Wizards of the Lost Kingdom (1985)

 

Simon is the son and student of Wulfrik, the court wizard in the idyllic kingdom of Axeholme. But this peaceful life is not to last. Egged on by the treacherous queen Udea, the evil sorcerer Shurka murders the king and imprisons his daughter, Aura. Like the king, Wulfric is slain in the coup d'etat. But before he dies, he manages to teleport Simon, whom he also gives a powerful magical ring, out of the castle.

Unfortunately, Simon loses the ring during his escape, and so his quest to save the kingdom and rescue Princess Aura must seemingly rely only on his own (rather limited) magical prowess and on the combat skills of Kor, a warrior Simon meets soon after his escape.

As Simon and Kur begin the long journey back to the castle, they will face dangers including insectoid monsters sent by Shurka, a family of cyclopses with a grudge against Kor, and wicked practitioners of black magic.

Rarely has a film's promotional imagery, such as the picture above, made so many promises the movie has no intention of fulfilling.

I saw this film back in the late 80s, and remembered it as being "pretty bad". On the re-watch, it emerged that my memories were egregiously rose-tinted, because this is several orders worse than that.

The film's list of flaws can be boiled down to a fairly short list. One item, in fact:

• Everything

But while absolutely true, that list's not very informative, so let's drive in a little deeper and explore some of the most egregious issues.

Starting with the biggest: the production was a mess, on every front.  Writer Ed Naha later recalled "When they whittled it down to what was useful from the footage, it only ran 58 minutes".  This was obviously not enough for a feature film, but producer Roger Corman, master of cost-saving antics, had a simple solution: yank a bunch of footage from some of his earlier films (primarily Sorceress and Deathstalker) and edit them in wherever they would fit.  The fact that Wizards of the Lost Kingdom was clearly pitched at a family-friendly PG rating, and those earlier movies had both been R-rated 'sex and violence' fests would not be allowed to stand in the way.  The resulting unsubtle padding stands out jarringly in both visual style and tone.  The main sequences have a deliberate orientation toward a slapstick, PG rated, kid friendly adventure, with lots of silly pratfalls and other comedy tropes ... and then there are the inserted scenes that are much more grim and intense.

The script also has some nonsensical moments, perhaps as a result of the clumsy editing job. For instance, ultimately Shurka and Queen Udea turn on one another. Shurka magically binds her and is going to kill her. But then he doesn't and wanders off instead. So a servant rescues her ... and then they both follow Shurka. On meeting him, they ... stare at him for a bit. And then he kills them after all. What was that all about? Except possibly "adding another minute to the run time"?

Another production failure occurs with the creature costumes. For instance Simon has a big furry friend/pet (how intelligent it is isn't really clear) named Gulfax. If you imagine Chewbacca, if Chewbacca was modelled after an overweight white poodle, you've got some idea of the overall look. As Simon's pretty much constant companion, Gulfax is in a lot of shots: and in every single one of them, it is patently clear that the performer inside the costume has almost now ability to actually do anything.

The other monster costumes are no better.

The problems certainly don't end there: Wizards of the Lost Kingdom has some of the worst action staging I have seen in some time, and the acting is not much better. It is a failure on pretty much every front ... except the commercial, that is. It did well enough on video that Corman produced a sequel a few years later.

I recommend you let this kingdom remain lost.

Motherland: Fort Salem, Season 2 (2021)

 

In an alternate world where witchcraft is not just real, but a major aspect of every nation's military forces, our three young protagonists - all new recruits into the army - have stumbled into the latest stage of an ancient battle.

It is no longer the conflict between the authorities and the terrorist witch group 'the Spree' that is their primary problem now, though that issue continues, draining resources and turning non-witches against the military.  Instead, it is the return of the Camarilla, a secret organisation dedicated to the eradication of witches.

The Camarilla were believed destroyed a century or more before the modern day, but they have survived in secret and have been rebuilding their strength. This includes the development of weapons that let them mimic or suppress the powers of witches.

Season 2 of Motherland: Fort Salem moves the show's main plot forward with considerable gusto.  The 'scene setting' that formed a core part of the first season is largely complete now, allowing the program to focus on its emerging core narrative: facing the seething hatred of the Camarilla, and the many cruel plans they have in store for all witches.

This plot-line works well - better than the Spree/military conflict, to my mind.  It does make me wonder if someone involved in creating or running the show is a big X-Men fan, though.  The whole "protecting a society that hates and fears us" definitely makes the show feel very much like "the X-Men, but with witches instead of mutants" at times.

A key part of the show's strength comes from the good work of its three most central actors. They convincingly portray a trio who are markedly different from each other in personality and background, but who are also believable as friends and colleagues.

Kudos also to the writing team for having each of the three developing their magical powers in clearly distinctive ways, giving each of them a particular focus that offers them opportunities to shine in the action scenes.

Not all of the writing is quite so deft. There are many instances of events relying heavily on characters making terrible decisions out of grief, resentment, or purely being short-sighted. It can get a little frustrating watching supposedly smart people make so many bad decisions, particularly off the back of the many bad choices they made in season one!

On the other hand, it is refreshing that so many of those bad decisions have some kind of in-universe justification. They don't feel like they are purely happening because "the plot can't move forward otherwise". It is also nice to see the characters feeling the repercussions of some of their more egregious errors.

The show also broadens its cast base this season, introducing some fun new characters such as M and Gregorio. I also like that despite the strongly hetero-normative nature of Witch society (albeit with the wrinkle of polyandry), the show has an apologetically LGBTQ-positive cast of characters: Raelle, front and centre on the image above, is unapologetically gay, while M is non-binary, and Scylla is bisexual. Also props for actually casting a non-binary performer to portray a non-binary character.

Second seasons can be tough; it can be a delicate balancing act to evolve the show enough to keep it feeling fresh, without losing the factors that made it a success to begin with. Oh, and of course while juggling those two competing goals, you also need to deliver enough narrative progress that the audience feel the show is genuinely moving forward.

Season 2 of Motherland: Fort Salem manages to keep all these balls in the air quite successfully. It's overall a pleasant surprise - better than I actually expected it to be!

Girl Lost (2016) / Girl Lost: A Hollywood Story (2020)

Content warnings: these films include scenes and themes of self harm, suicide, addiction and both sexual and non-sexual abuse.

A slightly different post today as I am discussing two films together. Why? Well basically, because they're very similar films, both from writer/director Robin Bain and both tackling closely related topics.

The first of the two is 2016's Girl Lost, while the second is 2020's Girl Lost: A Hollywood Story.

Both films follow a young woman who sets out escape her current life and pursue her own dreams, but who finds that there are many people out there who are looking to exploit those dreams for their own ends.

The first of these two young women is 15-year-old Shara, the daughter of an aging sex worker.  When her mother's boyfriend sexually assaults her, Shara runs away with her boyfriend Jamie, a street hustler.  The two young people soon find themselves running short of money.  Is there any future for Shara other than the same profession as her mother, with all its attendant risks and dangers?

The second young woman is teenager Hope.  Feeling invisible to her father and his pregnant girlfriend, Hope is seduced by her former babysitter's tales of the bright lights and opportunities of being an actress and model in Los Angeles.  Naive to the predatory dangers that linger in the shadows of the big city - or that present themselves openly to her under a friendly face - Hope takes the plunge.  Will she end up drowning?

Both of these films depict the risk of sexual exploitation that faces vulnerable young women.  They seem earnest in their attempts to depict these risks with authenticity, while avoiding committing exploitation of their own.  Not an easy balance to achieve, given that the subject matter more or less ensures that the films will include sexual scenes and nudity.  This is one area where I think A Hollywood Story improves on its forerunner.  While I think the 2020 film is overall weaker than the 2016 one, in large part because it covers so much of the same ground, it does a better job of making the exploitative sexual scenes feel more uncomfortable and unwelcome: there are times in Girl Lost where the exploitation sequences looked and felt a bit too much like conventional 'sexy scenes'.

The films are quite harsh and unflinching in their depictions of exploitation.  Both women are subjected to some terrible things; probably Hope suffering even more than Shara.  On the other hand, Hope's story is actually (and perhaps appropriately, given her name) the more hopeful.  Awful things are done to her, and she certainly doesn't end up where she dreamed of, but Hope does at least meet a few people who are willing to help her, not to just use and exploit her.  Shara ultimately has absolutely no-one she can rely on.

Both films also acknowledge and depict the exploitation of women by women, as well as by men. This female on female exploitation is less physical and overt, but just as toxic and dangerous. I don't presume to know how accurate the film's depiction of such matters is, but given the evident sincerity of intent, I am willing to believe that Robin Bain knows the subject better than I do!

Technically, the films are also much better than usual for low budget features.  The production values are solid and the acting, if perhaps a little uneven in A Hollywood Story, is generally competent.

The subject matter certainly won't be for everyone, and I'm not sure that seeing both offers much more than seeing just one of them - they really are very similar projects - but these films do a pretty good job of portraying and publicising the sexual exploitation of young women.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Season 2 (2014)

 

The Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being persona non grata. The recent subversion of their organisation by the terrorist group Hydra has made the US government deeply suspicious of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s personnel and resources. Even though the team helped thwart Hydra's plan, the continued independence and secrecy exhibited by their leader, Phil Coulson, is not something the authorities are willing to condone.

Operating from a secret base, the team seeks to continue their efforts to find and assist powered humans, and to thwart threats to world security - even as they themselves are seen as one of those threats.  They'll certainly have a busy time, what with seemingly immortal Nazi scientists, brainwashed S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, and an entire secret civilisation of super-powered "Inhumans" emerging from the shadows.

Plus of course there's still the lurking threat of former team member Grant Ward, who previously betrayed the others to his secret masters in Hydra, but who is now pursuing his own independent (but no doubt sinister) agenda.

I enjoyed the first season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and went into this second year with hopes it would build on that solid foundation.  Alas, by the time the credits rolled on the final episode of this series, I was well and truly done with the show.

So what was the problem?  The writing, basically.  It's got a lot of issues.

The first issue is the villains, who are almost entirely dull. The initial Nazi scientist antagonist is a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out knock-off of the Red Skull. He was thankfully disposed of earlier than I expected, but only to give way to a boring and unconvincing "alternative S.H.I.E.L.D." scenario that appears to exist purely to delay pulling the trigger on the Inhumans storyline, and which progresses almost entirely on the basis of everyone involved making bad decisions at every turn.

And then there are the Inhumans themselves. This was the introduction of this group into the MCU, in preparation for a planned film that never eventuated - instead in 2017 we got the 8-episode TV series that proved a critical and ratings disaster. Things aren't much better here, to be honest: the same problem of "why is everyone in this show so committed to doing counter-productive, self-destructive things?" recurs.  It's a problem that even ultimately undermines the season's only fun villains: Grant Ward and his new ally Agent 33. They're quite engaging for much of the series, perhaps because they are mostly in secondary / supporting roles that don't require them to do too many stupid things to make the plot "work".

Alas, as stupid as the villains often act in this series, they are no match for S.H.I.E.L.D. themselves. Coulson and his team are grossly, absurdly, comically incompetent, continually making egregious errors for what seems to be no better reason than "the writers couldn't be bothered to come up with a better explanation".  It frequently feels like the villains are only a threat at all because the heroes are just so bad at this.

The terrible plotting is a real shame, because for my tastes it ruins the good work being done in other parts of the show.  The on-screen cast remain likeable and work hard to make the show watchable.  There's some good work in particular from the folks playing Fitz and Simmons, who are given more to do here than just spout the technobabble that defined their season one roles.  Both performers make good use of the opportunity.

The show also expands its cast in this season, with three new arrivals to the team. The newcomers are all quite fun, but to a significant extent the writing isolates them: they have their own little deal that makes them a separate little triangle to the 'original' group's pentagon.  This is a shame, as when they do interact with the original group they introduce some good new dynamics such as the Mack-Fitz friendship.

Sadly, the solid work of the main cast - and also a number of fun guest stars - simply can't compensate for the constant urge to shout "Why are you people all so bad at your jobs?" every time the writers have the characters shoot themselves in the foot.

A deeply disappointing and frustrating season to watch.  I will not be returning for season  three.

Skin Deep (2015)

Leah is a tightly wound young woman with a bad boyfriend, a worse medical condition, and a severe case of denial about both.

Caitlin is a queer, clinically depressed pysch student with an alcohol problem and a severe case of still being hung-up on her ex.

The two strangers meet after Leah’s boyfriend fails to pick her up after a hospital appointment.  As first encounters go, it is not a positive one: Leah thinks Caitlin is rude, while Caitlin thinks Leah is uptight.  To be fair, they both have a point.

However, Leah's continued, out of place presence nags at a the back of Caitlin's mind, and she eventually makes another approach to the stranger in her neighbourhood.  It's awkward and not entirely successful, but it is the first step toward the two women spending an unexpected day and night together.

Which is a set-up straight out of the romance genre playbook, but that's not actually where this film is going.  Instead, Skin Deep is more of a meditation on the challenges we may need to overcome in our lives - mental illness, physical illness, toxic relationships - and the ways in which we self-sabotage, because sometimes it is easier to accept a known level of failure than to risk more pain by chasing something better.

Leah and Caitlin spend the day learning about each other, and in the process learn about themselves.  Which may sound horribly twee, but the script wisely avoids too trite an ending.  Both characters do find some new hope, and perhaps a better way forward with their lives, but it's clear that they still have a lot of work to do to really become "well", if such a thing is even possible.

This independent Australian film was shot in just 10 days.  Its Aussie heritage is evident not just in the accents of the cast, but in the dialogue itself, with the use of slang such as "stoked!".  And there's perhaps nothing more quintessentially Australian than the following exchange between the two leads:

Caitlin: "C'mon, get up!"
Lead: "Why? What are we doing?"
Caitlin: "I dunno, but it's gonna be (expletive) stupid."

I don't think there is anything especially novel being offered here, but Skin Deep explores two interesting, flawed people and the journey they share together, and it managed to keep my interest.  It's solidly made and acted - especially given the fast shooting schedule - and I didn't regret the time spent watching it.  If you're in the mood for a slightly quieter bit of story-telling, it may serve you well.

10 Things I Hate About You (2009)

 

Kat and Bianca Stratford have just moved from Ohio to California. As they start at their new school, Padua High, they have very different goals. Kat is a cool, smart, strong-willed, forthright feminist who is looking to save the world and get out of school as fast as she can. Bianca meanwhile just wants to fit in, preferably including becoming a cheerleader.

Both the sisters will of course meet handsome young men, with whom tentative friendship - and maybe more - begins to bloom.  This is a particularly fraught issue for Kat and Bianca though, as their widowed father is wildly over-protective.

I thoroughly loathe Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew, but I quite enjoyed its significantly more pleasant 1999 film adaptation, 10 Things I Hate About You.  This review, however, is not about that film, but about the TV show it inspired 10 years later.

So how is it?  Overall, not bad.  It's definitely helped a lot by the likeable cast, who do a good job of making you like their characters despite them all being very flawed people.  For instance, Kat is overly proud and tends to be dismissive of others, while Bianca's obsession with being popular causes her to act in very selfish ways at times.  Their potential love interests are just as flawed.  Patrick, Kat's moody possible paramour, has serious issues with expressing his emotions, while Bianca's friend Cameron is deep in 'nice guy' self-deception, which is why she spends most of the season oblivious to his interest, and also why she rightly feels deceived when it is finally revealed.  Guys: use your words.  And accept 'no' gracefully.

Most flawed of all the characters is Kat and Bianca's father.  While the show plays his policing of their personal lives and their bodies for laughs, it is frankly rather gross.  On a related note to this: the early episodes often have at least one instance of going for a cheap and lazy gag at the expense of marginalised groups, like the guy claiming "my doctor says I identify as female" used as an excuse to be a peeping tom.  That's punching down, and it is something that good comedy doesn't do.  Thankfully, this tones down a bit over time.

Thankfully, despite the characters flaws, the show does a solid job of portraying that most of them - the peeping tom and a couple of others aside - are generally trying to be decent people.  They may not always succeed, but they try.  Plus, like I said before, the cast are very likeable.  That definitely helps!

At the end of the day, each 22 minute episode of this series was an easy watch, and I liked that the TV format allowed for more drawn out development of the 'core' romances.  However, I'm not sure that the TV show offers a huge enhancement over the film.  Perhaps if it had been given a second season it would have really come into its own - though I do wonder how many seasons the concept could really have sustained.  In the event, however, it got cancelled at the end of its first season (even if Disney+ claims it has two; it's actually one season that was aired in two blocks).  The series therefore ends on a bunch of unresolved cliffhangers.  There is an interview with the creator online, where he reveals the plans for if they'd been renewed, but the lack of a 'real' ending may put this in the 'nope' column for some viewers.

And I don't think they'd be missing all that much for making such a decision.  This show was a decent time-filler, but it was not especially memorable.

Biohazard (1985)

 

A team of scientists are conducting experiments at a secret facility in the desert. The purpose of the experiments is to transfer matter from other dimensions. Why would they want to do this? For the military applications, presumably, since it is the military that is funding it.

Things go awry, however, when a container holding a creature from the other dimension gets opened. The creature promptly goes on a rampage, killing several people.

The army assigns Mitchell Carter to track down and deal with the monster, teaming him up with Lisa Martyn, a member of the research team. Lisa's also a psychic: it is her unusual ability to see things beyond her scope of normal vision that allows the scientists to transfer and reassemble matter from the other dimension.  

In a better film, Lisa's psychic abilities would have a significant role to play in the story.  But then, Biohazard sets the bar for being "a better film" very, very low indeed.

As you've probably already guessed, what we have here is basically Alien, but set on Earth (because that's cheaper to film) and terrible.  It comes to us courtesy of bottom of the barrel writer-director Fred Olen Ray, and was in fact only his fourth directorial credit.  He has over 160 today, but I doubt any of them are a significant improvement: I admire his tenacity, but I am yet to find a single film of his that's better than "pretty bad".

Biohazard's problems begin with its monster.  It is hysterically bad.

How bad?  This bad.

The creature is small - it was in fact played by Olen Ray's nine year old son  - and looks quite puny, especially as it has quite limited articulation. When it "attacks", it actually just kind of flails its arms at people while they scream.  It's not quite on a "that person is clearly throwing themselves into the monster's mouth" level of terrible that we get to see in The Creeping Terror, but it's really not far off.  And things aren't helped by the fact that in the monster's larval form, its growls are clearly just stock audio of a dog.

Don't worry though, Biohazard's flaws don't end with its antagonist.  It's got plenty of other issues to keep problem-spotters happy.  The film is technically deficient even at a basic level, for instance: the camera work is shaky, and not even in an intentional "shaky cam" kind of way, and the post-production audio is clumsy.  I should not be able to easily tell when your film has dubbed in audio, but it's frequently obvious here.

The script is also poor.  I have already alluded to the fact that there's little pay-off or consequence to Lisa's psychic powers, and that lack of follow-through is seen in other aspects of the story as well.  Most prominently, there's a sudden reveal near the end that is ... just there.  The point of a twist or reveal is to change the situation in some way.  This supposed revelation doesn't do that.  The movie would be pretty much the same without it.

There are also lots of other incidental writing issues along the way, such as the scenes involving what are apparently the world's worst paramedics, of the film's misguided attempts at humour.  Those are ... not good.  For example, the script's idea of a belly laugh is to have the monster tear down a poster for Spielberg's E.T., and stomp all over it.  Oh, such larks.

Honestly, the most entertaining part of the whole thing is the out-takes that play over the end credits.

Legion, Season 1 (2017)

 

Despite sharing the same name, this is nothing to do with the movie I recently reviewed. Instead, this series is adapted from the Marvel comic of the same name.

Our main character is David Haller,who was diagnosed with schizophrenia at a young age and has been a patient in various psychiatric hospitals since the diagnosis. After he has an encounter with fellow patient Syd Barrett, David is confronted with the possibility that there may be more to his condition than simple mental illness.

Haller's awakening awareness brings him to the attention of both the sinister government agency Division 3, and the private organisation Summerland.  The latter help him escape the former, and reveal the truth: David is a mutant with potent but uncontrolled psychic abilities.  Summerland wants to help him control his powers.  Division 3 fears what he might do with them, and wants to control him.

But there may be more forces at work than either Summerland or Division 3 realise ...

A lot of people really liked Legion, but - while I agree it has many very good elements - I have to admit I am not one of them.

The strengths of the show include its cast, all of whom give good performances.  I think special recognition is due to Aubrey Plaza, though, who is great every time she shows up, and who shows considerable breadth of ability in depicting what is a more layered character than the "manic pixie dream-girl" she might initially appear to be.

The program also has great visual design and a fine soundtrack.  In the former category, although the limitations of a broadcast TV budget are sometimes apparent, I was impressed by the sinister appearance of the villain, and the delighted by the macabre charm of "The World's Angriest Boy in the World", a fake kid's book created for the show.  In the latter sphere, there's a lot of good use of particular pieces of music such as Ravel's "Bolero" and Pink Floyd's "Breathe".

For me, where things struggled was the script.  The show features a deliberately convoluted, sometimes almost "trippy" narrative.  There are lots of time jumps, deliberate false impressions, and later revelations. The show also deliberately mixes 60s and 70s fashion and technology with modern day elements, creating a general sense of "unreality" even in the "real" world of the program.

Honestly, all these fancy shenanigans just didn't work that well, for me.  I found the show a little hard to get into at first.  It did start to come together better later on, but for my tastes, it never quite got the momentum it needed to fully work. There was too much obfuscation and overly clever symbolism and not enough just telling the story.  Even at only eight episodes, it felt a little drawn out to me, like it would have been better done in six, with a bit less "woooooh, look how weird we can be!" along the way.

Arcade (1993)

 

Alex Manning is a troubled suburban teenager. Her mother committed suicide and the school counsellor feels that Alex has not dealt with her feelings properly. 

Alex, of course, thinks the counsellor should just leave her alone. She blows off any offer of health and instead heads to the local video arcade with her friends, where it turns out there is a new virtual reality arcade game called Arcade being test marketed.

The game's publisher gives Alex and her friends free samples of the home console version for marketing purposes.  I'm not sure that giving free games to random teens is actually an effective technique, but the movie needs the kids to play the game when they're alone, so that's what it is going with.

In any case, given that Arcade is the title of the film as well as the in-movie game, it's probably no surprise to you to hear that this new video game turns out to have a sinister side.  Soon Alex's friends are disappearing, absorbed into the game itself.  The only way to get them back is to go in after them ...

Let's start with the most important point: Arcade is not a very good film.  For those with knowledge of B-movies, this won't be a surprise: it is directed by Albert Pyun, whose name is synonymous with low budget fantasy and science fiction films.

Ironically, given how excited all the characters are about it, Arcade the game also doesn't look very much fun to play.  For instance, the first level is just a dull 'skate along tunnels' thing where the only decisions that players get to make are whether to take the left or right tunnel each time there is an intersection, while a later level is just a variation on the old "one always lies / one always tells the truth" riddle.

Visually however, the game is ridiculously advanced for the date in which it is supposed to happen.  The in-universe justification for this is pure woo-woo nonsense, but eh, it'll do - movie world is not the real world and as long as the film's clear and consistent on what does and does not work in its setting, I'm willing to do with it.  A bigger issue is that "bringing the level schematics into the game" is a key plot-point to help Alex rescue her friends, and the film depicts this being done by her writing the level names on her arm. Presumably, in this film's universe, if I wrote "Australia" on my arm, I would never need Google Maps again!

The game's "way too good for home consoles of the time" CGI was actually something of an issue for then film.  When initial trailers for the movie came out, Disney sued over a sequence where the designs were too like the light cycles from Tron.  The producers responded by replacing not just the problematic sequence, but all of the CGI for the movie, leading to the graphics in the final film looking nothing like those of the early marketing spots.  I'm not sure why they made such massive alterations - they changed Arcade's basic appearance, the look of each level, and multiple monster designs - but I do have to admit that the revised stuff does look consistently better than the original, based on the samples of the latter that can be found online.

The new CGI still isn't great, mind you, and it's 30 years old now as well, but it's definitely better than you might expect for a film of this age and budget.

Also better than you might expect for a film of this budget is the cast.  Both Seth Green and John de Lancie turn up in minor roles, as does the current Countess of Devon, believe it or not, though she was still just "A J Langer" back then.

Other than that, there's not much to recommend about the film.  I doubt there's much of the plot that would surprise you, and the movie has a completely underwhelming 'twist' ending that the script is even foolish enough to have the characters flag 60 seconds before doing it.  This is not being genre-savvy, it is being dumb.

The one thing I did find mildly amusing is a scene where the kids extort the computer company guy to talk to them by leveraging the 80s satanic panic.  Even if that was a bit past its use-by date by 1993, the whole 'video games cause violence' rhetoric was definitely still in full effect - and would be soon again thanks to Doom, which came out in December of that year.

This one is only for fans of late 80s and early 90s wannabe 'cyberpunk' schlock.