, 2010."

So the new Clash of the Titans hasn't quite begun filming, as of mid April 2009, yet, if the report quoted above is to be believed, it's going to be released on April 1^st (Fool's Day?) of 2010. Fish and chips anyone?

Perhaps the best write-up using such threadbare information is the article Filming begins on Clash of the Titans. My favorite part is: "The project is described as the ultimate struggle for power, which pits men against kings and kings against gods." Alas in yet another of the great Internet contradictions the article wraps with the following statement: "Clash of the Titans has begun filming in studios outside London and will later shoot in Wales and Tenerife."

Well which is it? Is the film "currently in pre-production" about to "begin filming" or actually in production, as the above article claims?

According to IGN dot com (which seems to be the source for many of these articles) : Titans Start Clashing as "Principal photography began today (April 27) on Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures' epic action adventure Clash of the Titans".

Yet in The Australian article Classic role for rapidly rising Sam it states: "This week the National Institute of Dramatic Art graduate (Sam Worthington) began filming his third blockbuster in quick succession, Clash of the Titans. In the past 18 months he has taken leading roles in James Cameron's ambitious 3-D sci-fi film Avatar, which is due for release at Christmas, and opposite Christian Bale in the June 4 action release Terminator Salvation. <...> The Somersault star will take it down a peg in Clash of the Titans, a remake of the 1981 film <...> due for release in April next year."

There you go. Apparently it's true. Assuming the movie keeps to this announced schedule that means Clash is going to be shot, go through post, and released to theaters in barely a year's time, at least in Australia. Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Maybe it wont be all that bad? Maybe it wont be a CGI crap fest that goes straight to SyFy? Maybe.

Sigh.

#end of line

Clash of the Titans remake finally getting made?

Looks like there's finally some progress happening with the Clash of the Titans remake that was announced back in 2006. The big news is Liam Neeson has been tapped for the part of Zeus. However what's disconcerting is, according to the articles (written April of this year), "Shooting will begin on the film later this month in Britain and will see Neeson team up with Ralph Fiennes for the first time since 1993 Oscar winner Schindler's list."

Fiennes will apparently be playing the part of Hades. Other actors announced include Mads Mikkelsen (as Draco), Gemma Arterton (as the demi-goddess Io), Alexa Devalos (as Andromeda), and Sam Worthington (as Perseus). In other words it's taken close to three bloody years just to get out of the announced idea slash pre-production stage and into the maybe-possibly-perhaps ready to start shooting stage. This article mentioned that Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk) will direct.

But has it actually gotten to the production stage? This project has been bandied about for quite a few years with many different names attached to it.

One article casually mentions the film is "due out next year", which if true doesn't bode well for the film's quality in my opinion. It is now April. For this movie to get filmed, go through post production, and hit theatres sometime next year would mean this would have to literally be one of those hackneyed rush jobs where principle photography is done in a few weeks (or less) and post-production takes months. If this is the case my vote is just save critics poison pens the ink and trash the project before it further devolves into a straight to SyFy monstrosity.

Too, I am forced to ask, why Neeson as Zeus? I'm not saying Neeson can't play the role. But it seems like the only reason he got cast was name recognition. Has anyone involved with this lame duck production bothered to LOOK at the CENTURIES worth of artifacts in museums? Does Neesom remotely resemble any statue or, say, any idealized painting of Zeus?

Granted you put the right fake beard on Mr. Neeson and he'll look fine, but then you could probably say that of anyone. I suppose that "name power" trumps casting to type. Unless you're talking about statuary from the archaic period, in which case I think there were a few representations of Zues sans beard from that era. Yet Liam, in his prime, was more of an Apollonian youth. As a veteran actor Mr. Neeson, in my opinion, has the gravitas to portray Hades. Similarly Fiennes seems better suited to filling the sandals of Hephaestus. But what do I know. All I was ever able to come up with as a fantasy cast for my version of Clash of the Titans was a flawed, if entertaining, group of character actors. .

Yes, I know, there's no Centauress in Clash. But, c'mon, it's Jolene Blalock! Topless! Now THAT would be worth the price of admission.

#end of line

HERCULES: HALF MAN. HALF GOD. ALL POWER.

Year: 2005

Run Time: 127 minutes (listed); 129 minutes (actual)

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Cast: Paul Telfer, Sean Astin, Leelee Sobieski, Kim Coates, Timothy Dalton, Elizabeth Perkins, Leeanna Walsman, Peter McCauley, Kristian Schmid.

Director: Roger Young

Official Sites: RHI Entertainment (US), Magna Pacific (Aus)

DVD Features

• Full Screen
• Scene Selection
• Trailers
• Hercules: The Myth Comes Alive (featurette)

PREMISE: A retelling of the Hercules story on par with Nero or Augustus that creates it's own narrative while managing to construct a simple yet moderately entertaining tale that follows the life of a would be hero called Hercules.

THE REALITY: This movie/mini series, while ludicrous at times, walks a fine line between being an tedious bore and mildly amusing. Alas roughly the first hour is spent on the machinations of characters not called Hercules. In fact the titular hero isn't even born yet when the series starts.

THE STORY: The followers of Hera (being women) and Zeus (being men) are in constant conflict with each other. This conflict fuels the palace intrigues and inter cult machinations that shape the cultural mores which form the societal tapestry into which Hercules is born, raised, and has to live his life. For Hercules, being a man, that apparently means his lot in life is to suffer.

ASSESSMENT: In a bold move the scriptwriter for Hercules decided not to start the story with the titular character but to instead waste screen time presenting the ridiculously contrived intrigues of peripheral characters, including a very gender specific religious animosity fueling the hatred between followers of Zues and Hera; storylines that would have been better left on the cutting room floor. The story of Hercules doesn't really get started until nearly a third of the way in. Even then the action is disappointing. But what's really shockingly bad is the CGI. Certain CGI creatures are so poorly rendered they are a distraction. This is not immediately evident in stills but. .

While that doesn't seem that bad; upon closer examination. .

The CGI just sticks out like a sore thumb. And the VFX suffers from the usual problems of budget productions. For instance the following, when viewed during play, looks like Gollum on a horse. .

But when you take a close look at the still you notice something far worse. The CGI graphic appears to be a poor quality 2D paint overlay. There really was no need for such cheap CGI graphics. The production could have done everything live action and it would have looked far better. Witness these characters. .

Otherwise this is not that bad, once it actually gets around to telling the story of Hercules. Alas the story is set against a backdrop of palace intrigues and religious conflict fueled by the hatred of Zeus and Hera cultists; meaning men and women. Herein resides a gender themed morality play framed as a parable about religion. Which begs the question: Is this about the mythological hero, Hercules, or is it about palace intrigues and religious machinations of the followers of Hera and Zeus?

The 'movie' portrays the followers of Zeus as pompous rapist zealots who love nothing more than to get drunk and ram their swords into other men and, believe it or not, the harridan followers of Hera are even worse! The Hera cultists are conniving harlots who hold life, particularly male life, to be meaningless. They've no qualms with committing infanticide nor using male children as proxy instruments of murder. They use potions and poison as a matter of course. Alas there is not really any subtext here beyond a sad commentary that religion is a morally corrupting influence on humanity. A message, if indeed that was the intent, that could have been delivered wasting far less of the audience's time. Then again a major chunk of this feature is missing. .

MISSING SCENES

I vaguely recollect watching the miniseries when it aired yet, watching the DVD, something seemed wrong; like the listed run time of 127 minutes. Similar Hallmark/RHI releases in my video library that were miniseries events have run times of 170± minutes. That is a clue as blatant as the thunder crack of doom from the hairy unkempt gorilla occupying the cubicle next to you that a big stink is about to fill the room.

Why the disparity? Taking a wild guess based on information found online this may have something to do with NBC. According to archived articles found online a truncated 3-hour version of the 4-hour miniseries aired at 8 P.M. on NBC, Monday, May 16, 2005. However I seem to recall seeing this either on the USA network or the Sci-Fi channel. As both are subsidiaries of NBC Universal it's even possible the mini series aired on both networks. In short the R1 DVD contains a truncated/ edited version of the mini series.

* * warning potential spoilers ahead * *

* * warning potential spoilers ahead * *

* * warning potential spoilers ahead * *

ALTERNATE VERSIONS: It appears there are numerous releases of Hercules with virtually all save the Thai and R1 release in wide screen. The Thai release is likely a direct port of the R1 release. However the listed run time of the Japanese DVD release is 178 minutes, the Netherlands release lists a run time of 161 minutes, the New Zealand DVD clocks in at 170 minutes, as does the Australian DVD release. Considering some of those releases appear to be in wide screen that's ample proof that R1 consumers got shafted. But why release such a severely cut version only to R1 DVD? Sadly I don't have an answer. It is curious that NBC aired a edited version and a similarly truncated version was released only to R1 DVD. So what's missing?

THE MINI-SERIES: The mini series runs 177 minutes, sans commercials, and contains many minor, yet significant, differences. The most noticeable found in the opening scene. To those who have only seen the faux "theatrical edit" on the R1 DVD the forest ritual from the opening scene is presented with an entirely different context.

In the DVD this ritual elapses over the course of barely 2-3 minutes as the narration plays and the scene cuts back and forth from the forest to a ship battered by turbulent seas. Here the ritual's tone, despite being led by priestesses of Hera, has an oddly Celtic feel. Too the invocations are brief, baffling, and do not reflect the Hera of actual Greek mythology. It's all rather confused for in this truncated version we are witness to what is, essentially, a ritual sacrifice more befitting a chthonic or underworld deity, which Hera most certainly is not.

Viewing this same scene in the mini series is a revelation for it is expanded over several minutes. It's form and function therein provides more depth and, though seeming to be a paraphrased amalgam of neo-pagan harvest ritual and Invocation of the Goddess possibly mixing in confused mis-remembrances of Pliny's account of the Druid's ritual of oak and mistletoe, at least presents the Hera worshippers as being more than some blood crazed murder cult meeting in the dark wood. .

There's more dialogue, character interaction, reveling, and other situations not seen in the R1 DVD version. This changes the entire subtext of the scene from morbid ritual one might expect to find evil Druids officiating at on some dark Samhain eve in a horror feature to a elaborate, if curious, harvest/fertility ritual complete with sacrificial harvest king. There is much dancing, merry making, and musical accompaniment and the scene goes on for 5-6 minutes! The DVD version is edited so that Leelee Sobieski's Dryad character (the series simply refers to her as a Nymph). .

Seems to be officiating over the sacrifice. In the mini series the Dryad is an non-participant observer watching the ceremony from her perch in a nearby tree. There is a brief exchange between two women making fun of the fact the Nymph has "chosen the path of the virgin goddess" and does not want to participate in the ceremony by pairing up with one of the blindfolded men to engage in ritual sex. The entire tone of the scene, not to mention the audience's perception of Leelee Sobieski's character, is thus altered!

VERDICT: This is supposed to be about Hercules, the mythical hero whose deeds became legend, not some frenzied fictionalized pseudo feminist (or whatever) screed disguised as an exploration of neo-pagan Hellenic cults. Taking into account the disparity between versions viewed it's clear American audiences were cheated by the Lions Gate DVD. A lame attempt to rescue this nonsense with voice over narration proclaiming it pure fantasy (even that was bungled) begins with the opening narration: "Come back in time, not to a century or millennia, but to an age outside history. A time of myth and fantasy."

Myth IS history as represented in legend, folklore, and tradition. It is NOT synonymous with fantasy, which intimates made up nonsense or make believe. This narration smacks of being an weak eleventh hour attempt to pull the wool over the audiences eyes with a bait and switch. It is a epic fail and unnecessary. However sticklers for film adaptations sticking close to the source material may want to avoid this. This version of the Hercules legend presents a faux neo-pagan fantasy using creatures and character names lifted primarily from the Greco-Roman myth cycle set in lands of a generic and ill defined distant antiquity. It is thus no worse than the typical dumbed down Disney cartoon version of mythology. This Hercules is thus not proper Greek mythology, but that will only matter to the handful of people who've actually studied mythology and know that a Dryad is but one type of Nymph. What matters is cohesiveness of story and presentation. In this regard the mini series is the superior edit while the R1 DVD is a overtly long bad movie that's an interesting, if flawed, production worth seeing at least once.

#

Copyright © Demetrius Morgan

Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire

After sitting through the 1 hour premiere that aired earlier this evening I wasn't going to admit ever knowing this existed, much less watching it. It's that lame. But what's infuriating is it shouldn't be. This has potential to be a BLACK ADDER quality dark comedy or a tits out in-your-face adult spoof. Alas it's one dull Jr. High School cliché after another. Even the basic plot is standard Fantasy 101. You have the wouldbe hero fighing the evil power, ala Robin Hood, that's also the prophesied "Golden Boy" (or whatever) and his band of merry men plus one woman. Krod is sort of Roar meets South Park in a Mirror, Mirror D&D setting.

However in reading comments over at the IMDB forum one stuck out: "The girl was pretty sexy, but that's about it."

Amen, brother!

The "hot chick" is pretty much the only reason to tune in, even if she is called Aneka (played by relative newcomer India de Beaufort) in blatant satire/nod to the Anakin character from the prequel Star Wars trilogy. Alas, this being the post politically correct era, and a non-premium commercial cable television station, her main attributes are never really on display to distract us from the tedium and the less than salubrious semi-puns.

So what reeled me in to watch the pilot initially? The fact the promos made it look like a medieval comedy with touches of sword-and-sorcery, that and recognizing a few comedy faces from BBC America promos from a few years back. For instance the villain, Chancellor Dongalor (Matt Lucas), is a British star known for doing a comedy show called Little Britain. His evil minion sidekick Barnabus (Alex MacQueen), while not immediately known to me, appears to be another star of British comedy series. Then there is Zezelryck- the "token black" sorcerer whose character is also an bumbling "comedy side kick"- played by Kevin Hart; an American comedian whose talents seem wasted here.

Considering how much comedic talent I've identified so far the level of un-funny on display is bewildering. Worse, the actor playing Krod (the dork hero of the piece) is Sean Maguire, the English actor who played Leonidas in the OFT maligned spoof of 300, MEET THE SPARTANS. So far I've somehow managed to not see that movie but I've heard a lot about how bad it's supposed to be. And, yes, all the "jokes" in Krod are as elementary and transparent as the title suggests.

Is it utterly lame? Well there weren't any real laughs for the first half hour. For a comedy show that was pretty astonishing. Then again the one or two laughs I experienced were, for the most part, not with the show but at it. I really hope this gets better. The promo for next week's episode show's John Rhys-Davies, so I may tune in, but if Dork, sorry, Krod doesn't give us something remarkable and entertaining next week's episode will likely be my last. So unless someone gets their kit off or does something truly amazing I wont be wasting a DVDR or review space on it.

So, I guess, take this more as a warning than a review. Even though this could have potential it's off to a pretty bad start and Comedy Central will have a uphill battle to make this work. And considering the decline in quality of the Adult Swim programming on Cartoon Network and the general trend for mediocre elementary school humor on what few non "reality" series remain I just don't know that this show is going anywhere worth following on a weekly basis. Considering I'd recommend the Deathstalker and Ator movies, which aren't exactly Shakespeare, that makes Krod pretty bad. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

#end of line