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

Michael Gaughn

Review: Creature from the Black Lagoon

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

review | Creature from the Black Lagoon

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

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Against Burgers

Against Burgers

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.

© 2025 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.

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

When Barry Met Sally

When Barry Met Sally

when barry met sally…

Always irreverent, filmmaker Barry Sonnenfeld offers his thoughts on the 4K release of the classic 1989 romantic comedy he shot for director Rob Reiner

by Michael Gaughn
October 20, 2022

Before he was the director of such iconic movies as Men in Black, The Addams Family, and Get Shorty and of groundbreaking series like Pushing Daisies, The Tick, and A Series of Unfortunate Events, Barry Sonnenfeld was a much sought after cinematographer whose credits include the early Coen Brothers movies and such hits as Big, Throw Momma from the Train, Misery, and the film considered here, When Harry Met Sally… .  After watching the recent 4K release of the classic Rob Reiner romantic comedy, I was curious to see what Barry thought of the new transfer. As always, he was beyond generous with both his time and his comments, and not shy about saying exactly what was on his mind.

Barry on 4K and HDR

“The problem with some of the new tools available to electronic cinematography is that they’re more marketing than necessarily aesthetic choices. For instance, 4K doesn’t necessarily give the viewer a better experience. All the major streamers insist on shooting with 4K equipment but truthfully every pore on an actress’s face or every line of makeup is visible in 4K. So what what we often do is soften or reduce the resolution of the 4K camera by using old non-coated lenses or by putting filtration in front of the lens. So, yes, in theory you’re filming in 4K but we are doing everything in our power to make the image look like HD, or 2K.

“It’s the same problem with HDR. On A Series of Unfortunate Events, we were asked to release the last two seasons in HDR. But HDR took our beautiful muted, low-contrast, low-saturation image and—as per its name, ‘high dynamic range’—would increase our perfect and designed low dynamic range and brighten the image, adding saturation to the colors, doing what it was designed to do—add dynamic range—which unfortunately made the show less soulful and dreary.” 

related review

MGM decided to do When Harry Met Sally… as a straight 4K transfer, sans HDR. How true is it to what you shot?

I was very pleased with how muted the colors were and how unelectronic the 4K transfer looked. I’m thankful that it was not released in HDR. Just because you have that tool doesn’t mean you have to use it. If it had been in HDR, all those colors would have been video-game colors. The reds would have been super saturated, the yellows would have been super saturated. So I liked that there was a soft, non-saturated look to it. 

The transfer was very true to the original color timing. There were a couple of interior scenes I would have timed slightly different, though. At that period in my life as a DP, for some reason I had a problem with the color yellow, so a lot of the scenes are slightly—like a point more—magenta than I would have timed them now. When Harry Met Sally . . . , Big, and Throw Momma all tended slightly on the cooler side.

There’s something else I would have done in retrospect. Some of the closeups are too tight. They felt slightly claustrophobic. If I were shooting it now, I would have asked Rob [Reiner] to widen out just a little bit on the dolly to have more breathing room around faces.

Some HDR versions of classic films, like 2001, look amazing but sometimes an HDR release seems like an opportunity to scrub away grain, screw around with the color palette, etc.—à la The Godfatherand basically create a new version of the film.

I totally agree. I think there should be only one version of a movie. I don’t like special director’s cuts because every time you see one, whether it’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind or the 42 different cuts of Apocalypse Now, they always add stuff. You look at it and go, “I see why the theatrical cut was the way it was.” It was actually the best version. I don’t think there should be seven versions of Picasso’s Guernica, like, “Hey, look—we have acrylics now. Let’s repaint it without oils.” Just because you can improve something—and “improve” is a relative word—doesn’t mean you should.

Joel Coen and I recently worked on rereleasing Miller’s Crossing in 4K for Criterion. During the title sequence, a hat lands in the foreground and then the wind picks it up and the hat flips and flips and goes into the distance and up into the trees, and then the title says “Miller’s Crossing.” Joel and I joked that if we were doing that today, we would have just shot a plate of the background and the hat would have been totally CG. Instead, we had a piece of monofilament tied to the hat that went a hundred yards down into the distance and 80 feet up in the air, where we had it tied to a motor in a cherry picker that pulled the hat. 

The problem was, during every take, the hat just got dragged across the ground, got to the base of the tree, and then went up like an “L”. What we ended up doing is—and you can see it if you frame-by-frame that shot—we had three little sticks in the foreground so that when we threw the hat in, it landed in front of the sticks, so that when it then got pulled by the monofilament, the twigs forced the hat to immediately flip instead of being dragged. And that flip gave it aerodynamics, and then it went up into the air.

So I said to Joel, “Now that we’re doing this remastering, should we get rid of the sticks?”— because now it would just be a two-minute electronic thing to remove them. Joel said that he had the same idea but realized we shouldn’t do it, that it’s fun to see if anyone notices the three sticks. I think that these remasterings, it’s great if you can remove dolly tracks—with the Coens, there were always dolly tracks, lights, all sorts of stuff, since I was a terrible camera operator—and it’s OK to remove a microphone that had always been sticking into the top of the frame, but to change the look of the whole show is nuts.

I was wondering if seeing Harry Met Sally again triggered any memories about shooting the film.

There’s that scene where Sally drops Harry off outside of Washington Square Park, with that mini Arc de Triomphe. And on that shot, we pulled up into the air. I got really uncomfortable when I watched that because Rob and I almost died on that crane. We were riding it together to see what the shot was going to look like, and the crane came off the track and teetered. The weights were balancing us and the back of the bucket, and if the crane had completely come off the track, we would have been launched to Asbury Park, New Jersey. Luckily, the crew caught it just as it was going to flip over. 

Nowadays, that would have been a Technocrane—no one is riding cranes anymore. Or, it would have been a drone, and we would have gone 10 times further back. I’m not saying it would have been better but we would have shot it differently. 

Joel and Ethan and I always joke that if we were reshooting Blood Simple or Raising Arizona today, they would be 10 ten times the cost and wouldn’t be as good. You know that shot in Raising Arizona where we go over a fountain, over a car, up a ladder, though a window, into Florence Arizona’s mouth? We would have shot that totally on a drone in one continuous shot and it would have had a different energy. The fact that Joel and I were running on either side holding a 2 x 12 carrying an Arriflex 2C camera with a 9.8mm Century Optics lens gives it a different feel than if we had shot it on a drone.

Directors feel obligated to work in drone shots now and the shots feel so similar that it’s always obvious they were done with a drone.

I don’t want to sound like an old guy but you don’t want to fix what ain’t broken. And I really feel that these new techniques are fixing what ain’t broken. For instance, in terms of sound—and some people disagree with me—just because you can put certain sounds in the surrounds doesn’t mean you should. I work with Paul Ottosson—three-time Academy Award winner, four-time nominee, for Hurt Locker and other things. He’s done several movies for me and he did all three seasons of A Series of Unfortunate Events. Occasionally he’ll put a knock on a door in back of the room because the person’s going to come in from off camera, and it drives me crazy because it literally takes you out of the movie because the screen is in front of you. That is an affect and a “look what I can do,” but it doesn’t help me tell the story. In fact, it takes me out of the story because I’m looking back to see what that was. My point is, just because you can put sound everywhere doesn’t mean you should. Just because you can use HDR doesn’t mean you should. Because I think it’s hurting the experience of watching a movie.

Miller’s Crossing

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.

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Bullets Over Broadway

Bullets Over Broadway (1994)

review | Bullets Over Broadway

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

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Manos and the Myth of the Bad Movie

Manos and the Myth of the Bad Movie

also on Cineluxe

October 13, 2022

Having gone B-movie with Invasion of the Body Snatchers and down to C with Carnival of Souls, I flirted with the idea of descending deep into the bowels of the filmworld underbelly with the infamous Manos: The Hands of Fate. Not that everyone shouldn’t experience Manos at least once in their lives but there’s just not enough to the movie or its presentation to justify an entire review. But there is something to be said about its reputation.

Manos has replaced Plan 9 from Outer Space as the worst movie of all time. It rests in the crosshairs of the definitive, and still best, MST3K episode. It’s the movie that gave us Torgo, with no good way to exchange the gift for something a little less repulsive. I’m taking the time to write about it partly because, like Linus, I don’t think it’s such a bad little movie, and partly because most people don’t even know what a bad movie is—at least not when it comes time to make, or accept, “worst ever” lists.

There are all kinds of ways for a movie to be bad—it can stem from a bad idea, it can have a terrible script, it can be shot poorly, the editing can suck, the director can have all kinds of great resources at hand but just have no idea what he’s doing (the most common cause of badness—especially on the star-studded, big-budget level), it can be well made but utterly inert, and on and on. But the gulf between run-of-the-mill bad movies and the worst ones ever is vast. While any of the things listed above can be a paving stone on the path to a truly abysmal film, there’s only one thing that can unassailably qualify a movie as worst—it has to be unwatchable. 

The world is awash in unwatchable movies. But none of them ever make the “worst ever” lists. And therein lies the rub. That’s because those lists never—ever—represent the worst movies of all time—just the ones we find easiest to make fun of. 

The ones we call worst tend to be stuff that’s in some way naive—or, to reference Linus again, sincere. It’s less a reflection on the movie and more on our cynicism that we usually pick on the ones that wear their hearts on their sleeves. 

“The movies we call worst tend to be stuff that’s in some way naive. It’s less a reflection on the movie and more on our cynicism that we usually pick on the ones that wear their hearts on their sleeves.”

a little touch of Manos in the night

Defined this way, Ed Wood, who, by consensus, is considered the worst director ever, is actually a pretty good filmmaker with a strong body of work. Wood, with his pulpy fascination with the occult, sci-fi, and skin flicks, did an extraordinary job of channeling the vast pool of muck that’s been a fertile source for American pop culture since the beginning of the Industrial Era and the rise of the big cities. Yes, it’s raw—but it’s also unfiltered, and there’s a considerable virtue in that.

And to make the key point, we’re only able to bully Wood and his films because they’re actually entertaining. If he wasn’t able to engage and hold an audience, Plan 9 or Glen or Glenda or Bride of the Monster or The Sinister Urge wouldn’t be on anybody’s lists because we would have been bored or repelled and unlikely to even remember their names, let alone their plots or favorite scenes.

Ditto for Manos. It’s exactly because Harold P. Warren was a fertilizer salesman who had never made a movie in his life and only made this one as part of a bet that he couldn’t get too fancy and had to stick to an unvarnished tale from the dark undercurrents of the culture. Sure, just about everything about the film is inept—or, to quote MST3K, “there’s a buffet of loathsomeness in this movie”—but once we start watching it, we don’t turn away. It could be argued that’s because it gives us something to feel superior to, but that just underlines my point about the dubiousness of the whole “worst of” thing.

When we ridicule a “bad” movie, we get the high that comes with thinking we’re owning it. But we’re actually the ones being owned, duped as easily as a bunch of rubes at a county fair. The world of “worst ever” is actually a Potemkin village erected to divert your attention from the fact you’re being tricked into paying to watch a bunch of movies you otherwise would never go near. Like almost everything in contemporary culture, it’s all just a marketing exercise, and whether it’s some mega-budget effects-laden action film or some made-on-a-dime exploitation throwaway from the ‘50s is irrelevant. Your money still ends up in somebody else’s pocket. (The irony is that something like Jail Bait will always have a way longer shelf life than the blockbusters that make $250 million their first weekend then disappear forever.)

Let’s not be so smug. Let’s stop treating the past as in some way inferior—less enlightened, less accomplished, or whatever than the present. There is nothing in human history (or human nature) to support that position—just the money-mad need to make us believe we’re somehow better than our forebears so we’ll more readily snap up the cultural equivalent of junk food. The next time you come across Manos or Ed Wood or Coleman Francis or Bert I. Gordon (even I hesitated to type that last one), give them the benefit of the doubt. Put yourself in their shoes and look at their work on their terms instead of the way the carnies want you to see it. You’ll be doing all of filmmaking a huge favor.

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.

“When we ridicule a ‘bad’ movie, we get the high that comes with thinking we’re owning it. But we’re actually the ones being owned, duped as easily as a bunch of rubes at a county fair.”

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Carnival of Souls

Carnival of Souls (1962)

review | Carnival of Souls

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.

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

review | Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

The first Body Snatchers movie and the precursor of the modern zombie film, the original still packs a bigger punch than any of its descendants

by Michael Gaughn
October 7, 2022

I create Top 10 lists but never as a permanent enshrinement of anything but more as a snapshot of how I value things at a certain moment in time. To believe you’ve permanently decided on the definitive of anything—let alone believe anything as fluid and zeitgeist-driven as movies can be correlated in any meaningful way—is pure hubris, and to etch your choices in stone is to essentially embalm, not appreciate, them, like pinning butterflies to a board. All of which is to say that I once had the original, 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers in my No. 1 slot. That troubled me a lot at the time but it also felt somehow right.

I don’t know if I would ever put it back at No. 1 but it still feels somehow right. 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.

I can’t think of another movie that’s done a better job of portraying that fatal pivot in the culture, nor any that come close to it that approach the subject with as much restraint. That restraint compresses the film’s energy, allowing it to resonate just as strongly (more so?) 66 years on, eclipsing all the remakes, off-shoots, and imitators.

I’m not saying Body Snatchers is what would traditionally be considered a masterpiece, in the technical or even the cinematic sense. At the end of the day, it’s still a B movie, with all the basic flaws that come with pandering to that segment of the audience. But it captures something tremendously important, and captures it better than could have been done if it had been put in more accomplished hands. Its B-movie weaknesses are its virtues, forcing its makers to keep the action intimate and the practical effects modest. And the material seems to need the rough energy, the inherent luridness, that comes with aiming for the cheap seats. 

The wraparound—tacked on after the fact because the ending was considered too depressing—remains pointless. The film means nothing, packs no punch, if it’s not hopeless, and to enjoy it (in the troubling sense of the word) you have to edit those bookends out in your mind as you watch it. (But there is a certain giddy frisson to seeing the ubiquitous Whit Bissell, the embodiment of bland, benign mid-‘50s authority; Richard “The Dick Van Dyke Show” Deacon; and the hit man who tried to rub out Burt Lancaster in Criss Cross all being called up for active duty to do a couple of completely unnecessary scenes.)

The movie’s Santa Mira is a typical small American city the way Santa Rosa is in Shadow of a Doubt, but Body Snatchers doesn’t waste any time establishing that because, like in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, that almost mythic sense of place was so thoroughly understood, was such a shared and reassuring cultural reference point, that any kind of stage-setting would have been unnecessary and just slowed everything down. Unlike most horror movies and thrillers, Body Snatchers jumps right into laying down its “there’s something wrong here” vibe, which makes it infinitely creepier.

From that opening scene on, the film is breathless—but without once seeming to break a sweat. The mood deepens, the shadows thicken, and the thrills are placed as quietly and cunningly as the seed pods, building to an overwhelming sense of inevitability and dread. There’s no big rush to get to a big effect—the first developing pod doesn’t even appear until the halfway point—and yet no scene lingers. Each says exactly what it needs to say and moves on.

Body Snatchers is really a chamber drama with a perverse sense of humor and the occasional practical effect. Everything is grounded in basic human interaction and kept plausible for as long as possible. It never overreaches. For all the cheesy horror makeup and monster suits with zippers in ‘50s films, the effects here remain remarkably convincing, which has a lot to do with the film’s staying power. 

That’s not to say there aren’t problems—it’s a B movie, so it’s brimming with problems. Dana Wynter’s entrance is so badly handled it always gets a laugh, you have your pick of cringe-worthy lines, and poor Kevin McCarthy seems to be in over his head throughout. And then there’s the constant churning and over-insistence of the Carmen Dragon score. But the premise is so strong and the film clings to it so tenaciously and develops it so powerfully that the fumbles almost feel like grace notes.

The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers spawned the modern zombie movie—although not in the ways you’d think. The characters recoil upon discovering their pod doubles not because they’re alien but because they’re so much like themselves. Similarly, zombie movies aren’t about the undead being other—they’re one of us, just a too easily taken step away from who we are now. Depending on your angle of approach, Body Snatchers can induce an even bigger shudder today than it did in its time because it’s a pretty accurate depiction of who we once were and who we’ve, c. 1985, become.

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 usual Amazon Prime spiel—watchable, with occasional standout moments, with little that could be called exceptional. But this was always meant to be a second-on-the-bill potboiler, never exquisite or pristine.

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

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Review: 12 Monkeys

12 Monkeys (1995)

review | 12 Monkeys

Terry Gilliam’s most successful attempt to work within the system, this apocalyptic thriller proved to be prescient—but not just for the expected reasons

by Michael Gaughn
October 3, 2022

Having had an affirmative experience getting reacquainted with Brazil after the rout of Baron Munchausen, I wanted to do some more digging around to try to figure out if Terry Gilliam was something of a one-hit wonder. I’d watched The Fisher King again a few months ago and, while some of it remains powerful, too much of it feels out of scale with the material. It’s a good movie—far better than most—but can’t even begin to compare with Brazil. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has its moments but is basically a rambling mess that gets squeezed much too thin. The bottom line seems to be that Gilliam without a solid script is mainly an occasionally compelling diversion.

The Peoples’ script for 12 Monkeys is way too full of itself but gets most of the structural stuff right enough to let Gilliam build something pretty substantial atop it. But his greatest achievement here—which definitely isn’t derived from the script—is the tone, the ability to give a presence to the impalpable. 12 Monkeys feels like an elegy—one that manages to be both moving and troubling without being either depressing or sentimental. As soon as we know almost every character we see on the screen is soon going to die, a consistent tenor takes hold that makes everything feel both tenuous and more vivid. 

And Gilliam establishes that tone—it can’t really be called a mood—so strongly that even his lapses and indulgences can’t queer it. The Britishisms and silly gags he was able to make work, to some degree, in Fisher King feel alien here and push you damn close to the point of “O, come on.” But the film’s portrayal of the end is so credible that it carries you over the errors in judgment.

And a lot of the credit for that—and I can’t believe I’m writing this given that I’m talking about Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt—goes to the acting. Bruce Willis is always Bruce Willis, or something less than that, but Gilliam gets him to stretch well beyond his persona and, by adeptly molding the individual moments of his performance, succeeds in piecing together a nuanced and forceful whole. Pitt, in probably his only convincing role, takes what can be seen as just goofing and makes it feel like that absurdity, in sum, is the character. Although his Jeffrey Goines is something of a red herring, it was crucial to the film to show that there’s a menacing chaos at the heart of all his acting out.

Why didn’t Madeleine Stowe ever have a career? Her performance, which is the film’s fulcrum and is subtly modulated but in a way that becomes powerful, should have led to her having her pick of standout roles. It could have been a personal thing or an industry thing or just a dearth of good enough parts, but it’s a tremendous mystery, and a huge loss. She brings much needed weight to the the film through her believable pivot from intelligent and perceptive but hopelessly smug to utterly lost and desperate to believe. 

Seen as a madcap stylist, a Goldbergian concoctor of cinematic gadgets, Gilliam has never received his due as an actor’s director. But his films, going back to Time Bandits, have been graced by exceptional performances, even when the material didn’t seem substantial enough to hold that kind of weight. 12 Monkeys is driven by the acting, not the style. 

My comments about the HD presentation on Prime (as a portal for Starz) are made knowing a 4K remaster was done this year and a new home release could be imminent. Parts of the film are in surprisingly bad shape for something from as recent as 1995, with the quality sometimes varying tremendously from shot to shot, especially near the beginning. While much of the movie holds up well watched on a big screen, those sudden soft or super contrasty moments can be jarring. 

As we’ve seen repeatedly, 4K is no panacea—it can even be an older film’s worst enemy. Depending on the elements they had to work with for the remaster, a new release could be a benison or could be uneven as hell. I’d be especially concerned it would accentuate the flaws in the decent enough but definitely now creaky CGI. That said, I’m keen to check out the 4K, if or when it comes.

Allow me to ruminate for a moment on my way out the door.

The intuitiveness of the mass consciousness can be startling. The dire events portrayed in this film, until then just the shouts of lone voices, weren’t even thinkable on the mass level until around 1995. It’s as if we were beginning to prepare ourselves for everything that’s transpired over the past few years, and for the worse to come. 

And, as often happens, the surface content of a film—or wave of films—also has a self-reflexive cinematic complement. By getting you to feel the death of the race in a way that gets into your bones, 12 Monkeys gets you to sense the death of emotion in movies as well. It’s hard to pin down exactly but there was a distinct moment when the movies (all entertainment, actually) crossed a rubicon from being grounded in humanity to deriving from a kind of unfeeling viciousness, when creativity devolved into facile cleverness, when it all shifted from grounded in emotion to cruel, abstract exercises in the coldly cerebral. 

That moment seems to be right around the time of 12 Monkeys’ release, with the solidifying of the Coens and the rise of Fincher, Jonze, the Andersons (Paul Thomas and Wes), Nolan, and others of their ilk. Their work resonates as long as you can view it with an arm’s-length detachment, don’t invest too much in it emotionally, and don’t bring your full being to bear. In other words, as long as you don’t allow yourself to feel. None of the above-mentioned could have summoned up any of the bittersweet sense of passing that pervades 12 Monkeys because none of them could have sensed it to begin with. 

12 Monkeys is the cry of the canary in the coal mine, the voice essential to survival we’ve since opted to drown out with the screeching din of an increasingly brutal culture. Given that we were just capable of hearing that warning at the time the movie came out, I have to wonder if it has any value as anything other than an evening’s amusement now.

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 | While 12 Monkeys holds up well seen on a big screen, there’s a surprising amount of inconsistency between shots at times

SOUND | Dating from the early days of DTS surround, it can all get very ping-pongy but the material lends itself to that kind of treatment, for the most part

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

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Survival of the Savviest

Survival of the Savviest

Survival of the Savviest

“I don’t think I need to show any examples of the kinds of rooms I’m talking about. Everyone’s walked one of these crime scenes at some point in their life.”

The responsibility for creating entertainment spaces has traditionally fallen on the person least capable of doing the job—until now

by Michael Gaughn
September 29, 2022

For decades, the person with the most sway over the look of the entertainment spaces in most homes has been the one with the weakest sense of design—or no design sense at all. And I’m not just talking mass-market man caves but high-end home theaters, (the miserably named) media rooms, and other places where people like to enjoy their games, music, movies, and series. 

And by design sense, I’m not talking the ability to make bold statements. An asset elsewhere in the home, those showier traits tend to be a negative in spaces where the room shouldn’t be allowed to overwhelm the experience. I’m just talking about what’s appropriate—what’s judicious and shows taste; what’s apt.

Interior designers are partly to blame for this hegemony. Traditionally tech averse, they far too easily ceded their ground here—which has been especially unfortunate because these spaces, with all their screens and devices and control, are essentially harbingers of what the entire home will soon be. Better to figure out now how to keep them from looking like domestic outliers than to have to tackle them later as a fait accompli.  

So these design chores have too often fallen on the custom integrator instead. But expecting the average AV guy to bring some tact and flair to the proceedings is kind of like letting your lawn crew plan your daughter’s wedding. The parts of the

And by design sense, I’m not talking the ability to make bold statements. An asset elsewhere in the home, those showier traits tend to be a negative in spaces where the room shouldn’t be allowed to overwhelm the experience. I’m just talking about what’s appropriate—what’s judicious and shows taste; what’s apt.

Interior designers are partly to blame for this hegemony. Traditionally tech averse, they far too easily ceded their ground here—which has been especially unfortunate because these spaces, with all their screens and devices and control, are essentially harbingers of what the entire home will soon be. Better to figure out now how to keep them from looking like domestic outliers than to have to tackle them later as a fait accompli.  

So these design chores have too often fallen on the custom integrator instead. But expecting the average AV guy to bring some tact and flair to the proceedings is kind of like letting your lawn crew plan your daughter’s wedding. The parts of the brain needed to run wire, decipher specs, patch together a system, and calibrate a room don’t tend to be on speaking terms with the areas needed to fully grasp a client’s lifestyle or empathize with their more subtle aesthetic needs—essential traits for being able to create a suitable, inviting space that doesn’t feel utterly alien from the rest of the home.

brain needed to run wire, decipher specs, patch together a system, and calibrate a room don’t tend to be on speaking terms with the areas needed to fully grasp a client’s lifestyle or empathize with their more subtle aesthetic needs—essential traits for being able to create a suitable, inviting space that doesn’t feel utterly alien from the rest of the home.

The most positive way to spin all this is to say integrators jumped into the breach because no one else wanted to take on the job, and there’s more than a little truth to that. Less charitably, it could be said that their zeal to pile as much

The Last Days of the Man Cave

gear as possible into a room with little concern for its impact on the experience or the space caused architects and designers who could have helped smooth the waters to throw up their hands and walk away.

I don’t think I need to show any examples of the kinds of rooms I’m talking about. Everyone’s walked one of these crime scenes at some point in their life. The number of atrocities committed in the name of home theater is so massive it warrants a war crimes tribunal.

But this once dire situation is changing for the better—and fast—as a new generation of architects and designers emerges that, having been weaned on

The most positive way to spin all this is to say integrators jumped into the breach because no one else wanted to take on the job, and there’s more than a little truth to that. Less charitably, it could be said that their zeal to pile as much gear as possible into a room with little concern for its impact on the experience or the space caused architects and designers who could have helped smooth the waters to throw up their hands and walk away.

I don’t think I need to show any examples of the kinds of rooms I’m talking about. Everyone’s walked one of these crime scenes at some point in their life. The number of atrocities committed in the name of home theater is so massive it warrants a war crimes tribunal.

But this once dire situation is changing for the better—and fast—as a new generation of architects and designers emerges that, having been weaned on lifestyle tech, no longer views it as the enemy—but also doesn’t stroke it as a fetish—and knows how to make it feel like a not just unintrusive but organic part of the home.

Achieving Serenity

lifestyle tech, no longer views it as the enemy—but also doesn’t stroke it as a fetish—and knows how to make it feel like a not just unintrusive but organic part of the home.

Flexible, innovative private cinemas like the one featured in “Achieving Serenity” show just how fluid this has all become. Architect Ty Harrison also functioned as the lead designer—which, in a home that ambitious, meant also having to have a good grasp of how to integrate sophisticated and elaborate enough entertainment systems to satisfy the client’s needs. He then brought in the right integrator to make all the behind-the-scenes

technical stuff happen, who in turn assembled the right team of specialists to handle things like the acoustics and calibration.

That is how it should be—an architect or interior designer attuned to the client’s lifestyle who can then translate their desires structurally, technically, and aesthetically.

I’m not saying there are no integrators capable of rising to the challenge, just that the hopeless gear-heads among them should never be allowed within striking 

distance of a book of swatches. The exceptions tend to be members of the emerging generation, with some functioning basically as design firms that are also able to handle the tech—like the British outfit Equippd, profiled in “Secret Cinema.” As up on look and feel as they are on gear, they always place the latter clearly in the service of the former.  And because they get design and know how to make it exciting without letting it overwhelm an entertainment space, it’s something they can offer enthusiastically, not grudgingly or ineptly.

Thanks to the ascendance of these tech-savvy architects 

Flexible, innovative private cinemas like the one featured in “Achieving Serenity” show just how fluid this has all become. Architect Ty Harrison also functioned as the lead designer—which, in a home that ambitious, meant also having to have a good grasp of how to integrate sophisticated and elaborate enough entertainment systems to satisfy the client’s needs. He then brought in the right integrator to make all the behind-the-scenes technical stuff happen, who in turn assembled the right team of specialists to handle things like the acoustics and calibration.

That is how it should be—an architect or interior designer attuned to the client’s lifestyle who can then translate their desires structurally, technically, and aesthetically.

I’m not saying there are no integrators capable of rising to the challenge, just that the hopeless gear-heads among them should never be allowed within striking  distance of a book of swatches. The exceptions tend to be members of the emerging generation, with some functioning basically as design firms that are also able to handle the tech—like the British outfit Equippd, profiled in “Secret Cinema.” As up on look and feel as they are on gear, they always place the latter clearly in the service of the former.  And because they get design and know how to make it exciting without letting it overwhelm an entertainment space, it’s something they can offer enthusiastically, not grudgingly or ineptly.

Secret Cinema

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

Thanks to the ascendance of these tech-savvy architects and designers, and a small but growing coterie of integrators, entertainment spaces are, after far too long, becoming congruent with people’s expectations and how they actually live their lives. We’re far from free of the butt-crack brigade and their zeal for pushing tweaked-out unloved and unlovely rumpus rooms, but the glow of their pocket flashes is waning fast. There will always be a need to have someone run wire—the same way you’ll always need a plumber. But design will never be the AV guy’s strong suit and the coming paradigm shift will not only open up fertile new territory but help finally restore the natural order of things. 

and designers, and a small but growing coterie of integrators, entertainment spaces are, after far too long, becoming congruent with people’s expectations and how they actually live their lives. We’re far from free of the butt-crack brigade and their zeal for pushing tweaked-out unloved and unlovely rumpus rooms, but the glow of their pocket flashes is waning fast. There will always be a need to have someone run wire—the same way you’ll always need a plumber. But design will never be the AV guy’s strong suit and the coming paradigm shift will not only open up fertile new territory but help finally restore the natural order of things. 

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

© 2025 Cineluxe LLC

Scroll to top