Reviews

Viewer's Log, Stardate 1969 A.D. A band of young counter-cultural types chasing some mystic crystal revelation, rebelling - get into trouble. Not such bad kids. Even talented however misguided. Likely got dealt a raw deal too, the usual - parents divorced, left to hang with friends, probably smoked a lot of pot - that type thing. Not born to lose, no delinquents just misunderstood. But along the way, the young and the unlucky fall in with some creepy 'charismatic' cult leader type. Next thing you know they're getting mixed up in stuff more rad than jamming, putting on headbands, pulling bongs - including homicidal.

But is all this from real life, factual or - just fiction, make-believe? Good news. One can have it either way, or - both. Because the story you've just read is, in real life - that of the Manson gang. Whereas in fiction it's this stellar voyage of the star ship Enterprise.

But which got to the story line first, reality or fiction - the 'family' or Roddenberry gang? Was art imitating life, or - other way around?

Everyone knows TREK drew upon real-life current events as story sources. Themes too controversial for dramatization in literal form became TREK's bread and butter, thru the magic of make-believe. Disguising provocative even ugly realities of its era as fantasy - setting them centuries in the future, safely removed from the present for plausible deniability (to network heads especially) - enabled TREK to boldly go where few shows had gone before, or could. Dressing late 1960s conflicts in futuristic disguise was a not-so-secret ingredient of TREK's fabled mojo - whereby hangs its legacy and legend.

So was TREK 'doing' Manson? Was this episode conceived in the wake of the Tate-Labianca murders? Was art imitating life or - life imitating art? If anyone rather not think of the Manson killings as inspiration for TREK - or anything:

"You're correct to be concerned, but also - be assured."

WAY TO EDEN aired Feb 1969. The Manson murders, August. TREK didn't borrow from such a shocking event apparently. It had no idea it was gazing into its own crystal ball. Rather, the show simply had its narrative finger on the pulse of its era, observing the shape of things so astutely that - here it ended up hitting too close to reality for comfort, as if unwittingly prophetic - by surprise.

WAY never meant to forecast such dark doings as the Manson murders. But such twists are hardly unprecedented in the course of human events. As poets throughout the ages put it, truth is stranger than fiction. Whatever imagination can conjure, reality can out-do.

That any such sequence as this episode dramatizes was about to come true, with fallout worse than as fictionally imagined - one catches a chill to ponder. TREK never set out to play Fortune Teller unawares. It only meant to entertain with an imaginary far future. Not a real and nasty one dead ahead - mere months away, and not so far from Paramount studios - a premonition too close for comfort.

Compared to its real life 'evil twin' the following August TREK serves up a less horrifying, senseless and violent finale - yet tinged with tragedy just the same. "His name was Adam."

In dark light of 20/20 hindsight where this episode resembles some unwitting near-prophecy of doom - the warmth and humanity of TREK really shines thru as it engages such sensitive issues as "the kids these days" - The Generation Gap (as then designated): "Spock - explain!"

The command character dynamic is in top form here. Kirk expresses the era's sense of confusion, what perspective to put such matters into. Spock with his Vulcan virtue and keen eye, comes out nearly Buddha-like, all compassionate wisdom and humanity - elevating the script to a level well above the trappings of its low-budget production cheesiness.

The cult leader, as he affirms, is a madman. But not the young followers, who are mainly exploited, manipulated.

As Spock puts it: "There's no insanity in what they seek" - idealistic wishes of troubled youth for "harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding" - per lyrics of the 1960s rock opera "Hair" - among the clearest inspirations for this episode.

Unlike the Manson murders which match the story line so eerily - "Hair" did not come after this episode, thus was not inspired by it. Other way around.

And that brings up this episode's dynamite musical score and bravura vocal performances by guest stars - another compelling entertainment distinction among the treasures of TREK. Its evocation of late sixties San Francisco rock theater, 23rd century style, sets this voyage apart from the rest.

For one impromptu instrumental they perform, depending how it strikes the ear - beware Paul Butterfield Blues Band, their album 'East-West' (title track especially).

Compared with real life Aug 1969, WAY TO EDEN offers a less frightening more uplifting note - amid tragic loss, a deeper connection. As Kirk wraps it up: "We reach, Mr Spock."

This episode is driven by issues of the 1960s psychedelic era and 'generation gap,' in fantasy- fictionalized form. That real life should follow suit after, especially so soon, leaves a viewer able only to ponder whether one has undergone a transporter malfunction - perhaps entered some sort of parallel universe - as thru a glass darkly.

I've always enjoyed this solid 3rd seasoner from the gitgo, for various favorable points reviewers here note. The bravura performance by Lee Bergere as Abe Lincoln makes this episode memorable by itself. Seeing it again recently after some few years I was struck anew. All the way back to first season, other episodes (Corbomite Maneuver, Arena etc) have featured Kirk and crew forced into confrontations staged by superior aliens. But "Savage Curtain" stands out among them for its unusual down beat ending theme of futility and frustration, redeemed by resolve to overcome. Equivalent scenarios in other episodes mostly ended with promising outlooks (Arena) even open invitations after winning over alien hearts and minds (Specter of the Gun, Corbomite) - the beginnings of what could be beautiful friendships. The closing perspective in Savage Curtain is sadder but wiser, and far more solemn - uniquely for this ST subgenre. After testing the humans and their moral concepts without satisfactory result, the unimpressed alien dismissively releases Kirk and Spock, letting them go back to their ship. But its one of Kirk's lines that, for me, tips off the subtext - about how hard it was so distressing to witness the death of the Abraham Lincoln character: "It was so hard for me to see him die again. I feel I understand what Earth must have gone through to achieve final peace." The context of the times when the show first ran, with what the country was going through in months preceding it, especially - the assassinations of RFK and Martin Luther King echoed between the words loud and clear, even though I never caught it previously. As an icon of civil rights. and an assassinated US president as well - the Lincoln character by association evokes MLK and JFK both in a single stroke. This episode's finale sounds a dramatic note as if consolatory, of grief understood and shared by the show's creators with its audience - at the time reeling alike, under the traumatic impact of violent, historic political tragedies in the news. This aspect reaches its peak when, after the seemingly dismal failure of an alien encounter so harrowing, amid bloodshed with nothing gained - Kirk reflects on the heroic inspiration of figures such as Saruk and Lincoln: "So much of their work remains to be done in the galaxy." In this one episode TREK offers the exception to its own rule, deviating from its usual idealism, whether in tragedy or comedy - by an unrelenting realism of urgent perspective. Dion's 'Abraham, Martin and John" offers an ideal comparison for this episode, from pop music of the era, in terms of themes and context. The song ministers to mass grief in the wake of real life events its lyrics reference literally, to which 'Savage Curtain' alludes figuratively by allegory (a fave among good ol' TREK's many tricks). So I rate this one a uniquely good voyage from the hallowed cellars of 1960s TREK - 'the real thing' (not the pepsi generation). Its like fine wine - some stuff only gets better with age.

This one is a pure delight, in particular for uniquely grown up audience tastes in vintage horror - a genre that has more often staked its appeal on content appealing to less mature sensibilities. As a youngster I was always enthralled by the Lon Chaney and FRANKENSTEIN tradition - where sensational masterpieces of creative monster makeup are the real stars. As a child I wasn't enamored of WHITE ZOMBIE because it just doesn't follow that formula, perhaps foreshadowing the 1940's Val Lewton approach to horror film. But having gotten a little older, watching through adult eyes - once a fan of horror films, always one - I have to give this film highest marks for so many compelling aspects, all working together like clockwork.

There's a gritty depth of darkness on one hand, that really delivers. Lugosi is in top form, with one of his creepiest characterizations ever. When he's made his voodoo doll and zombified our doe-eyed ingenue (what perfect casting) - its like he's just had some sick psychosexual climax. A unique moment of sheer evil, brilliantly played. The mental breakdown of the grief-stricken groom is really something. And When he discovers his 'deceased' bride's tomb empty, her remains missing, his scream of anguished desperation is gut-wrenching in sound. Likewise, the scene with our zombified beauty at the piano playing Liszt, as Mr Beaumont helplessly tries to court her - consumed with guilt and horror at what he's had done to her, in his obsession and desire - is a chill of horrifying beauty. The entire film offers a tapestry of such little perfect stitches, all working together to great effect.

And on the flip side, WHITE ZOMBIE also has a certain warmth and subtle humor that enhances the horrifying impact by delightfully understated comic relief. The main element here is Dr Bruner, our 'Dr Van Helsing' character, who lends expert aid and assistance to the groom beset - by expertly advising, sorting fact from fiction about zombies, and what to do. He affects a socially awkward, amiably bumbling characterization, uniquely entertaining and witty. Asked by our young engaged couple (unnerved after a scary encounter on the road), if he believes in zombies, his character is indelibly established by his comically equivocal reply: "Oh, no! Uh, well - I don't know!" Almost Monty Python-like (Is it true you dressed her as a witch? "NO, NO, no - uh, yes, yes. A bit."

The film's protagonists (our young couple, and the dubious Mr Beaumont) stand as 'ordinary people' - across from a dynamic opposition of concentrated good and evil, in the characters of Bruner, and Lugosi's evil sorcerer. There's a depth of story and themes here, along with all the basic elements - great casting, acting, cinematography, narrative style etc - that makes WHITE ZOMBIE a film to love, more and more with each viewing.

I also have to admire some intelligently educated 'myth busting' story appeal - e.g. Bruner finding clues to what's going on in Haitian law (referencing 'use of drugs that cause lethargic coma, or lifeless sleep'). The obscurity of the line between supernatural and natural masquerading as such (a la some SCOOBY DO caper) is among the intriguing aspects in this film, ahead of its time too (a la "Serpent and the Rainbow"). Again, this is sophisticated stuff for a horror film, and a treat for Lugosi fans - among his best performances.

Having seen pics from this film in monster magazines as a child (e.g. 'Chauvin' the zombified former executioner, etc) - no way could I have foreseen what an impression WHITE ZOMBIE would make on me years later - on my 'inner horror-film-fan child.' Two thumbs up for this one, and a resounding recommendation for discriminating viewers. Fittingly, this film has quite a cauldron of mixed ingredients that work together, casting quite a spell. One to fall under with pleasure.

That only 10/10 stars can be given, may be inadequate for due critical accolades to this episode. And to the series, for which it stands. Maybe need 'extra credit' stars. Words fail to encompass its scope and scale - deliriously entertaining, with inspirational uplift story values. Incredible narrative aplomb and style, achieves 'knockout with feather punch' impact.

Scenario: the human spirit confronted, under duress, targeted by Man's Inhumanity To Man. And its triumph - yet not without bitter sacrifice and tragic loss. Its warm and witty, at the same time sadder but wiser ... and uniquely unforgettable.

The effect it has upon the viewer, maximum catharsis (suggested analogy: amazing grace), can leave one torn. On one hand, normal enthusiasm to sing its praises, tell all the world about it etc. On the other, world being as is ('human condition') - because of the 'pearl of great price' aspect in this show, an almost hierophantic-like impulse can stir - to breathe no word about it to anyone, keep it quiet as if secret warranting careful protection.

One struggles to find a precedent for this highest-of-high NExperiences (like the series in entirety). I might almost compare it with - some ark that's rigorously kept out of sight, 'not for display' - in a tabernacle carefully guarded - off limits, 'no admittance' (and 'mums the word').

This bottom of this show's more-than-just-unique vessel, almost unfathomable - seems a distinct 'transcendent' quality and personal impact. If you watch it, relax, enjoy - maybe prepared. Just in case. It can touch some viewers unexpectedly, in a whole bunch of 'just right' places way down deep, well past the customary and usual contact points for story, arts and entertainment.

Just a show. Still ... I got a few little questions for the guys who conceived and made this one, if I ever get the chance. Meanwhile, bravo guys. Beyond awesome. And thanks - we needed that!

Horror film has long faced a fork in its story-telling road, a choice of which way to go. Universal Studios went with fantasy as basis of horror, nightmarish monsters - visually striking makeup design and execution. Settings featured vaguely fictional European landscapes of a past century mostly, as imagined. At RKO, Val Lewton took the 'horror movie' idea into an opposite direction, with stories set in modern era, and often familiar non- fictional places (New York, etc). And as the source of fear and horror, the unseen - what might be lurking in shadows, things suggested without certainty, leaving doubt, room for the worst imaginings - namely, the stuff that scares us in real life.

BLAIR WITCH would make Val Lewton smile. It offers no 'monster' or visual spectacle involving effects. Instead, fear emerges in a progression from the psychological to the supernatural, and with marvelous dramatic credibility. The film slowly builds intensity, and pulls it off with superb subtlety, from merest undercurrents of tension between characters who (in the scenario) are only just meeting, and with no prior acquaintance, team up to take on more than any of them are prepared for. Its pure story-telling, and brilliant as such. The 'script' (improv-based, I understand), actors and director deserve awards.

If you've ever camped in woods, and heard the type sounds coming from various distances in the dark, you're well prepared for one level of scares in this film. But BLAIR WITCH hits its stride in a deepening progression of scare levels. It proceeds from frightening realities - (lost in the woods, a survival situation emerging) - to possibilities of harm to life and limb by human intent ('Deliverance'-style deep woods yokels suspected)) - to horror of supernatural scope and scale, undeniably evil and violent.

Throughout the story arc, an air of doom gathers with increasing loss of control over circumstances the protagonists encounter, some just bad luck, others self-fostered. Indeed, the dysfunctional nature of peer relations and communication, is a foundation of everything that happens to our unfortunate principles. I've wondered if this ties in with the intensely negative reaction this film evokes for some - rightly puzzled at by various reviewers here more, shall we say - appreciative (or perceptive)? BLAIR WITCH panders to no pretensions, such as seem to preoccupy some tastes, and perhaps prejudice or constrain some reviews. BLAIR WITCH is a film with richness and many story aspects. But its not about whether its characters are suitably 'likeable' (as TV show film critics sometimes seem to expect), or proper 'role models' for any children in the audience, or ... etc.

What this film does instead, is offer credible characters, whose tendencies we recognize from real life and don't necessarily admire. The movies is less about 'liking' its principals, than believing what we're seeing as shown and told. And instead of giving us cardboard 'good guys' or 'bad' it gives us people who seem very real, and for whom we're inclined to feel different things in turn. The film portrays its protagonists as neither reprehensible, nor charismatic, inviting us neither to love nor hate them - only to feel the terror they undergo, and without any distraction of 'not believable.' Indeed, there's a contagiously realistic emotional quality to Heather's loss of control when she screams, with neither her nor us knowing what it is she's facing. We don't have to know what's going on, to be scared by it - in fact, the greater the unknown factor, the more unleashed the imagination, the more bewildering the fear. This is an awesome movie for discriminating, mature, no-nonsense tastes in unique horror film approaches, to be savored and viewed over and again.

Never before has the "Lewton" method - using shadows, the unseen, imagination taken past bounds of what's known, believed, imaginable, in context of things hinted at, power of suggestion etc. - been taken to such heights, and with such overwhelming effect. One of the greatest and most common weaknesses or failures of horror film, in general, is the lack of mental breakdown and stress that would probably occur in real life, if one were faced with some supernatural evil. Horror films most often dramatize only minimal psychological impact on their characters, after encounters with insurmountable horrors. Among BLAIR WITCH PROJECT's most admirable triumphs is its realistic depiction, and harnessing as an energy source driving story - of the toll taken upon the characters by the traumatic nature of the experience, as it unfolds, of their encounter with implacable horror. No spoiler to say they don't come back the same, I hope ... heh heh.

Didn't see a review with that title. Seemed like one was in order for this entertaining, original, exceptionally unique little flick. The script, acting, character development etc - all elements come together in delightful way. The Ernest Borgnine role, brilliantly conceived and executed (ahem). A great performance by Sondra Locke too, before she became more famous (Clint Eastwood movies, if I recall). Perfect casting, all around. Superb viewing, highly recommended for discriminating tastes in vintage exploitation cinema. No comparisons apply for this monumental, one-of-a-kind landmark movie. Ten stars in every department, a lot of bang for low-budget production buck.

In many ways, I rate this as good as HORROR (and BRIDES OF Dracula), beginning to end. The opening credits unveil a new visual style, and musical score - both cool. The first scene's set in the brief Dracula PRINCE OF DARKNESS revivification era, story continuity-wise. It details a Drac-attack in the village, profaning the church - nasty business. The mood starts so calm and pastoral - but gets scary-tense, fast. And the payoff ...

From there it takes up a year later - Dracula having perished since in waters around his castle (as per the end of Dracula PRINCE OF). But now, still, the villagers won't go near the church. The priest reads mass to empty pews, kind of demoralizing - as the regional monsignor finds upon visit, to his dismay. An exorcism's needed for further good measure, he realizes. So - with the priest - a trip to the castle's in order. There the monsignor takes care of biz. But unbeknownst to him, something's gone horribly wrong - involving a bloody injury the priest sustains. Guess who's back up and biting mad, unable to enter his own castle - with the priest now under his power?

This one's nothing but highlights, from scenario to visual style. Tension erupts between the monsignor, and his niece's boyfriend who admits - he's atheist. This leads to some original and frankly intriguing plot development, relative to our basic Dracula story subtext, what with the crosses etc - as surfaces when he tries to stake-impale Drac (for biting his girlfriend). A bloody backfire, a pivotal scene - and an unforgettable moment in the series, equal to any.

The finale's exceptionally satisfying - again from the visual aspects, to character and story points. Dracula PRINCE OF DARKNESS, fine film - had a great end idea. But for all that was put into it, with the rigged floor (cracking ice), it just didn't come off as it needed to. This time around, we get a grand, brutally grisly undoing - everything it can be. With not just gory action and surprise, but suspense added, courtesy of the 'spiritual subtext' story factor they worked in.

Fascinating to read the very different ways this film strikes viewers, fans of Chris Lee's Dracula. With this one, Hammer hits hard, and right on target I think. One to savor and enjoy over and again, that really delivers - one man's opinion.

Most UFO-minded documentaries seem either uncritically gullible or skeptical beyond point of rationality. This 3-episode series walks the line between, with superb balance, and refreshing results. But beware: it doesn't pander to prejudicially "pro" or "con" bias. As such, it won't please ... quite a few viewers, who prefer one or the other type presentation.

This series raises as many good questions, as it answers - earning high marks on both counts. I'm surprised at the relatively low (5.4 / 10) IMDb series rating, and assume that perhaps reflect viewer tastes - i.e., preferring either a more typically "con-skeptical" (e.g. NOVA: CASE OF THE UFOS) - or "pro-excited" presentation and slant. But this series deserves acclaim for its essentially non-dismissive approach sympathetic-to- possibilities, while yielding no ground to gullibility or anything even remotely uncritical. It excels thus in both its aims, and results the investigation team gets.

These investigators aren't trying to 'explain away' anything, nor build it up into some big mystery. They're interested in solving cases they investigate. And the do so with impressive methods and skill - not least of which, witness interview and evaluation - getting answers, and leaving questions that remain, standing.

The episode about a Fayetteville NC incident made me wonder - how are polygraph examiners selected sometimes, when it comes to saucers. Is question posed to them, of whether they 'believe' in UFOs or not? Either way - could answer to such a question have any bearing on their handling of a UFO witness? While the examiner concluded the witness was fabrication - all other factors, as presented, suggested otherwise. The show's investigative team held his conclusion in reserve, sensibly amid conflicting indications.

The episode on Mexican reports perhaps best showcases the versatility, command, and critically balanced rigor of the investigative team. They got to the bottom of cases they looked at - and the Jaime Maussan factor too. Without personalizing, they brought an entirely new light on his role. We've seen him on TV ever since early 1990's, when the Mexican ufo bonanza kicked up. But, never like this - admirably eye-opening work, scientific and forensic.

The Bucks County PA episode, likewise excellent.

As a fan of Hammer horror, this film highly needs some praise. I'm compelled to speak up for it against a lot of criticism it takes -- sometimes on valid ground, it's not perfect. The makeup does show flaws for example. Problem is, overall significance of these issues is often overstated, to the exclusion of a myriad of more impressive, even superb aspects. There are a lot of things for the better that haven't been adequately noted, with all the criticisms taking up most reviews. I'll take a shot at that here.

Disclosure: the Frankenstein films with Cushing are among my favorites from the halls of Hammer. I find EVIL stands out as a solid one, with the first two, and FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED.

One complaint I don't credit is that EVIL's story doesn't follow the previous (two) films; though I don't disagree with the fact. EVIL has an interesting surface veneer as if of 'sequel' (perhaps to appease expectations of distributors or audiences?). But it's much better understood as a stand-alone film. The second Cushing Frankenstein film (REVENGE) tightly follows the first (CURSE)as a sequel. Perhaps for some, that puts expectations on EVIL that it has to fit the mold, satisfy that presumption, or there's something wrong. Unfair basis for criticism, I submit.

As the film begins, prior expectations it's a sequel seem sound. Even though it doesn't begin with Cushing incognito as "Dr. Frank" (the way REVENGE ended). But we quickly gather there have been previous circumstances and events; suggesting (deviously) story continuity with CURSE and REVENGE, like a sequel.

But when Cushing's flashback comes and the past is recounted, we learn it's not as we saw in the first two films at all. Instead we get a whole, new alternative origin story!

True, we can rationalize, maybe Dr. Frankenstein is misrepresenting what went on, willfully or not (maybe his mind's snapped). But the film doesn't bear that out. Nothing that follows validates it. For example, when we meet the Monster, he is indeed exactly what we saw in the flashback, apparently accurate (and not what CURSE portrayed).

(Apparently there were business considerations governing a lot of this. Hammer wanted to use a traditional-like monster design in their first film but it was distributed by Warner Bros 7 Arts one of Universal's rivals. So Universal wouldn't allow their design to be used. But EVIL was distributed by Universal, so ... carte blanche)

Trying to keep EVIL in the 'regular sequel' mold, a forced misinterpretation, is the only thing informing complaints it doesn't follow the first two films. We start putting 2 and 2 together while watching, as we realize this. Other subtle points now make sense. For example it's still Peter Cushing and Dr. Frankenstein, but -- this is a different Baron. He still comes on strong, but doesn't have quite the cold-blooded disposition we saw previously. He's still single minded and not too scrupulous, but he's a different character. Ironically, EVIL gives us Cushing's least 'evil' version of Doc Frankenstein. To provide for human villainy in the film, we have Zoltan the hypnotist instead (for scale: he's not a rapist although a little sexual harassment is not out of the question).

Speaking of Zoltan: with the exception of Dr. Frankenstein's assistant (who receives little development or character interest), EVIL gives us one of the most vivid and vibrant cast of supporting players and roles. Zoltan is superbly conceived and executed. But a real stand out is the mute waif who instinctually bonds with the Monster. Her character and performance go down in the Hammer hall of fame. Eros and pathos in one.

And for crying out loud, a special award is due Kiwi Kingston in the role of the monster. And whoever had the insight to cast him. The idea of having a 'big time wrestler' play the Monster was a monumental stroke of brilliance in EVIL, unique among Frankenstein films. These guys professionally specialize in knowing how to make it look like they're really putting a hurt on someone. And when this version of the Frankenstein monster tears into his victims, it is delightfully brutal and very effective. No other movie in this series has monster attack scenes like this. This is original and stylish stuff.

Back to business considerations, and their input to these Hammer Frankensteins, especially Universal's ownership of the classic Frankenstein monster design. Among the most outstandingly enjoyable aspects of this unique offering from Hammer's Frankenstein dungeon is its clear inspiration from, and tribute to, the classic Universal Frankenstein films. Kiwi Kingston's makeup has been criticized as sloppy, but its design is clearly a labor of loving embellishment upon the original theme. Story motifs in EVIL harken back as well. For example, the monster being found frozen in a block of ice (shades of FRANKENSTEIN MEETS WOLFMAN). Or all this to do in the village about the "burgomeister,' and the carnival sideshow setting (kind of evokes Prof Lampini's business in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN). The entire feel is homage to the vintage classic, bringing fresh treatment to the story cycle. Quite a difference from the first two films where Hammer was being careful, apparently, not to trespass on some of that (lest Universal take action).

Story and script are well written, opening with a scary body snatching scene. Pretty good production values on the whole per Hammer standards. EVIL features memorable musical score, nice monochrome-looking lab set, and good photography, like a night shot with the monster carrying a big cross it has just raided from the church (scaring heck out of a drunk who thinks it's after him). I like how the relationship between Baron and hypnotist devolves, Dr. Frankenstein has gotten himself into a situation. Flaws in this film pale in significance against its virtues. 'Bout time someone said some of this stuff about this very entertaining enjoyable film.

Not such a bad film per se. But viewing as a nature lover especially fond of fungi, its down side stuck out in various ways. The problem can be summed up thus: this film looks at fungi solely through the lens of a fairly overt "mushroom hippie" sensibility. Especially as celebrated at this particular "alternative" mushroom festival event in Colorado each year (apparently).

I understand (and I'm glad) fungi have their countercultural appeal. It just seemed they were portrayed like a cult fetish and cause for party. I'm totally interested in mushrooms, and have no moral issues about the ones of such great interest in this film (you might catch my drift), or people's personal curiosity about that. But everything has its limit.

In this vein, the film didn't seem to know whether it was mainly about mushrooms, or about the people and groovy festival event. And whether it wanted to be a documentary, or a "message" or propaganda (not as nice a word) film like we see these days (Expelled, What the Bleep, etc etc) -- the cult fetish metaphor again.

"Know Your Mushrooms" (even the title ...) has a 2-word "take home" message display at the end of its final credit, and on the CD box too I see: "End mycophobia." There's a good focus for what I found wrong in this movie.

It sounds like they don't like mycophobia, but what's the beef? One might as well protest fairy tales, the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, mycophobia a time-honored folkloric pattern in English tradition, and not very widespread in other cultures. As such it's worthy of recognition and cultural conservation, I think. But in this film it comes under direct attack as if it were a villain or something bad. True, it is quaint and provincial but, c'mon.

What the film doesn't admit: there are many in USA who haven't been accidentally poisoned, as a result of - having left wild mushrooms well enough alone, instead of tempting fate, fooling around with them. If you don't believe that, check into frequency of mushroom poisoning reports from countries in which gathering mushrooms for the meal is common practice. Some mushrooms can be devilishly difficult to identify. And you can get first-hand stories of mushroom poisoning at any amateur mushroom enthusiast club meeting.

So I don't know about what this film's visionaries are thinking. Where's their appreciation for our entire beloved literary tradition of mushrooms as icons of mystery and fear, symbols of decay and decomposition and everything rotten? "Fungi from Yuggoth" by HP Lovecraft, great stuff steeped in mycophobia and superbly so.

So, I was a little disconcerted by this movie's attempt to convince everyone how great fungi are, and get all excited about them. On impression, their secrets may deserve to be defended, just as their habitats need to be conserved. I'd rather this film help preserve our cultural, artistic and literary legacy -- including mycophobia!

But alas, rebellion against tradition for its own sake (maybe?) can be fun, I guess. At least this film likes mushrooms, that I can relate to. Ordinarily.

After watching this on TCM just now, for the umpteenth time, I can no longer resist singing the praises of this little, unpretentious gem. From its lurid title, to its opening shot of the beat poet spewing his inspired nonsense with satirical conviction, the evocative musical score by Fred Katz, and the amazing potpourri of quirky, diverting characterizations by the cast of players ... its hard knowing where to stop. It's a pleasure to see that this film's relative genius (considering its budget) is widely recognized in the reviews posted here, and I have to compliment how incisive so many of the comments I'm reading here are. One thing I like about this movie, and "Little Shop of Horrors" to which it compares in many ways (as one reviewer here notes) is the sheer expression of rejection it represents -- rejection of the preposterous, over-budgeted, empty, special-effects-based style of so much of Hollywood's product nowadays -- in preference for something to appeal to the sensibilities not senses, the intelligence of its viewers not the arrogance of their stupidity ... sorry, I just read a review that posted moments before mine, I gather in response to somebody else's viewing of today's TCM showing, giving the film one star and calling it "poorly made" ... (how dare they try to diminish this little cinematic treasure)

By the way, delicious black comedy that it is (borrowed that excellent phrase from another right-on reviewer here ... apologies, I know, "repetition is the death of art") -- there is one moment in the film deserving mention as drama. It's the tour de force one-man scene in which Walter (Dick Miller) accidentally kills his cat. It launches in absurd enough fashion, with Walter's stupidity taking on tragic dimensions. The dead cat, as he frees it from the wall behind which it was trapped, is presented not as some freshly killed animal hanging limp, but rather a ridiculously stuffed/mounted taxidermist's work, all stiff, dry and lightweight -- almost as if to try and trip any viewing "squares" into saying "Hey look, you can tell it's fake" (duh) -- as if that is even remotely the "point." Standard enough fare in some ways. But as Walter goes to transform the animal into art by covering it with clay, the comedy vanishes for a moment as he breaks down in an emotional anguish made acutely real for the moment by Miller's dramatic talent, which shines brightly. One feels the protagonist's essential pain and loneliness sharply for just this brief scene in the film, driving home vividly how these themes underly the entire story (much as in the equally hilarious "Little Shop of Horrors").

Necrophiles may indeed dance upon the placemats in an orgy of togetherness, I have no problem with that. Yet, films like this can't be made anymore because they are not geared to the cheapened tastes of today's mass audiences. Pity. But they can't take "A Bucket of Blood" away from us, heh heh.