Eaten Alive.

Review #2281: Eaten Alive.

Cast: 

Neville Brand (Judd), Mel Ferrer (Harvey Wood), Carolyn Jones (Miss Hattie), Marilyn Burns (Faye), William Finley (Roy), Stuart Whitman (Sheriff Martin), Roberta Collins (Clara Wood), Kyle Richards (Angie), Robert Englund (Buck), Janus Blythe (Lynette), and Crystin Sinclaire (Libby Wood) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce)

Review: 

"I like the unknown and strange, bizarre things. It's really weird because I've had people ask me about making these films. Do they scare you when you're making them? No, it's not at all scary. When you shoot these things and you see that they work, you're laughing, and it becomes a comedy to you."

It sure is weird to get a runaway classic on your second try as a director. In 1974, Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel wrote the screenplay to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which you already know would be Hooper's crowning achievement. However, less people might know of his next effort with this film, one that was written by Henkel, this time co-writing it with Alvin L. Fast and Mardi Rustam. The movie apparently took inspiration from the serial killer Joe Ball, who killed at least two people in the 1930s and had an alligator pit (he apparently didn't throw people in there, but "Alligator Man" was one nickname applied to him anyway) in his place in Texas. The film apparently has had several alternate titles (probably because Mars Productions didn't exactly make a killing on original release), such as "Death Trap", "Horror Hotel", and "Starlight Slaughter". Incidentally, Hooper grew up to a family that operated their own theater. Hooper had a few disagreements with producers (supposedly leaving the production before it finished), with the money that had come to do the film apparently only coming with the stipulation that he would do the film, which had a bit of handwringing in writing. However, he would keep busy in the next couple of years, directing a TV miniseries of Salem's Lot in 1979 before he got his first prominent studio film with The Funhouse (1981).

It's funny, if you make a hokey little movie with some commitment to gore or at least one energetic performance, you have my attention. Of course, this is a movie that decides to start itself off with a hooker rejecting the advances of a man trying to get behind for his services, so one has a feel that this is going to be a weird one. With a film filled with a key eccentric performance and a few sticking points of would-be and known names to go along with one strange set piece, you have the stage for a curious bit of low budget sleaze hokum. I actually kind of like this ridiculous movie. The whole film was shot on a sound stage at Raleigh Studios in Hollywood, complete with a large pool that doubled for the swamp. Hooper aimed for a "surrealistic, twilight world" with the hotel in terms of lighting, which is amusing to see play out for such a delightful exploitative film that would be right at home for people who liked, say, Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964), complete with little to really say about the characters beyond mayhem. Brand went through the gamut of acting as a heavy (Western or otherwise), tough-guy roles and the occasional lead for film and plenty of TV. Here he clearly was given the light to just go nuts and have fun, complete with getting to use a scythe at one point. He makes for a capable unstable monster worth following along with, a terror in his own square of squalor that seems to like his space and his gator. The movie isn't really that big on showing the alligator, showing it only for scenes involving, well, the body count, but I don't mind too much (others might be weirded out by one pet death, but, well....). You have your mix of actors of varying experience of familiarity like Burns (returning to work with Hooper in probably her second most known film role), Jones (in her penultimate film role), Ferrer (a career vet on the mend), and Englund and Richards (in the horror film before each became more well known, although Englund did work with Hooper twice more with Night Terrors [1993] and The Mangler [1995]). Burns probably comes out the best when it comes to reacting to terror, although there is something amusing about seeing Englund play a sleazeball with ease (Jones is more a cameo than anything). The 91-minute runtime might not be the easiest sit for everybody when it comes to weird and alluring sleaze, but there is something curious about the whole affair that keeps me going even when it just looks like a vehicle for death, mostly because that hotel set really is quite striking to get stuck looking into. As a whole, Hooper was a curious director that used his fascination with the strange and murky things to make a film that works for a specific kind of interested horror fan that goes in knowing Hooper was more than just a one-trick pony. In that sense, it might be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Leopard Man.

Review #2280: The Leopard Man.

Cast: 

Dennis O'Keefe (Jerry Manning), Margo (Gabriella "Clo-Clo"), Jean Brooks (Kiki Walker), Isabel Jewell (Maria, the Fortune Teller), Marguerite Sylva (Marta), Margaret Landry (Terésa Delgado), Abner Biberman (Charlie), James Bell (Dr. Galbraith), and Tuulikki Paananen (Consuela Contreras) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie and #1898 - Cat People)

Review: 

Sure, let's go with an RKO horror movie. With such an alluring title, one might be unsurprised to know this was based on the 1942 novel Black Alibi by Cornell Woolrich (in his day, Woolrich was a prolific pulp writer that would see plenty of his stories serve as the basis for films, most notably Rear Window). Ardel Wray and Edward Dein served as writers for the film, which as you might remember, was done around the idea of being given a title by the studio in advance and trying to find a good story to go with it. This was the third film produced by Lewton in his horror cycle, with Tourneur once again directing; Lewton had four productions for RKO all come out in 1943, with this being the second. Tourneur (in his last effort for Lewton before RKO promoted him to higher-fare films) was quoted as stating the film was not among his favorites, stating that it was "too exotic" with uneven effect. Mark Robson, who edited each of these films, made his debut as a feature director with Lewton's production of The Seventh Victim and The Ghost Ship. The movie has enough of a cult following that William Friedkin was a noted fan of the film.

I should note that some of these reviews end up getting written while I attempt to watch a different film, which is sort of a test of one's patience along with being because that sure helps get a review off the ground by trying to remember as much as possible before it goes. Unfortunately, this is not one of those neat winners to really write home about. I actually had to go back and watch the second half again because it really just slipped my mind when the end moment actually showed up. If one thought Cat People was a test of one's patience with getting to the point in terms of having the idea of a body-count in favor of tricks that could be thought of as being "atmosphere", you sure will have a time to behold here for 66 minutes. One might be wondering just what the body-count of terror is here. Well, the answer is "two", and I say that because "leopard man" implies, well, a guy is doing the murders that somehow gets confused for a leopard because of the opening death. Those moments spent in shadow, where one really has to pay attention to the sounds made beyond just a scream only to close it out with a puddle of blood, really does invite one for inquiry into where it could go beyond moments spent with middling folks in New Mexico. One jumps around from character to character mainly because if it spent enough time somewhere, you might notice that it really is a drifter-type of film that tries to coast on shadows and spook you into thinking something may be there in shadow. To add insult to injury, the performances are pretty ordinary for a movie that begs to have the perils of fate be handled by even one tormented performance. Not even figuring out the killer is that particularly interesting with the actual climax (complete with some sort of ceremony after "drawing out" the killer) when it comes to motives or even the result. In the long run, if one picks the film out of the blue when it comes to looking for something quick and curious, it might work just for you, particularly if you have a carefully planned set of expectations for a cheap but decent B-movie. It can't compare to Tourneur's previous horror features, but it might click for you. Or not, but you never know...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Man Returns.

Review #2279: The Invisible Man Returns.

Cast: 

Cedric Hardwicke (Richard Cobb), Vincent Price (Geoffrey Radcliffe), Nan Grey (Helen Manson), John Sutton (Dr. Frank Griffin), Cecil Kellaway (Inspector Sampson), Alan Napier (Willie Spears), Forrester Harvey (Ben Jenkins), and Paul England (Detective) Directed by Joe May.

Review: 

You have to be a bit bold to flat out call your movie a sequel to H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man, particularly since well, Wells didn't do a follow-up work to his famous 1897 novel. The 1933 adaptation by Universal (as directed by James Whale) even matched the book in killing off its lead character. But here we are because Universal Pictures loved the idea of doing follow-ups to their horror films and had a hit with Son of Frankenstein (1939). Universal apparently had an interesting time to pick a director and an actor for the title role (thinking of Rowland V. Lee to direct) but eventually settled with May to direct and picked Vincent Price (having originally thought about casting someone familiar like Boris Karloff at first before going for "young and good-looking upcomer"). This was released at the tail end of May's career as a director (having emigrated from Austria to America in the 1930s) as he directed just four further films prior to his death in 1954 at the age of 73. Four writers were utilized for this film: Lester K. Cole and Curt Siodmak wrote the screenplay while May, Siodmak, and Cedric Belfrage wrote the story. The movie apparently was shot over the course of a month in late 1939. The effects were credited to John P. Fulton, Bernard B. Brown and William Hedgcock, which apparently dealt with shooting in black velvet. The next two films dealing with invisible people from Universal were not exactly horror films, but Siodmak wrote both of them (with May being there as well for one of them) with the sci-fi comedy The Invisible Woman (1940) and the action/spy film Invisible Agent (1942). Jon Hall served as the new title character for that film and The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944).

Admittedly, the sequel does have one neat card to play: it isn't merely just doing the last film again, particularly since it seems hard to top Claude Rains and his performance from a few years ago. For one, it is more of a gradual unravelling as one might see from a procedural, complete with a somewhat low-key lead presence (note that "Sir" Hardwicke actually isn't in the film for very long). The justification for how one gets to see a new invisible man is pretty interesting: when framed for murder and on the door for execution, friends resort to helping a guy turn loose and invisible. It has a "fine" pace at 81 minutes that is more interesting when trying to play for effects rather than play itself in showing the locale that is, well, not nearly as effective in relief that one already saw years prior. It probably is more interesting to wonder just what one would end up doing in terms of stability when it comes to the idea of invisibility, and like before it presents someone who gets wrapped up a bit in chaos but otherwise had a genuine idea in mind in going with the whole thing. This was the fourth feature film for Price, who actually would go through a variety of supporting roles (with some top billing) in noirs and period films before getting latched onto as a horror guy by the 1950s. He does just fine for a role that is all about the voice over all, which he plays with concern rather than ham, which probably makes sense. Hardwicke gives the worried elegance of someone doing a job quick and easy while Grey and Sutton at least fill out the movie in casual interest (i.e. a bit of science-babble and babble about their friend). Kellaway isn't even forced to play skeptic to what's going around him, he just plays it straight. As such, it may be a hokey sequel not quite up to the original stuff, but it at least has some commitment to doing drama with some quality effects and useful enough pacing to keep one invested to the bitter end. It's a familiar comfort, go figure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Color Me Blood Red.

Review #2278: Color Me Blood Red.

Cast: 

Gordon Oas-Heim (Adam Sorg), Candi Conder (April Carter), Iris Marshall (Mrs. Carter), Elyn Warner (Gigi), Scott H. Hall (Mr. Farnsworth), William Harris (Gregorovich), Jerome Eden (Rolf), Pat Finn-Lee (Sydney), and Jim Jaekel (Jack) Written and Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis (#752 - Blood Feast, #756 - Monster A-Go-Go, #2122 - Two Thousand Maniacs!)

Review: 

 “Oh, just wild imagination. We had no artistic master, maybe the Grand Guignol in Paris. The notion was simply something that we felt might outrage without being obscene. That’s a very narrow line to walk. Even today, try to think of something that will outrage without being obscene. It’s difficult. So, gore was the natural solution to that.”

If you remember correctly, Herschell Gordon Lewis had directed his first two horror films with Blood Feast (1963) and Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964) with plenty of splatter to go around. With this film, it represented a change in seasons. Up until this point, he had made films in collaboration with producer David F. Friedman for his first twelve films as a filmmaker. However, it would be their last together due to issues involving their business partnership (apparently, at some point in time they were in a deal with Sid Reich and Stan Kohlberg that resulted in acrimony involving money). Some have apparently labeled the aforementioned Feast and Maniacs as part of a trilogy when it comes to blood and gore and the Friedman-Lewis partnership, and it should be noted that inklings of doing another film of "super blood and gore" were scrapped on the grounds that it might oversaturate the market. Friedman would continue to produce with exploitation films (most notably Ilsa: She wolf of the SS [1975]) for many years; he died in 2011 at the age of 87. Lewis kept going in his own brand of aiming for whatever market he felt like doing, which could involve taking time to "finish" incomplete crap like Monster a Go-Go (1965), children's movies like Jimmy, the Boy Wonder (1966) and a handful of further horror films with A Taste of Blood (1967), Something Weird (1967), The Gruesome Twosome (1967), The Wizard of Gore (1970), and The Gore Gore Girls (1972) before his first retirement. 

Really, just watch A Bucket of Blood (1959) when it comes to artist-infused murder. I did not have high hopes for this film, but even watching this ended up with very middling results. You get the same type of characteristics in watching a movie that looks and feels like something that came out of Florida in cheap and allegedly grimy aims that you did with Lewis and his last two movies. The body-count isn't nearly as considerable as one might expect (three, and only two blood paintings get 'done"), and it just isn't as amusing to watch even when one has that sinking feeling of being in a mediocre movie for 79 minutes. Oas-Heim apparently wasn't the most tolerable of actors to work with Lewis, who apparently was in just this and Moonshine Mountain. His attempt at the tortured artist is somehow the highlight when it comes to acting, probably because God only knows how one of us (you, the reader, or heaven help us, me) would do in acting. You might wonder how this ranks lower than his Maniacs film, a feature that had a song about the South rising again. Well, that movie actually had a strange chaotic element that felt in touch with actually making one interested in just what the hell was going to happen next in basically "hicksploitation". You don't really get that here, since even asking why one can't get the proper red for a canvas seems like trying to insult a baby for not shutting up. Hell, the movie sets up an art critic who sets the score of just what our lead character is in terms of bad art and decides, yes, maybe he really is just an artistic imposter that might as well go for selling out. The actual death scenes aren't even that good either, with one scene being on a paddle-boat because if you're going to shill something, shill the idea that folks will get killed with boats. You have to remember that Lewis was the kind of filmmaker that aimed to make do with his budget (so no rehearsals and shoot as much as possible), complete with seeing filmmaking as a business, not art. As such, what you get is a mishmash of stuff that could either have fit right in with home movies (just take a look at those fresh beach shots) or, well, stuff made fast. It doesn't even feel worth calling a piece of crap, really, because the movie is basically the equivalent of someone going up to you to show a dead animal. What does one even say to such a weird thing? Calling him a poor man's Roger Corman might as well be the case. As a whole, if you really like to see a middle of the road "blood movie" that happens to approach its 60th anniversary soon and you just need to scratch that itch, well, don't say I didn't warn you.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

It Follows.

Review #2277: It Follows.

Cast: 

Maika Monroe (Jaime "Jay" Height), Keir Gilchrist (Paul Bolduan), Olivia Luccardi (Yara Davis), Lili Sepe (Kelly Height), Daniel Zovatto (Greg Hannigan), Jake Weary (Hugh / Jeff Redmond), Bailey Spry (Annie Marshall), Debbie Williams (Mrs. Height), and Ruby Harris (Mrs. Redmond) Written and Directed by David Robert Mitchell.

Review: 

"The idea for It Follows came from a dream when I was a kid, but I sort of built on it later. And at a certain point when I was working out the story, in the back of my mind, I thought that it would be nice to have [the monster] be something that can move between people. It just sort of made sense to me that if it was something that was passed through sex, it would be a way to link the characters — to connect them both physically and emotionally. And it tied into some of the other larger themes that I was working towards."

It is not much of an understatement to say that some horror movies like to have sex mean something in their tales of suspense and/or terror. Here we are with a Detroit-shot film filmed by a Michigan native (specifically Clawson). After graduating from Florida State University, he became a feature director with The Myth of the American Sleepover (2010). Mitchell began writing this film in 2011 when working on a separate film he intended as a follow-up, but this would end up getting more development as a film with personal ties (this anxiety dream basically came about around the time his parents were getting divorced) to go along with a premise that seemed weird to describe out loud to others. The look of the film to go along with the monster were inspired by the photography of Gregory Crewdson, known for his large-scale prints of staged scenes in suburban settings. The film was given a premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in 2014 before eventually getting a theatrical release in 2015. Mitchell followed up this film with Under the Silver Lake (2018) to go with a future release of Flowervale Street (2025). Just last year, it was announced that a sequel to It Follows would come up with They Follow with Mitchell returning to direct, presumably to shoot in 2025.

Mitchell's interest in this film is one where love and sex are ways to at least push the inevitability of death away for a time. One sees plenty within the wide-angle shots used in a film that deliberately looks as one wrapped in its own time, starting with a seashell e-reader. This is a film all about the nature of trying to make one's own choice when it comes to being together with flesh (so not quite body horror, but horror of life sure is something). One tries to stay sane with the company of others when confronting a monster that is as single-minded as people can sometimes be when it comes to one-track mind carnal interest. The creature threat is quite interesting because it is two-fold: it is one that you have to take considerable time to really find anything to touch it and also something that comes up for those who have had this thrust upon them out of the blue. Could you imagine having both the dilemma of a terrible monster lurking anywhere you may be and wondering what one did to deserve such a quandary (or why anyone would do it at all, starting right with knocking someone out just to explain it). This is the kind of movie with a group that talks aloud about some sort of "divide" between the suburbs and the city as a whole. Monroe does manage to lead the way with righteous timing as the one target of this sexual fable that you might notice doesn't have many older adults. It is their story, and Monroe deals with that fear in engaging human fashion. The others do just as well in trying to adjust to the hang-ups one would expect to see. It is a carefully paced movie at 100 minutes that keeps one's attention in the eyes of perpetual terror that keeps one imagining what could come next even among the hang-ups in a film that comes and goes without needing to play into too much for explanations, gore, or even needing to go all-in on its ending. This sexually transmitted demon reflects the inevitability of it all and trying to merely pass it off as much as possible much in the same way one tries to pass off a romance as one to try and enjoy the ride as much as possible. I'm not sure where it lands among its era for horror, but it does have a clear appeal in riveting execution. It makes for a solid feature based on hang-ups and suspense in the human element for a pretty good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rabid (1977).

Review: Rabid.

Cast:

Marilyn Chambers (Rose Miller), Frank Moore (Hart Read), Joe Silver (Murray Cypher), Howard Ryshpan (Dan Keloid), Patricia Gage (Roxanne Keloid), Susan Roman (Mindy Kent), J. Roger Periard (Lloyd Walsh), Lynne Deragon (Nurse Louise), Terry Schonblum (Judy Glasberg), Victor Désy (Claude LaPointe), Julie Anna (Nurse Rita), and Gary McKeehan (Smooth Eddy) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986], #2132 - Crimes of the Future [2022])

Review: 

"So, it's inevitable then, if you consider yourself an artist, that you are going to bother people. That you're going to disturb people, and that you're going to knock over a few walls. And I think, even if that's not your main delight-As it is not really with me. I mean, my main delight-I think I am very playful; I think playfulness is the main thing I do. I play with the concepts, with the images, with the connections between things, the metaphors, and so I think I'm playful, not sort of hostile and nasty. But nonetheless, there's an urge to get under the surface of things. Sometimes I do that literally. I mean, I 'm doing scenes in autopsy and dissection and surgery, and yeah, you want to get under the surface to see what's really going on and how things really work. That does upset a lot of people. And to me, then it's an inevitable consequence of being a serious artist."

There seems to be this weird revulsion about movies that happen to have a bit of violence within a good ol' vampire story. Of course, maybe they were the same people that were too wimpy for Shivers (1975). Sure, it had attracted journalists (read: hacks like Robert Fulford) complaining that tax dollars of the Canadian Film Development Corporation had been used to make the movie. Of course, most importantly, it made money that Cinépix (a distributor Cronenberg affectionally described as "sleazy") liked. Older readers would recognize that this is not the most notable performance of Chambers, who had appeared in Behind the Green Door (1972); Ivan Reitman suggested casting her for a certain type of appeal, although Cronenberg hadn't seen the aforementioned Door film (he thought about Sissy Spacek for the lead but was overruled by higher-ups that thought about her accent and freckles). The CFDC did help fund the film, which I would hope made certain people seethe and others rejoice. Cronenberg has stated the movie, when compared to the aforementioned Shivers, was essentially "painted on a bigger canvas" when it came to similar premises involving infection. The movie did relatively well on its $500,000 budget and Cronenberg would continue to make films of varying notice, with his next two films each coming out in 1979 with Fast Company (one of Cronenberg's unique films not involving horror) and The Brood (1979). In 2019, a remake of the film (filmed by the Soska Sisters in Canada) was released.

Imagine if you will, a movie that decides to have a monstrous thing in one's armpit that spreads disease that leads to people getting sick and scared. Now imagine a scene in the film where one attempts to stop an attack by one of the sick in the Christmas season by shooting at the sick man in front of children waiting in line for Santa Claus...and hitting both the sick guy and Santa! The movie may be weird, it may be cyclical, but it sure is never boring in the overall result, that much is for sure. For me, there is plenty of amusement in the very fact that the perversions of the flesh really can be a killer without falling prey to a lack of execution in effects or non-commitment from the person involved. Violent and repulsive to certain tastes, Cronenberg made a solid movie detailing both terror that can arise in watching fear and aggression play out on TV and also the terror of losing one's body and even the soul to the unknown. Chambers doesn't have too much to say in her journey as the source of body terror, but she does an efficient job in basically playing a modern "Typhoid Mary" (that refers to a woman who apparently had typhoid fever and infected dozens of people in the early 1900s before dealing with forced quarantine twice). Her plight (one where she is penetrating people with a thing in her armpit) is a curious one that she approaches with relative calm for such an alluring presence that really does make one wonder how this was her one noted mainstream role. Consider the fact that she first wakes up screaming after the appendage is on her and she quickly finds someone curious to see her skin. The others do relatively fine in carrying terror in the ordinary fading away into churning fear, which mainly involves trying to make sense of it all. This is a clinically drawn-out type of movie, one that comes and goes for 91 minutes in a chilly manner that I appreciate. I particularly like the ending. After a series of wanderings, finally one gets to see the characters figure out just where this all started and get a confrontation not so much filled with gore and bombast but instead one of straight-toned truth: a garbage pile, suffice to say. After a carefully controlled film of chaos within the horrors of flesh that looks and feels like a cheap but ambitious time, one leaves Rabid as they would hope to leave it: satisfactorily unsettled.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Wasp Woman.

Review #2275: The Wasp Woman.

Cast: 

Susan Cabot (Janice Starlin), Fred Eisley (Bill Lane), Barboura Morris (Mary Dennison), William Roerick (Arthur Cooper), Michael Mark (Dr. Eric Zinthrop), Frank Gerstle (Les Hellman), and Bruno VeSota (Night Watchman) 

Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip, #2113 - The Undead, #2211 - The Intruder)

Review: 

Oh sure, a movie about a woman trying to deal with her fears of getting older in the eyes of the public by using strange substances. Wait, what year is this? Anyway, this was directed by Roger Corman in his fourth year as a director (which for him was two dozen movies in), complete with being among the first he made for his company The Filmgroup to help with distribution (read: trying to do productions without dealing with certain unions). The story was done by Kinta Zertuche (in her only screenplay, having served an assistant on Beast from Haunted Cave and Attack of the Giant Leeches) while the screenplay was done by Leo Gordon (the occasional writer of films such as The Cry Baby Killer to go along with acting). The movie (which lasts 66 minutes) is in the public domain, although there exists a version that was longer (73 minutes) because Corman asked Jack Hill to direct a few scenes for television a few years after the release of the film - the scene was an introduction to the Zinthrop character being fired for working on wasps instead of what he was assigned to do. In 1995, the movie was remade as a television production directed by Jim Wynorski with oversight from Corman (who saw a handful of his films remade in that era).

It is pretty unfortunate that the movie is not that great, because there sure seems to be a bit of potential to have made something really unnerving in the terror of trying to cope with aging. However, one basically gets The Fly (1958) crossed with The Wolfman but with very little tension zipped into a five-pound bag of corn. The body count is stretched pretty thin to go with little to really draw upon in suspense beyond watching the movie just for the sake of having nothing better to do (the film paired with it in double features was Beast from Haunted Cave, incidentally). This actually was the last movie for its star in Cabot, who appeared in a handful of Westerns and adventure movies (mostly in supporting roles) before doing work for Corman starting in 1957, with whom she appeared in six productions from Carnival Rock (1957) to this. Cabot did some stage work in the later years prior to her murder in 1986. It is a strange way to close a film career, wearing an odd little mask (with little place to breathe if dealing with vapors and a broken bottle) to go with spitting chocolate sauce onto people. But she expressed in later years that it was Corman who gave her "a great amount of freedom", so take that with a grain of salt. The peril presented by our lead is at least one that can be relatable: trying to survive the fear of being passed by in the sands of time. The rest of the cast is serviceable for a mostly quiet staging that doesn't really require too many sets or too much bombast. Even the wasp costume isn't that bad when you get down to it, mostly because with a bit more time or staging, you really could make something out of that unsettling mask in say, a metamorphosis rather than basically going with the "Wolfman" trick. It could've been so much more tragic but instead is just not quite enough to rise above "heh, I guess". As a whole, the general tragedy of chasing for victories of the superficial can only really work with a film committed to really striking somewhere in visual terror too. It is the kind of movie that I can't call good but will at least lend up as not being as bad as it sounds. When faced with little to do on a a weekend, this would be at least somewhat curious to look up.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

How to Make a Monster (1958).

Review #2274: How to Make a Monster.

Cast: 

Robert H. Harris (Pete Dumond), Gary Conway (Tony Mantell / the Teenage Frankenstein), Gary Clarke (Larry Drake / the Teenage Werewolf), Paul Brinegar (Rivero), Malcolm Atterbury (Security Guard Richards), Dennis Cross (Security Guard Monahan), Morris Ankrum (Police Capt. Hancock), Walter Reed (Detective Thompson), and Paul Maxwell (Jeffrey Clayton) Directed by Herbert L. Strock (#2097 - Blood of Dracula and #2098 - I Was a Teenage Frankenstein)

Review: 

It is pretty interesting to get to a film that is technically related to other movies. 1957 had seen the release of a handful of features dedicated to teenagers and monsters. It started with I Was a Teenage Werewolf, which came out in the summer before the release of I Was a Teenage Frankenstein and Blood of Dracula as a double feature in November 1957. Each one saw a teen turned into a monster due to the efforts of adults for some sort of weird purpose. Now, with this film (released in July of 1958) we have another film about monsters and nefarious purposes as directed by Herbert L. Strock, who had directed two of those aforementioned films. As was before with the other films, the screenplay was written by Herman Cohen and Aben Kandel while Cohen served as a producer. Supposedly, as claimed by Ed Wood, the film was a rip-off of a script he had sent to AIP (involving a killer actor), although the idea of Wood crying foul at a rip-off of his stuff is actually amusing to me. Strock would direct just three more features after this one, spending most of his time doing television along with editing and producing. The last couple of minutes, as one might have already seen from promotional stuff, does show some masks in color (the same trick as done in I Was a Teenage Frankenstein), which were designed by Paul Blaisdell for previous films such as It Conquered the World (1956), Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957), and The She-Creature (1956). Conway, who had played the title threat in the Frankenstein film, is the one other link to the films here, as done by American International Pictures.

Really this is just a backstage murder procedural that happens to have a lead-in that you'll get to see a few masks. One wonders just if Jack Pierce came to mind when it comes to the script or the performance of Harris for an underappreciated effects man as the lead character. It is the kind of movie that has a clear appreciation for cheap horror and the people who obsessed over the craft. It is amusing to see a justification of John Ashley (a sometimes regular at AIP) do a song as part of "the times changing", because AIP ended up doing their own music-themed films to go with chasing other trends. Anyway, here's a movie involving special makeup cream that can leave one to the power of suggestion while people are dressed up and you have a guy calling his masks his "children". Honestly, I dug it, particularly from Harris, who seems to be having quite the time in fruitful obsession that believes going from fired to murder is totally normal, and he sure sells that nuttiness on point. It is the portrait of a man in delusion of the starkest kind: their craft. Conway and Clarke might not get much to do beside be in makeup, but they make worthy puppets to sell the idea of being ready for suggestion. It is a bit funny to see the ones who get wrapped up as targets for the monsters, because one of them gets the boot mostly because they are too savvy in crime cliches. Trhe climax works out well for those who like to gawk for curiosity at masks and silly souped-up resolutions (the AIP way). In general, this is about on par for decent AIP entertainment in giving you what you expect: silly young folks, a few decent makeup shots, and a neat little climax. It exceeds those "Teenage" films on the basis of having the commitment to have a lead performance worth writing more than two bits about for solid average fare. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Terrifier 3.

Review #2273: Terrifier 3.

Cast: 

David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Lauren LaVera (Sienna Shaw), Elliot Fullam (Jonathan Shaw), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria "Vicky" Heyes), Margaret Anne Florence (Jessica), Bryce Johnson (Greg), Antonella Rose (Gabbie), Chris Jericho (Burke), Daniel Roebuck (Santa Claus), Tom Savini (a bystander), and Jason Patric (Michael Shaw) Directed by Damien Leone (#2271 - Terrifier, #2272 - Terrifier 2)

Review: 

“Yeah, I do set boundaries on myself. I would say there’s no subject matter that’s too taboo that I won’t tackle it, if I really feel it’s necessary to the story or something. But then if I decide to go in that direction, it’s my responsibility to execute it in a tolerable way and to see if I could still make it palatable somehow—because we could certainly make these scenes 10 times worse than they are. But then you’re really going to alienate everybody. And ultimately, I want this to be a fun experience for the audience, even though that’s—of course, taste is subjective and we’re clearly going beyond the boundaries of what some people feel is accessible, acceptable, and what their taste is.”

...I really should kick myself for not inquiring earlier about the Terrifier films. No, really, I should. These are films that Damien Leone clearly put his soul into when it comes to making clear-headed horror film that ended up far better than I expected them to be. The interest for these films is a hell of a thing to think about. Leone aimed to make sequels that would not simply just be gorefests for its mime clown killer but instead build on the weird journey that arises from having both gore and humor. Leone has stated countless times about the kind of curiosity that the films have generated for its fans, ones who really are "trying to find ways to deal with the horrors of reality". You don't always get horror sequels that increase their budget (apparently $2 million here) from before, but this is one of them, complete with deciding to be a Christmas-themed horror movie. It also begins with a cold open because Leone aimed to remind one quickly about the creep factor intended with this lead character right then and there from someone who has stated their appreciation for Black Christmas and Tales from the Crypt's "And All Through the House". The aim of gore and disgust for a certain type of audience was the perfect bait for me to watch on opening night, but I would like to personally thank Cinemark for having a "one-day only" double feature of the second film and this one so I could make up for my stupidity. A fourth film apparently is in development, so we shall see where that could go in gut-churners.

I wonder sometimes why I enjoy certain kinds of "depraved" movies. Mayhem is fun when you are ready for where it is going to go in terms of enthusiasm from the person behind the camera, and I think certain people go for these kinds of movies because they like it as a vessel of release from what they see in their own life. You could see garbage or flowers in the proverbial field of life, but you sure need something to deal with what you see day after day, and movies are quite the way to confront that itch. With Art the Clown, we have a guy who awakens after a five-year sleep to go right back to the craft of dedicated, equal-opportunity mayhem that seems to reflect the viewer when it comes to dedicating time to the craft. It is the kind of movie to inspire the same amount of wincing (if not more) when it comes to the execution of carnage in a 125-minute venture for relative curiosity. LaVera and Scaffidi are the key returning (speaking) people returning for this film, and each do a pretty useful job in showing the reflection of what it means to live in the shadow of terror (if one forgets, the second film ended with a birthing scene). One can either be chilling or resourceful when it comes to coping with seeing the face of their plight then and back and again, and each are committed to making those moments engage with the audience. This is an atmosphere of strange swords and possessions that I enjoyed seeing play out to the end for 125 minutes because it pushes that envelope just a bit further beyond having a Santa impersonator get their beard ripped off (think "bomb" and go from there). While it might not make as much of a splash as it would like when it comes to examining the after-events of terror, but it has enough energy to rise above say, an average 80s slasher (complete with Clint Howard showing up for whatever reason), and it is clear from its ending that no matter where it ultimately ends up, one probably won't be shortchanged. I do think there will be a fun debate over just which sequel is the standout feature (the second might be a smidge better). You don't get many sequels that seem to polish further on the previous venture, particularly since the second already polished what had come before in the first film. But here we are with a movie I enjoyed pretty well and look forward to getting around to again maybe a few years down the line when thinking back to gory yuletide stuff.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Terrifier 2.

Review #2272: Terrifier 2.

Cast: 

Lauren LaVera (Sienna Shaw), David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Elliott Fullam (Jonathan), Sarah Voigt (Barbara), Kailey Hyman (Brooke), Casey Hartnett (Allie), Charlie McElveen (Jeff), Amelie McLain (the Little Pale Girl), Johnath Davis (Ricky), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria Heyes), Leah Voysey (Clown Cafe TV host / Nurse), Chris Jericho (Burke), and Felissa Rose (Ms. Principe) Directed by Damien Leone (#2271 - Terrifier)

Review:

 “I’m trying to transcend the slasher genre and make something you really haven’t seen in a long time… We’re always trying to push it as far as we can and deliver the goods above and beyond everyone’s expectations.” 

Well, when you have a sequel, you go all out for it. When Damien Leone had envisioned a film involving the character of Art the Clown after filming his short film "The 9th Circle", it involved a character basically dressed up as an angel (with a plot outline that he described as "basically Rob Zombie's 31"). So, now here we are with a "heart and soul" for this feature film, which he wrote the first draft of the screenplay in 2019. While this film would have funding come from private investment, he did launch an Indiegogo campaign in order to do a practical effects sequence for $50,000 - it proceeded to make four times that. After a COVID-interrupted session of filming, the movie was finished in 2021 before release the following year. As before, Leone edited the film to go with writing/directing. There was enough demand for the film to be in theaters for more than a week, and it ended up making, well, millions of dollars. 

Honestly, some of the horror movies are enjoyable not so much for the level of terror or gore they show but for the curiosity they generate when it comes to "how did they do that?" Maybe it is a geeky thing, but really, that bedroom sequence is a fascinating one in execution when it comes to the mix of churn and execution that really does drive the imagination beyond the splatter (for those who like to read details, here). Sure, it can feel long at 138 minutes when it comes to trying to go through the whole gauntlet of its setup (particularly since it was built with a sequel in mind), but I had quite the treat with the movie specifically because it just has the energy of a madman that takes you on a ride worth rolling with. For a movie about an equal-opportunity killer clown, it sure the kind of experience that can raise up a chuckle at the strangest of times (I say "equal-opportunity" because yes, he is as violent to men and women on the same level when it comes to general skullduggery, whether that involves nibbling or using a gun). The first film felt like a demo reel of potential involving a few decent effects and a budget that looked like its budget (around the Roger Corman level but not derogatory) that I accepted for all of its average executions. The second is the logical extension of having time to really draw out a solid lead performance to go along with the already apparent talent in drawing curiosity in a mime that really can be scary (funny or otherwise). Oh, and the gore, but I'm sure you don't need me to sing too many praises about (mostly) practical effects (incidentally, it isn't that often one can watch a "Not Rated" movie). Leone had stated one of his regrets in the first place was in the lack of character development, and it is evident that LaVera is given a chance to really make something worthwhile beyond the usual "final" cliches. In that sense, she is engaging enough to follow along with in likable charm that doesn't fold (i.e. get overshadowed too much by the obvious) under the pressure. The rest of the cast is generally interesting enough to be set up for the inevitable trap (i.e. not particularly hateable). Maybe I'm just a nut, but there are actually a few darkly amusing moments within such commitment to gore, probably best represented with the nightmare sequence involving an attempt at building cheer before getting tommy gun'd to death. Of course, I can also cite the costume shop sequence in casual terror and amusement, because seeing silly glasses getting tried on wordlessly is hard to resist. While I can't really explain the "Little Pale Girl" particularly well, I will say that having a wordless "patty cake" in a laundromat while one tries to clean up is about all one might need to explain the strange qualities that come up for the moments ahead. Admittedly, the climax is a strange one to swallow when it comes to drawing out how to keep interest in a sequel and not go completely into doing a "slasher ending" bit, which here happen to involve, well, swords and body stuff (some "final girls" end up coping better than others, suffice to say). But I accept it because it was a neat ride that did not bump off the rails into safe-town, so on that note I can safely say it did what one wants most from a sequel: live up to the original and exceed it with fanfare. Terrifier 2 has an obvious target in mind: people who go for the gore and the craft that comes from it. It invites interest in a third film, so on that note...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Terrifier.

Review #2271: Terrifier.

Cast: 

Jenna Kanell (Tara), Samantha Scaffidi (Victoria), David Howard Thornton (Art the Clown), Catherine Corcoran (Dawn), Pooya Mohseni (the Cat Lady), Matt McAllister (Mike the Exterminator), Katie Maguire (Monica Brown), Gino Cafarelli (Steve), Cory Duval (the coroner), Michael Leavy (Will the Exterminator), and Erick Zamora (Ramone) Written and Directed by Damien Leone.

Review: 

"The main reason we put that violence in is that I wanted it to really stand out. Since I’m a special effects artist, I knew that was going to be one of our strong suits going into the movie. So just packing it with special effects and making them as graphic as possible, I knew that we would stand out. I wanted it to be as graphic and as grisly as possible. I knew people were going to leave the movie talking about the hacksaw scene. It’s so insane and graphic that you know people are going to talk about it. I just tried to put as many things like that in the movie as I could. Nowadays you don’t really have to worry about the rating board unless you’re in Hollywood, which is the one percent. No one is in Hollywood anymore.

Sure, even the indies should get the spotlight. Actually, I was interested in covering Terrifier because its sequel had actually made it onto my local theater two years ago. I didn't have enough time to look into Terrifier and I didn't want to look really dumb in just watching a sequel. So, here we are with making up for lost time. The concept of Art the Clown first came with a short film done in 2008 called "The 9th Circle" by Damien Leone, who had honed his craft as a special effects makeup artist after seeing a VHS tape (called Scream Greats) that covered effects done by Tom Savini and Rick Baker. His love of older slasher films (in particularly "the more graphic ones, the grittier, the more violent ones") influenced him in his pursuit to make a fresh and modern slasher, particularly with a clown. That film, along with another short film "Terrifier", were included as part of the direct-to-video anthology film All Hallows' Eve (2013), which had the framing device of a babysitter discovering some tapes involving the clown (as played by Mike Giannelli), as scripted and directed by Leone. He directed another video feature with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy in 2015, but Terrifier would become his first film to go out in theaters. He made an attempt to crowdfund a film involving Art the Clown (now played by David Howard Thornton when Giannelli retired from acting) on Indiegogo, which interested producer Phil Falcone enough to give them the remaining money needed to make the film. In addition to directing/writing, Leone also edited the movie. The movie was played mostly in festivals but picked up a limited release a few years later. The sequel received more funding (private and campaigning) that resulted in an a more substantial theater release in 2022. The third film is set to be released in theaters tonight.

The best credit that comes for a film like this is that for the money it was made, it sure was worth every penny. I will go on the record by saying that critiquing films as being some sort of "torture porn " is extremely disingenuous. The critique was incredibly stupid when hacks tried to apply it to the Saw series, and I sure as hell am not going to let it go unguarded just because a movie wants to rumble someone's stomach with what *horror* is. Yes, you can have your light, "suspenseful" movies get balanced out with films interested in brutality. You might say it is strange to put some defense for a movie that is really just "fine", but if you can't find a good argument for an average movie, what chance does one have when trying to cite the virtues of a truly great one? The atmosphere of grime that comes from such a small locale is fascinating to me, particularly when it is combined with a horrific threat that has to use pantomime to drive home the point of basically making a "greatest hits" slasher as a film. Sure, there isn't much to the characters (Leone has gone on record as regretting the lack of character development with the lead girl), but I don't find it too much of a big complaint mainly because of the pained delight I had with the film. Thornton is a quality mime that manages to make the art of collecting blood (and other things) onto that delightful suit come off with a dark amusement, at least to me (how does one see a scene where he decides to use a gun and decide, no, I hate this?). The saw sequence is particularly stark in its execution of, well, cutting down someone with certain patience. The climax in particular is quite unnerving to me when it comes to being distinct from the usual "final" survival and escape. I look forward to finding time to see the second film and maybe even the third one when it comes to tests of a certain type of extreme horror and having fun seeing the craft come to life.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Piranha (1978).

Review #2270: Piranha (1978).

Cast: 

Bradford Dillman (Paul Grogan), Heather Menzies (Maggie McKeown), Kevin McCarthy (Dr. Robert Hoak), Keenan Wynn (Jack), Dick Miller (Buck Gardner), Barbara Steele (Dr. Mengers), Belinda Balaski (Betsy), Melody Thomas Scott (Laura Dickinson), Bruce Gordon (Colonel Waxman), Barry Brown (Trooper), Paul Bartel (Dumont), and Shannon Collins (Suzie Grogan) Directed by Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch, #1744 - The Howling, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie)

Review: 

"We got a lot of bad comments about Piranha because we killed off all those summer campers and it wasn’t even the end of the movie, which was black humor then and kind of shocking. Today, I don’t think that would shock anybody. I think you are now dealing with an audience that is so much more sophisticated and aware of the cliches and tricks and tropes of the genre and you have to be on your toes in order to keep their interest."

Sure, any big film can inspire a few homages, and who better to get that through the line with Roger Corman? New World Pictures? Among other things, this was filmed around the same time as. Avalanche. Apparently, the budget for Piranha was reduced by $200,000 (essentially making it a production made for roughly under $700,000) prior to production in order to help give more resources to the disaster film Avalanche (which ended up being forgotten by audiences). The film had two credited writers: Richard Robinson and John Sayles. Sayles was brought in to re-write the film for its perceived failings as a script (according to one Dante interview, the original script showed a problem in getting people to actually get in the water). It was the first feature credit for Sayles, who had graduated from Williams College in the 1970s and quickly went to work writing articles and his own novel in Pride of the Bimbos before finding work with New World Pictures (one year after the release of this film, funds used from Corman paying Sayles to write scripts saw him direct/write Return of the Secaucus 7 on his way to a further career as writer/director, which included Dante's The Howling (1981). This was the second feature effort for director Joe Dante, who had gone from editing trailers for New World to co-directing Hollywood Boulevard (1976) with Allan Arkush. He went for the film when offered it as opposed to Rock 'n' Roll High School (1979), since Arkush expressed passion for wanting to do that. Dante would also co-edit Piranha, which he described as being extensive in his dedication to editing. The movie was released in August of 1978, nearly two months after Jaws 2. Apparently, Universal Pictures tried to file an injunction against the release of the film, but they dropped it when Steven Spielberg stated his approval of the film, one that he called "the best of the Jaws rip-offs". While the film was a relative success, Corman did not express interest in doing a sequel, but he sold the rights to people who were interested in doing so, which resulted in the 1982 US-Italian production of Piranha II: The Spawning, which had a young James Cameron for a film with only a hint of a cult audience. The original film has been remade twice, once for television in 1995 and the other with Piranha 3D, released in 2010 (which in turned had a sequel two years later).

There had been plenty of horror films involving killer creatures of the sea before, whether they tried to call themselves parodies such as Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961) or ecological threats such as Frogs (1972) or "Jaws ripoffs" such as Orca (coincidentally, Wynn was in that film, released in 1977). But Piranha makes its own mark in delight. It straddles the line between horror and amusement without straining itself in overwrought expression that can be credited to Dante and the company he had with him that wanted to make it more than just a "nature gone wild" movie. You don't really see that much of the piranhas in the film, but it has enthusiasm from a director who clearly grew up on Corman and monster movies and wanted to make one with as much fun as those (complete with name actor enjoyment from McCarthy, Wynn, and the always-on-point Miller). Dillman and Menzies prove to make an interesting pair together. I particularly like the haggard expressions that come from Dillman (amusingly, Dillman was picked because Peter Fonda rejected it because he wouldn't do the film unless it had good effects and it was taking too long). He just has the confidence to just roll with the lines given out involving little killer fish and being thrust into a conspiracy where maybe the real monsters are on the surface. Gordon and Steele provide quality presence in terms of scuzzy behavior on and off the surface, although Miller amuses the most in scuzzy nature for such a brief amount of screentime. The creature effects were done with a mix of mostly rubber piranhas (and some with a few metal teeth, as done by Phil Tippett, while Chris Walas and Rob Short did prosthetic limbs for biting. The movie could've just been a silly one with little commitment from its actors in creature features, but instead they managed to have one with energy, where even a little scene involving a stop motion creature (not a piranha) shows curiosity. The terror involving piranhas (who in real life have a varied diet beyond rare attacks on humans) is handled patiently for 95 minutes (I especially like the sound of the piranhas in their attacks) in carefully executed carnage and danger. The film serves as a representation of just what Dante has to offer in directing and moving around scenes with real belief present. It is a warm fun movie for the movie-lover in all of us that appreciate horror wherever they can find it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Coming up in the next few days: Terrifier, 50s stuff, 70s stuff, 10s stuff...

Saw III.

Review #2269: Saw III.

Cast: 

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer), Shawnee Smith (Amanda), Angus Macfadyen (Jeff), Bahar Soomekh (Lynn), Donnie Wahlberg (Eric Matthews), Dina Meyer (Kerry), Leigh Whannell (Adam), Mpho Koaho (Tim), Barry Flatman (Judge Halden), Lyriq Bent (Rigg), J. Larose (Troy), Debra Lynne McCabe (Danica), and Costas Mandylor (Forensic Hoffman) Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman (#2102 - Saw II)

Review: 

"The Saw films are not just gore films. They actually have a story underneath it, and a lot of times, a very complex story. "Saw III" is a much more complex film than the other two, dealing with back stories and relationships and flashbacks, and all this other kind of stuff, and I think you cross over and you get those people as well. I think that a lot of people can find something to grab onto and relate to in the "Saw" films. It's crazy though."

If you remember correctly, Saw II (2005) was a film that had molded from a spec script named "The Desperate" by Darren Lynn Bousman into something worth following up James Wan's Saw (2004), albeit with a few suggestions by Leigh Whannell. The success of the film had rumblings of a sequel, but the three were not particularly keen on doing it. Gregg Hoffman, who had produced both films, died a few months after the release of Saw II, and it was his death that had led to the group deciding make the film for him. Whannell wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Wan; this was the last of the series that they would write for, while Bousman returned to direct the fourth film and Spiral (2021). Evidently, the filmmakers aimed to do a sort of "father-daughter love story" between our two main focuses in Kramer and Young (as played by Bell and Smith). This intercuts with the last two films to go along with about three different plot threads, taking moments in-and-out with Wahlberg (as seen first in II), the story involving MacFayden, and the story involving Soomekh having her life connected to the life of Bell.

Ultimately, it tries to bite off more than it can chew in being both sequel and prequel to events that really, really, really needed focus. The time spent with Soomekh in order to set up how she is mixed in with Bell and Smith, actually has an interesting idea: keep him alive and you stay alive, because if you fail or try to run away, boom you go. This is cut in with a "test" involving MacFayden, who actually has his own kind of interesting idea: when confronted with people who you associate with the death of your son, will you let death come to them in these contraptions? (one involves dumping guts onto a chained guy unless you burn stuff, which is grossly cool). You may or may not guess where the ending might have everything come together...but man this is a mess. You have three (or counting the Wahlberg stuff as "interesting", four) interesting ideas for a film all being jumbled into a film that tries to retroactively play with what happened in the first two films (and let's not forget, this was done before Saw X decided to play itself between I and II). It doesn't help with the quick cuts (for a "dynamic feel"), which has somehow managed to irritate me the most here, particularly with its 108-minute runtime (there are other versions of the film by the way, such as a two-hour director's cut and an "unrated cut"). 

It might seem weird to dwell so much on its story, but the film doesn't have enough tension to get away with its attempts at tricks (complete with baiting for a sequel). The attempt at framing these films as one involving a man coping with his impending death by deciding to become a man of tests and lend that legacy onto a chosen one could be a fun one, but it seems more framed that way to make up for a lack of cohesiveness in every other department. The most interesting lead presence not named Bell was Carey Elwes, and that was two films ago. Sure, Bell is still a highlight (to go along with a spry Smith), and Soomekh is fine, but it is a very played out movie. It baits itself for a follow-up feature despite, well, *killing* off important people in it! You'd think with that little montage of images in the climax that one would be finito, but nope (judging by the sheer fact that there were four further Saw films in the next four years, one could guess that the wheels of trying to connect the films even further in "flashbacks" were on steroids). In conclusion, there are moments of interest within getting to see a few grisly traps, but it is clear that the series has continued to have diminishing returns in a middling swansong from its original creators.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Creepshow 2.

Review #2268: Creepshow 2.

Cast: 

Wraparound story: Domenick John (Billy), Tom Savini (The Creep), Joe Silver (The Creep voice), with the voices of Brian Noodt, Marc Stephan Delgatto, Jason Late, P.J. Morrison, and Clark Utterback.

"Old Chief Wood'nhead" segment: George Kennedy (Ray Spruce), Dorothy Lamour (Martha Spruce), Philip Dore (Curly), Frank Salsedo (Ben Whitemoon), Holt McCallany (Sam Whitemoon), David Holbrook (Vince “Fat Stuff” Gribbens), Don Harvey (Andy Cavanaugh), and Dan Kamin (Old Chief Wood'nhead)

"The Raft" segment: Paul Satterfield (Deke), Jeremy Green (Laverne), Daniel Beer (Randy), and Page Hannah (Rachel)

"The Hitchhiker" segment: Lois Chiles (Annie Lansing), David Beecroft (Annie's Lover), Tom Wright (The Hitchhiker), Richard Parks (George Lansing), Stephen King (Truck Driver), and Cheré Bryson (Woman at Accident)

Directed by Michael Gornick.

Review: 

Oh hey, remember Creepshow (1982)? That was the fun-as-hell anthology film (distributed by Warner Bros.) that had the 1-2 punch of George A. Romero directing five stories that had each been written by Stephen King. There were plenty of interesting shots in the film that aimed to capture the feel of comics such as Tales from the Crypt that had interested the minds of children (and made whiny complainers mad) in the 1950s. Five years after the general success of the film came a sequel that had Michael Gornick serve as director. In addition to being the cinematographer of five Romero features (such as Creepshow), he had directed a handful of episodes of the Romero-created Tales from the Darkside (1984-86) show; this is the only film directed by Gornick. Stephen King wrote an outline for the film that George A. Romero utilized to write the screenplay. Of course, because of a lessened budget for the sequel (reported to be half of the original, as distributed by New World Pictures), the plan for five stories instead became just three. "Pinfall" involved a rivalry between two bowling teams that turns deadly in more ways than one. Apparently, the story was adapted into a comic book of limited quantity in 2016. The other story, "The Cat from Hell" (a story written by King in 1977), would eventually find its way into filming as one of the segments for Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990), which if you remember was co-written by Romero. The movie was a mild hit with audiences. There was a Creepshow 3 (2006), but it is more "in name-only" than anything; a TV series based on the 1982 film (with two King stories adapted into episode form) came out in 2019.

This time around, there are a few wraparound segments (done in animation), such as the five-minute opening involving a delivery boy and "The Creep" (seen in live action for the intro and the final shot before the credits). I wanted to like this movie, but there is an underwhelming fashion to it all that reminds me more of lesser episodes of Tales from the Darkside than the fun times one had with Creepshow (there isn't anything as entertaining as say, Leslie Nielsen casually burying a man on the beach). It just doesn't have as much interesting things to really play in grand execution, seeming more a problem of middling acting and budget more than anything. In terms of "not quite great anthology", it probably matches more with The Vault of Horror (1973) than Tales from the Crypt (1972), which is to say is not a compliment. "Old Chief Wood'nhead" is somehow the longest story at 28 minutes, probably because it loves to stall for what it thinks is atmosphere for the beginning when it comes to setting up an old dying town and two leads in Kennedy and Lamour that is then interrupted by-oh you get the idea, something has to happen for a wooden Indian statue to matter. It is about as predictable as the gore that will arise from it, for better or worse. "The Raft", lasting roughly 20 minutes, was based on the King story of the same name (as published in 1982), albeit with a few small changes. It probably matches the best in terms of compact pacing with a useful enough terror to go with some silly teenagers getting nabbed. "The Hitchhiker", lasting roughly 24 minutes, is mostly a duet where one hangs inside a car and one hangs from it. Chiles and her casual nature of trying to cope with what is and what isn't real in that debate of culpability while one gets to hear "Thanks for the ride, lady!" again and again. The movie didn't really have that much steam to lose, anyway. The wraparound segments aren't even that satisfying after a while because really, what's the point of having Tom Savini under makeup anyway? The animation is mild and overall conclusion involving plants isn't even worth writing home about. In conclusion, there are plenty of things one can say about the movie that are "okay" or "mild", but the movie in total never particularly gels greatly enough in enough of its stories to really pull a punch. Being the sequel to a really fun anthology is no fun, managing to make the subsequent Tales from the Darkside film come off as being better handled is another matter. I can't call it a good movie because I know it will just fade from my head as quickly as it came in, which is a shame.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Walking Dead (1936).

Review #2267: The Walking Dead.

Cast: 

Boris Karloff (John Elman), Ricardo Cortez (Nolan), Edmund Gwenn (Dr. Beaumont), Marguerite Churchill (Nancy), Warren Hull (Jimmy), Barton MacLane (Loder), Henry O'Neill (Werner), Joseph King (Judge Shaw), Addison Richards (Prison Warden), and Paul Harvey (Blackstone) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca, #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, #529 - Mildred Pierce, #719 - Mystery of the Wax Museum, #1370 - Life with Father)

Review: 

Sure, of course Warner Bros. thought they could have some fun making a horror film. Sure, you can see the clear inspiration when it comes to having Boris Karloff star as a lumbering man back from the dead, particularly since this came out a year after Universal's Bride of Frankenstein (1935) ...but here it is arranged within the trappings of a gangster film. Of course, the obsession with trying to bring back people from a fate worse than a broken leg wasn't limited to the current day. The "perfusion pump", for example, is shown for a moment during the pivotal resurrection scene. This glass device was designed by Charles Lindbergh and Dr. Alexis Carrel to try and keep organs functioning outside of the body (the process can be explained better in articles such as this); Lindbergh wanted to find ways to help his sister-in-law, who had a bad heart. Labeled as a "mechanical heart" in some circles, Lindberg and Carrel were even featured on magazine covers for their invention (better ways of "organ perfusion" eventually came around in the next couple of years, naturally). In 1935, a film wad made called Life Returns, which featured the exploits of Dr. Robert E. Cornish, a biologist that had an interest in restoring life that tried using a teeterboard/see-saw to try and get the blood flowing of the dead...it technically worked, albeit not perfectly, on dogs (interestingly, the film didn't exactly get a great release). Incidentally, Karloff would star in two subsequent features in the following years dealing with resurrection with The Man They Could Not Hang (1939) and The Man with Nine Lives (1940), which took inspiration from Cornish. Evidently with this film, Karloff was slated with little dialogue to speak before he raised issue with said matter. Five people were given credit for the writing: Ewart Adamson, Peter Milne, Robert Hardy Andrews and Lillie Hayward wrote the screenplay, while Adamson and Joseph Fields wrote the story. The movie was directed by Michael Curtiz, a particularly busy director in the 1930s that had some experience in horror (among others in the 30+ films he did in the decade) with Doctor X (1932) and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).

Okay, you're going to love the way the "resurrected" man decides to handle being framed for murder. After he is brought back from being electrocuted, he seems to have developed a certain type of clot in his brain that gives him a strange knowledge of just who had framed him. Oh, but it gets better, he actually gets his revenge, in perhaps the most curious way possible. Of course, the film is pretty fast and loose at getting there with a 66-minute runtime. Karloff proves a quality knowing presence to unnerve the soul when it comes to second sight with select times to speak or just stare. The funny thing about this horror/crime feature is that there isn't really much of a villainous presence or even a ham actor. Gwenn might be the lead scientist presence, but it ends up coming off as just warm curiosity that is fine for someone with as much experience on stage and film as you'd expect from him (one can take a guess what film you would recognize that voice from). Churchill and Hull are serviceable enough when you consider that the rest of the folks don't have much to do besides being casually terrorized after the execution. Okay, so the array of deaths that happen in the film are done not by any one man but are actually a string of accidents that just happen to involve our lead character because of his "sense" of knowing who led to his death. Probably the most amusing is a guy nervous about who just stumbled in to confront him that decides to run only to encounter a train. The movie has plenty of shadows and fog to keep things looking ideal rather than just being a Frankenstein cheapie. In general, the movie is a quietly solid one, not rocking the boat too much in unnerving horror (the resurrection scene might be the most involving for the sheer execution of it, although the last scene is interesting) but generally working well with one's expectations. This is the kind of movie you can sense was made in a few weeks by professionals that came and went to get things done without too much fuss (five writers, but still) that will prove up to code.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.