Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Review #2309: Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Cast: 

Jeffrey Donovan (Jeffrey Patterson), Erica Leerhsen (Erica Geerson), Stephen Barker Turner (Stephen Ryan Parker), Kim Director (im Diamond), Tristine Skyler (Tristen Ryler), Lanny Flaherty (Sheriff Ronald Cravens), and Lauren Hulsey (Eileen Treacle) Directed by Joe Berlinger.

Review: 

"“My original intent was to make a comment on the dangers of blurring the lines between fiction and reality. Even I didn’t realize how prescient that idea is. We’ve never had more information available at our fingertips yet the truth has never been more elusive.”

Remember The Blair Witch Project? Sure, you probably enjoyed it when it came out 25 years ago in 1999. The film starts with people gushing about the phenomenon of the film and the interest of in how the website apparently really sold folks about the events that supposedly appeared in Burkittsville, Maryland (a town with less than 200 people) as a "documentary". Unfortunately, you are reading the words of someone who thought the original film was an overrated, over-hyped, under-produced fluke. Part of me thought about re-watching the first film before seeing the "sequel", particularly since it had been five years since I saw that film (and three since I saw the 2016 "whatever you want to call it" Blair Witch). But since I had an inkling that this was not going to be a particularly "good" experience, I didn't want to consider watching two mediocre movies back-to-back, so here we are with a curiosity. Artisan Entertainment, wanting to rush out a follow-up as quick as possible, went with Joe Berlinger to direct; he had gone to the studio to pitch a script to the studio that they were more interested in ignoring to instead approach him with scripts they had cobbled together about the Blair Witch (in found footage, again), which he rejected. Amusingly, Berlinger has been on record as saying that he thought the original film that was both effectively done by the filmmakers along with one that "aggravated" him because of its camera work (with relation to reality) along with its marketing hoax that made people really think they were watching a snuff film. At the time, he was noted for his work with Bruce Sinofsky in documentary filmmaking, such as their films chronicling "the West Memphis Three" with the Paradise Lost trilogy (1996-2011).  He co-wrote this film with Dick Beebe. After the film had been shot, Artisan decided, yes, let us change the "ambiguous psychological horror movie" they fast-racked into production to piggyback off the first film to impose more "commercial" elements to the film in post-production, such as seeing brief moments of gore or interrogation that occasionally pop up in the film (for the latter, it was meant to bookend the film as one whole video sequence); Berlinger has been quoted as saying that Artisan did not care for the idea of going for a "Hitchcock-ian" idea of seeing nothing with its violence because in the view of the executive (as quoted by Berlinger), "our audience can barely spell "Hitchcock." The result of spending $15 million was a movie that had a fair audience showing, albeit not one on the level of the original. Berlinger has continued to direct documentaries, although he did return to narrative films once more with Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019). There apparently exist efforts by online people to do an "Artisan Studio Removal Cut" for viewing if you know where to go.

Before I forget, apparently the "book of shadows" involves a witch's book of illusory incantations. That, and the film is a "fictionalized reenactment of events that occurred after the release of The Blair Witch Project [1999] (specifically November 1999)". That's one way to get moving for a film after it gushes about trips to Burkittsville (and TV pundits talking about the first movie like suckers), having a guy get a tube stuck up his nose. Obviously, this is so one can flash back to how things will eventually end up in the "conventional" narrative. It probably is not a great sign that the first 15 minutes has one interesting sight: Director, being first shown lying on a gravestone with a cigarette. The movie may say that people fear what they don't understand but the only thing people should fear here is that the original Blair Witch Project not only managed to trick people into believing the crap spewed out in "found footage" but that people actually thought they could make a follow-up that wasn't just as dumb as before. At least this time one isn't hearing "what was that?" while the camera gets shaken round and round like before...it just merely is a silly movie that has little to no suspense but at least has a narrative worth making fun of to go with some bloodshed, which at least is something tangible. The idea behind the film was yes, the characters we are to follow were the killers and also are blinded by hysteria when it comes to the aforementioned legend. The problem with that is ironically the same problem that happens with cruddy "traditional horror" movies and the aforementioned 1999 movie: I do not like these dorks that much. Director and her attempts at playing "Goth" is at least alluring in ways that Leerhsen just manages to come off as annoying (so anyway, ever heard of a "Wiccan"?). At least Flaherty is meant to be amusingly over-the-top. I shudder to think about the film really would be with the original intent of romp-gone-dour, but what you get is a movie that might as well be thrown up into a toilet. The ideas of trying to be "subversive" for a horror audience at least was handled with some sort of amusement in The Cabin in the Woods (2011; wow, I found a way to compliment that movie in less time than I ever expected). The movie doesnt work for much interest in "what horror fans want" because it doesn't have cohesion in actually making the trip worth shuddering over. All you get is a panicked feeling. As a whole, this compromised mess of a movie is amusing in its monumental mediocrity that shows ideas of interest but flails around just a bit too much (studio or otherwise) to be a worthy winner.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The sequel to Ring...well, the real one this time with Ring 2.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Review #2308: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (The Creation), Kenneth Branagh (Victor Frankenstein), Tom Hulce (Henry Clerval), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth Lavenza Frankenstein), Ian Holm (Baron Alphonse Frankenstein), John Cleese (Professor Waldman), Aidan Quinn (Captain Robert Walton), Richard Briers (Grandfather), Robert Hardy (Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (Justine Moritz), Celia Imrie (Mrs. Moritz), Cherie Lunghi (Caroline Frankenstein), and Ryan Smith (William Frankenstein) Directed by Kenneth Branagh (#041 - Thor)

Review: 

"Frankenstein feels like an ancient tale, the kind of traditional story that appears in many other forms. It appeals to something very primal, but it’s also about profound things, the very nature of life and death and birth—about, essentially, a man who is resisting the most irresistible fact of all, that we will be shuffling off this mortal coil. It was sent to me as I was rehearsing a production of Hamlet, and it seemed to me that the two things were linked. Hamlet and Victor Frankenstein are each obsessed with death. Hamlet’s whole story is a philosophical preparation for death; Victor’s is an intellectual refusal to accept it."

On November 4, 1994, audiences got their chance to see a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel that had seen a dozen (or so) films that cribbed from it since the 20th century began. You might remember that Francis Ford Coppola had spearheaded a production to make a lavish adaptation of a famous horror novel for which the result was the lavishly mediocre Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But one can't stop there as a producer, I suppose, as here we are looking at the other horror movie that had Coppola involved, albeit not as director; the source material, as one already might know, is the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The movie was originally written by Steph Lady prior to Coppola buying the rights to it; he planned to direct the film before deciding to ask Branagh to direct the film while also saying the importance of casting Robert De Niro as the Creature. At the time, Branagh was rehearsing a production of Hamlet and he perceived links between it and Frankenstein when it comes to the obsession with death (you can inquire about Branagh's mindset prior to the release of the film here, for example) You might remember that the Belfast-born Branagh had trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art before eventually becoming a director with Henry V (1989), the first of several adaptations of the work of William Shakespeare. Frank Darabont was brought in to do a second draft by Branagh. Audiences didn't really go out in droves as compared to the folks that saw Bram Stoker's Dracula (it wasn't a failure of course with its $45 million budget). Darabont later called it "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen", stating that Branagh was entirely to blame (or give credit to, if one liked the film) for what essentially became an "operatic attempt at filmmaking". According to Lady, his script was used by a friend who taught at a film school about when a good script is "in the hands of a bad director." The makeup from Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming at least earned attention, receiving an Academy Award nomination (and it certainly seemed deserving, the creature does look pretty good here).

There is something at work in one's soul to try and understand where it all went up for a monumental example of being forgotten. How do you manage to make a movie with such a noted actor like De Niro and not end up being thought of first or even second in Frankenstein-adjacent movies? How do you make a movie with loads of amniotic fluid and eels to go along with a deliberately phallic tube...and not have any great lasting appeal? Even the defenders of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) can point to the style of the film as a lasting legacy (I personally put the legacy in that stupid look of its title character, but your milage may vary), but this is merely a movie that seems to fall by the wayside even with two memorable actors trying to lead the way. Branagh was once quoted as not being able to resist having a scene involving re-creating Elizabeth despite its difference from the novel because "it seemed to make psychological sense", one that could be different from the "high camp" from the two James Whale films. This seems to be amusing because of how much he figuratively seems to eat the movie right from under De Niro, gallivanting as if this really was a show for the stage. In his attempts to mine tragedy in what essentially is a war of creation, you get a performance that is purely in the middle-ground that (unfairly or not) really does remind one of better days with Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. Maybe that is just the curse of doing a Frankenstein film that ends up having to do things that might remind you of one of the more famous adaptations because you just expect it, even if it tries to repulse you with the idea of something that could just be possible somewhere beyond imagination. De Niro actually does pretty well with his performance (apparently, he studied stroke victims when it came to finding the voice for the Creature), it just so happens that he falls upon the strange double-edged sword that comes with being such a noted presence in acting that may be a bit lost among the makeup and the aforementioned bombast behind him. But the sequence with him taking shelter within a barn and a downtrodden family that features him seeing and learning about people on some sort of level is still a worthwhile one to view as a highlight, particularly with the end result of a creature that now has its worldview confirmed of hatred surrounding its existence. The dangers of the obsession with trying to win the game of creation pulls handily with Carter for a confused performance that at least has one shining moment: right around the climax, the book and film get to collide with each other in having a would-be bride be interrupted by the Creature...only here she gets her heart ripped out (okay, there's a scene right after that too, but it is more fun to let one be only a little bit surprised by revealing only the obvious moment of interest). The rest of the actors are left to sway at the weird execution of a film that veers between melodrama and disturbing (poor Cleese doesn't get much time underneath that wig, but I appreciate the effort), which mostly means Hulce and Quinn are left on the wayside a bit. The 123-minute runtime is probably a bit too much to really hold things together for what the movie believes itself to be in great tragedy, but at least it does try to keep the foot on the pedal of frantic filmmaking, for better or worse. Processing the film ended up where I liked the movie just enough. I don't know about calling it "profound" in being disturbing, but it is fairly entertaining even in profound averageness, so I suppose that is better than nothing. Highly ambitious even with its ultimate short-sighted execution, you might find something worth watching for a film that now can celebrate a third decade of anniversary. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Blair Witch 2.

The Curse of the Werewolf.

Review #2307: The Curse of the Werewolf.

Cast: 

Clifford Evans (Don Alfredo Corledo), Oliver Reed (Leon Corledo; Justin Walters as Young Leon Corledo), Yvonne Romain (servant girl; Loraine Carvana as young servant girl), Catherine Feller (Christina Fernando), Anthony Dawson (Marques Siniestro), Josephine Llewelyn (Marquesa Siniestro), Richard Wordsworth (Beggar), Hira Talfrey (Teresa), John Gabriel (Priest), Warren Mitchell (Pepe Valiente), and Anne Blake (Rosa Valiente)

Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula [1958], #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles [1959], #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula, #2096 - The Mummy [1959], #2263 - Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell)

Review: 

I figure that you need at least one werewolf movie every so often to remind oneself about how fresh werewolf tales are for films, since the first few came out in the 1910s before the first definivite one came with Universal's Werewolf of London (1935). Hammer ended up making just one werewolf film. Anthony Hinds produced and wrote the screenplay for this film, which cites the novel The Werewolf of Paris (as written by Guy Endore in 1941, having already co-written film scripts such as 1935's Mark of the Vampire and Mad Love), which happens to have its own interesting idea about werewolves: a person born in awful circumstances, which differs from book to film: the book featured a baby born on Christmas Eve after the rape of a girl by a priest hat is set around the time of the Franco-Prussian War (1870), while the film depicts a servant girl raped by a beggar born on Christmas Day that is set in 18th century Spain. The sets were done at Bray Studios that took the place of their intended use for a "Spanish Inquisition" film that did not go forward due to objections (probably doesn't help the working title was "The Rape of Sabena"). It is the first werewolf film in color. The movie was directed by the same filmmaker that had directed Hammer to success with The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Dracula (1958) and The Mummy (1959) in Terence Fisher, although the result was not nearly as successful, mostly because of censors that saw the movie trimmed down (to one with barely any attacks, apparently). Legend of the Werewolf, as made by Tyburn Film Productions in 1975 as an attempt to serve as a successor to Hammer, was written by Hinds, with inspiration taken from the Endore novel (without credit given to Endore this time around).

So, you get a movie depicting the war between one's "soul" and "spirit" that basically has a guy cursed from the very moment he is born...and a film that doesn't really show its wolf for about an hour into its 90-minute runtime. You basically have three threads loosely connected into each other for a movie that is clearly not Hammer's best film but might be up your alley in terms of mediocre fun. It has less use of the makeup (as designed by Roy Ashton that might remind one of Jack Pierce's work on The Wolf Man) that you might expect to go with a fairly decent look to it all in cinematography for a movie that basically goes all in on the idea of trying to confront the terror of werewolves with love, with bleak results. One basically has three plot outlines to go through in succession that sort of tie together: the story of a beggar and his eventual descent into ravaging (after a drawn-out scene of a Marques), the birth and growing up of young Leon (complete with "dreams") and then Leon in adulthood seeing love and lust collide. It is a strange way to collude things together. This was the first leading role for Reed, who had appeared in a number of bit parts since the mid-1950s, which included appearances in Hammer's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960) and Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960). He may not get as much time to grab the screen, but he ends up being the highlight of the film anyway, portraying the inner war of spirit and soul with worthwhile timing to make for suspenseful interest. The clash of what makes up a man when confronted with love and lust in a burgeoning adulthood is at least something worth thinking of beyond just labeling it as just a Lon Chaney impersonation. It pretty much overshadows Evans, who is fine if not exactly remarkable (Welshmen playing a "Don Alfredo" is not as silly as it could be). Feller is adequate for a role that doesn't even give her a final shot at the end. Dawson and his scene-chewing in such a short time will be hit or miss for some, but I'm totally fine with it in terms of unsettling strangeness in a land not too strange to us. The movie works just enough for those with the patience to go with its variation on the tragic figure in the werewolf that has a worthwhile performance to lead the way and make things at least end on a solemn note worth noting. As a whole, the movie doesn't compare greatly with the prior work of Fisher, but for a film that has some interesting conflict once it gets good (at least when the censors weren't busy), it might prove enough to win out in the end, depending on one's patience for the overall construction that comes out here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: 30 years later, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Review #2306: The Hills Have Eyes (1977).

Cast: 

Martin Speer (Doug Wood), Susan Lanier (Brenda Carter), Robert Houston (Bobby Carter), Brenda Marinoff (Baby Katy Wood), Virginia Vincent (Ethel Carter), Dee Wallace (Lynne Wood), Russ Grieve (Big Bob Carter), Cordy Clark (Mama), Janus Blythe (Ruby), Michael Berryman (Pluto), James Whitworth (Papa Jupiter), Lance Gordon (Mars), Peter Locke (Mercury), and John Steadman (Fred) Written and Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left)

Review: 

"It soon became clear that I wasn't going to do anything else unless it was scary."

Sure, sometimes you just get pegged into a corner. Wes Craven was just looking to find a film to direct after the release of The Last House on the Left (1972), which generated controversy and shock from the people (read: a few losers among the bunch) you would expect. He tried writing scripts with Sean S. Cunningham (with decidedly non-horror tones), but they couldn't attract financial funding. Even trying to do a take on the "Hansel and Gretel" fairy tale didn't go for much. Craven took the advice of his friend Peter Locke to go out to the deserts in Nevada and just go make a film, particularly since Locke was interested to do an exploitation film. In trying to not just do another House of the Left, Craven took inspiration from the legend of Sawney Bean, who apparently was the head of a large clan in 16th century Scotland that murdered and ate over a thousand people in a quarter-century that eventually saw them captured and executed. Films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (as directed by Tobe Hooper three years prior) and The Grapes of Wrath (1940) also have been stated to have played influence on this film (Craven once stated that his original script was to take place in the fall of 1984). After the film was released (to considerable success), Craven next went into television with Stranger in Our House (1978) before his next feature in Deadly Blessing (1981). In 1985, a sequel was made on the cheap with The Hills Have Eyes Part II by Craven (featuring Berryman and Blythe returning) that basically died in limited theaters that he later dis-owned. The 1995 HBO film Mind Ripper was apparently written originally with the idea to be a third Hills film (as co-written by Craven's son Jonathan) before that was changed prior to production, which was produced by the Cravens. A remake of the film was done in 2006 that saw Craven serve as a co-producer before it was followed by a sequel that saw it written by the Cravens.

Admittedly, the experience of the film probably does depend on when you see it. Craven also served as editor on this film (much like his previous film) and he clearly had an intent in mind with horror on the frontier. There is a rage that comes out in what you see from the two families in the film that aren't exactly as different as one might like to think about (one is a cannibal, but sure). Whitworth and Berryman (who actually was born with a condition where he has no sweat glands) probably stand out among the cannibals when it comes to unnerving presence that unsettles you from time to time, possibly because stumbling onto terror (one that can't be reasoned with in "normal timing") that could get you and just leave you there in the middle of nowhere is an unsettling one to consider. The effectiveness of the other side is in watching their degradation in terms of adjustment from the cheery family nature to abject terror (probably around the moment where one of them is crucified) in the 89-minute runtime is handled with commitment by the actors, mostly with Speer (incidentally, Wallace would be the one to get plenty more horror work in the next few years, while Houston became an Academy Award-winning documentarian). Consider Grieve in an early scene talking about his former job in such a "particular" way for a former cop about people. It is a fairly creepy movie that moves along with its abject creeping nature with worthwhile timing that hangs on every little weird note possible. The plight of survival is a horrific one when civilization isn't so easy to find out there and violence isn't just on the sidelines to hear about but instead is in your face. The ending (the true one, not the alternative one that ends with an epilogue of Ruby and the others) is a stark one worth highlighting when it comes to the final progression of revenge in savagery that lets it coat over the audience in its abruptness. As a whole, it is a smidge better than his first effort as a filmmaker in terms of execution with its visceral power for atmospheric entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Next up: The Curse of the Werewolf

Madhouse (1974)

Review #2305: Madhouse.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Paul Toombes), Peter Cushing (Herbert Flay), Adrienne Corri (Faye Carstairs Flay), Robert Quarry (Oliver Quayle), Natasha Pyne (Julia Wilson), Michael Parkinson (T.V. Interviewer), Linda Hayden (Elizabeth Peters), Barry Dennen (Gerry Blount), Ellis Dale (Alfred Peters), Catherine Willmer (Louise Peters), and John Garrie (Inspector Harper) Directed by Jim Clark.

Review: 

As it turned out, this was the final film that Vincent Price appeared in for the illustrious (interpret the word all you want) American International Pictures. He had appeared in over a dozen of their film productions since House of Usher (1960). Price (then by his sixties) wasn't exactly left without work of course; he just merely didn't do as many films as he did with his regular appearances on television in the remainder of his career. This was a co-production between AIP and Amicus Productions (as founded by Max Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky). The movie is loosely based on the novel Devilday by Angus Hall; development had started in 1970 when AIP purchased the novel rights. Robert Fuest (the guy behind those Dr. Phibes films that had Price) was at one point tapped to direct but nothing came of it. Jim Clark was recruited to direct, having previously done The Christmas Tree (1966), Every Home Should Have One (1970), and Rentadick [1972]). Greg Morrison's script was apparently bad enough that Price wanted re-writes, which led to Ken Levison doing revisions while they were shooting the film (Robert Quarry supposedly did re-writes for a chunk of dialogue as well). Referring to the finished film as "stillborn" (one that had re-edits imposed by Subotsky, who was disliked by Price just as much as he disliked Arkoff). Clark never directed a feature again, although his contributions to films such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) ended up being his legacy to go along with editing, which included the Academy Award-winning work in Marathon Man (1976) and The Killing Fields (1984); Clark died at the age of 84 in 2016.

You'd think there would be something a bit more there with a film mentioning "special participation" by recently departed actors (Basil Rathbone and Boris Karloff had worked with Price on some of those AIP films, and it was Samuel Z. Arkoff who insisted the clips be included in the film by any means necessary). It is a fairly decent movie that just happens to pale in comparison to the real pinnacle of Price and his theatricality in Theatre of Blood (1973). You will find a few interesting things here involving carefully-constructed horror that is at least semi-amusing. Cushing and Price had appeared in two earlier films but hadn't shared any scenes together prior to this film (with Scream and Scream Again and the Phibes sequel); they starred in one more film with House of the Long Shadows [1983]. They have some fun together, most notably with the climax that tries to make sense of the actual killer (the idea of a would-be actor being the age of Cushing, then in his sixties, is probably a bit too out there, but the forgiving type won't be too hard on it). Price might not have been big on AIP (he was quoted by Clark as referring to Arkoff and company as a word that rhymes with "mocksucker"), but he still gives it his best try anyway. You get a bit of fake "backstage filmmaking" action to go with a middling procedural (which reminds me a bit of Strait-Jacket) that has him stumble onto being interviewed by an actual interviewer in Parkinson for a chuckle. Corri is at least semi-effective in weird eerie timing that I appreciate, which is more than one can say for some of the supporting people that basically aren't given much to do anyway (Quarry included). The movie is incredibly predictable (just who could it be when you think of name actors?) but is bolstered by at least having a useful "Dr. Death" getup and some amusing moments to perhaps be enough for 91 minutes of an evening. Mild farewells for films that remind one of the old films are better than no farewells at all. People who like Price films might not have a great one on their hands here, but it at least is something that can be watched without having too many moments of embarrassment to see play out.

Overall, I give 7 out of 10 stars.

For Halloween: The Week After VI: one year later for a Wes Craven film, The Hills Have Eyes.

Phantom of the Paradise.

Review #2304: Phantom of the Paradise.

Cast: 

Paul Williams (Swan / singing voice of the Phantom), William Finley (Winslow Leach / the Phantom), George Memmoli (Arnold Philbin), Gerrit Graham (Beef; Raymond Louis Kennedy as singing voice), Jessica Harper (Phoenix), Mary Margaret Amato (Swan's groupie), Janis Eve Lynn (a groupie), Cheryl Smith (a groupie), with Archie Hahn, Jeffrey Comanor & Harold Oblong (the Juicy Fruits / the Beach Bums / the Undeads), and Rod Serling (the introductory voice) Written and Directed by Brian De Palma (#801 - Mission: Impossible, #1230 - Carrie, #1471 - Scarface, #2139 - Sisters)

Review: 

"I've always thought rock and horror were very close stylistically. I felt I had a solution in combining two separate audiences. Obviously, I didn't."

In 1974, when Halloween night became November morning, a movie came out with elements borrowed from a variety of literary sources from Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera to Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray to the famed Faust legend that was directed by Brian De Palma. You might remember that he had just scored a pretty decent hit with Sisters (1972), his sixth feature film but first with considerable attention. Interestingly, the root for making the film was De Palma hearing a Beatles song in an elevator played as "muzak" to go along with experiences trying to pitch material to indifferent executives and an idea from his friends (Mark Stone and John Weiser) about a "Phantom of the Fillmore"; De Palma wrote the film, although apparently Louisa Rose (his co-writer for the aforementioned Sisters film contributed, but the original screenplay just lists De Palma). Apparently, it was a chance meeting of De Palma with Williams at A&M Records while the former was trying to raise money for the film that led to the casting seen in the film because of his particular "look". This was the first major role for Paul Williams, who previously appeared in minor roles such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) while becoming a noted professional songwriter, most notably writing the lyrics to songs such as "We've Only Just Begun" to go along with being a regular on the TV circuit. The movie was independently financed (with funding from real estate guy Gustave Berne, who actually was a co-producer on Theatre of Blood), but it found a place at 20th Century Fox because of producer Edward Pressman, who sold the film to the one who happened to bid the highest. The movie was a flop at the time of release, even with such promising ideas from Fox to have costume parties held at its big-city premieres (it was apparently on Halloween night, after all; Pressman has stated that the promotions focused more on the music and specifically Williams were ineffective for the film and he later did his own promotion of the film as "horror phantasy"). However, viewers in Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada), they apparently loved it enough for the movie to be screened for several weeks (okay, Paris apparently was cool with the film, but Movie Night loves the city of Winnipeg far more than the country of France; besides, one came up with "Phantompalooza"). Well, there was one considerable influence the film had: music duo Daft Punk apparently cited the film as their foundation point as a favorite of theirs. The next film for De Palma would be Obsession (1976), which would end up as a decent hit before he made some film about teenage revenge.

Musical, comedy, horror, it's a delight depending on what genre you're looking for (for those questioning its place in the latter category, call it the horrors of selling one's soul and get back to me). If you appreciate films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975; emphasis on "you", because I sure didn't), it surely will have an electrifying effect for its viewer in enjoyable glam-like rock and acid-tongue humor for a particular industry that happens to have a game cast. De Palma really believed even in 1969 (as per production note research) that rock and horror were merging with the growing success of the Rolling Stones and Alice Cooper and thus a film should be done in the rock world beyond concert films, and I think I see where he was going with that vision for a movie that is delirious and rapid in execution. It is a broad movie where you feel every beat and every style; one critic called it an "elaborate disaster", and I fail to see how that was meant to be criticism; it's a movie about people sealing deals in blood, what do you expect?. True to form, Williams really does pull off the standout performance as both composer and actor for this film, managing to be conniving in the great double-act that can be both soul-sucking and darkly amusing. Finlay makes for a worthwhile tragic figure, robbed of his soul and his livelihood to the point where he is figuratively bound to a person with devastating results. Graham provides great amusement in his interpretation of glam rock (he may not get to provide his own vocals, but he sure moved like he did them) in great theatricality to go along with support from Memmoli and a young Harper. The film is electrifying and actually pretty funny in its look on the music industry and the exploitative horrors that come with art that is prey to big business (note the changing band played by the same people that starts and close the film), and that includes the women that are seen exploited in certain ways (take note of the auditions) as well. It is a demented and worthwhile film that may very well become even more interesting to look upon in rewatches, which is quite the compliment for the true mix of horror-comedy-musical you would hope for anytime and anywhere.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Now then, we enter a tradition that I enjoy making up so November can start off well, with the last five Novembers seeing: Dracula [1979] (2019), Revenge of the Creature (Part II, 2020), Halloween Kills (Part 3, 2021) The Cat and the Canary (4.0, 2022), and Lifeforce (Year Five, 2023). 

For Halloween: The Week After VI, let's go with Madhouse tomorrow night.

Braindead.

Review #2303: Braindead.

Cast: 

Timothy Balme (Lionel Cosgrove), Diana Peñalver (Paquita María Sánchez), Elizabeth Moody (Vera Cosgrove; Elizabeth Brimilcombe as Zombie Vera), Ian Watkin (Uncle Les), Brenda Kendall (Nurse McTavish), Stuart Devenie (Father McGruder; Stephen Papps as Zombie McGruder), Jed Brophy (Void), Murray Keane (Scroat), and Glenis Levestam (Nora Matheson) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste, #1507 - Heavenly Creatures, #1540 - King Kong (2005), #2259 - Meet the Feebles)

Review: 

"The film is basically like a theatrical farce in many ways. Lionel ends up with a problem of having all these zombies in his house, without wanting anyone else to find out about it ...every possible thing that could go wrong, does go wrong."

Well, one needs guts or laughs every now and then. Peter Jackson had actually met Fran Walsh and Stephen Sinclair while in the midst of preparing the short-film-turned-feature debut Bad Taste (1987). Eventually, after the release of his next film Meet the Feebles (as co-written by the group for release in 1989), it finally came to pass with the three doing a script together. Jackson stated his goal of making "a splatter film that non splatter fans can go see", one that freely aimed for cheap laughs because of his liking for comedy and a general interest to entertain people. Made for roughly $3 million over the course of eleven weeks, the movie wasn't an initial hit with audiences (New Zealand is not exactly a populous place), but it eventually grew a reputation for its gore while keeping Jackson on the steady path of filmmaking, as evidenced by his next feature being the biodrama Heavenly Creatures just two years later (Walsh co-wrote that film while Sinclair went on to write, uh, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [2002] and Russian Snark [2010]). The film runs at 104 minutes, although in its original release it had a few cuts away from its native New Zealand (due to its similarity in title to a film called Brain Dead, the States called it "Dead Alive" for release). 

What, a horror movie that is funny even with plenty of gore? You don't say. This is a warmhearted solid movie that happens to involve a "Sumatran" rat monkey and zombie descendants. You've got an embalmer that shows up for one scene for us to find out he wears a swastika underneath his stuff. You've got a reverend that kicks ass for the Lord. You've got a special-effects laden baby of disgusting nature. And most of all, you've got a climax that ends with plenty of blood and a big mother of a final confrontation that just lets the film end right then and there. It basically runs as a soap opera (set in 1957 complete with an old shot of the New Zealand flag right then and there) and plays everything over-the-top to eager worthiness. The effects were crafted by Bob McCarron and Richard Taylor to go with some miniature work by Jackson, and the blood apparently came from maple syrup, red food coloring and some other strange substance. This was the first film appearance for Balme, who still goes around talking about how enjoyable the experience was in filmmaking. He is tasked with making for a goofy dork that we can follow along with even in the madcap hilarity that arises in a silly performance that in some ways would've been right at home with the familiar slapstick times that happens to handle a heavy lawnmower, although most might also say the baby sequence is just as peak in amusement (you just have to see it to get it). Peñalver plays well in goofy warmth that plays to some of the expectations imposed in reactive timing when the situation requires it, whether that involves the meet-cute (after "foreshadowing" in fortune telling) or the eventual reunion that might as well be a scream-union. Moody is delightful in caustic timing that is quite amusing to play off Balme even when it comes to just being a voice (hence Brimilcombe) after a while, with the lunch sequence being particularly gnarly to play out in casual gutty timing. In a sea of movies with attempts at trying to top each other in effects or films they believe are the genre-savvy film for its generation, sometimes you need something to remind you of what real craftsmanship looks like. As a whole, it is the splatter movie for the entertainer at heart, clearly moving on its own terms in manic energy and glee in entrapping its viewer for a movie that straddles itself onto farce with worthwhile commitment and execution in every scene. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Closing up the October part of the schedule with Phantom of the Paradise.

The Cabin in the Woods.

Review #2302: The Cabin in the Woods.

Cast: 

Kristen Connolly (Dana Polk), Chris Hemsworth (Curt Vaughan), Anna Hutchison (Jules Louden), Fran Kranz (Marty Mikalski), Jesse Williams (Holden McCrea), Richard Jenkins (Gary Sitterson), Bradley Whitford (Steve Hadley), Brian White (Daniel Truman), Amy Acker (Wendy Lin), Sigourney Weaver (The Director), and Tim de Zarn (Mordecai) Directed by Drew Goddard.

Review:

" I’m going to leave that to others to decide. If subversion comes along, so be it. I just love that we’re throwing the ultimate horror party. And really, we’re telling stories about why we tell stories, with what the characters go through. That’s the nature of creation."

Well, it was bound to happen someday. Drew Goddard started off as a production assistant before eventually becoming a staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002-03), which you might remember was created by Joss Whedon. Goddard wrote his first film screenplay with Cloverfield (2008). The movie came out from a desire of Goddard to work with Whedon on something, which went from brainstorming an outline to eventually getting down to writing a first draft in the span of three days. According to Whedon, he envisioned the film as one that would be a "serious critique of what we love and don't about horror movies", one that would have what they liked in being scared along with making light of what they didn't care for recently while Goddard once called it as "more a critique of society" in posing the question about why one feels the need to marginalize youth on screen. The movie was originally slated for release by MGM...in 2009. Financial difficulties with the studio eventually led to it being released by Lionsgate years later (it was first screened in 2011 before release in March of 2012). Based on a promo campaign that pushed for as little spoiling as possible, the film was a fair hit with audiences. Goddard has continued to write in television and film (while directing once more with Bad Times at the El Royale [2018]).

Sure, maybe there is a worthwhile metaphor worth holding up for this film. Sure, maybe this is your ideal horror movie for its era that holds up well in an era of references and other things. But man, I really, really did not care that much for this movie as much as other people seem to vaunt it as a cult classic, particularly with its ending. In trying to make a "loving hate letter" to the horror genre, all I found that doesn't even have a payoff on the levels of Scream (1996). In trying to present that the monster is basically interchangeable, all I got out of that was a movie that is exhausting more than clever. The acting tries to have people play both "character" and the "archetype" to decidedly mixed results, because if you're going to play homage and parody with the slasher, you better have something charming brewing beyond Kranz being the standout. Get it? Our five guys to follow up (spoiler: not actually five) are not actually the cliches you think they are but are still pretty one-note anyway? Get it? Call me crazy, but you know what was more fun? Watching the strange charm of seeing Jenkins and Whitford together basically watching the build-up for people dying because, and I say this sincerely, they actually are funny. They may reflect the viewer when it comes to viewing our leads and waiting for things to play out (or in an amusing moment, watching them scoff at the failure of a certain horror scenario play out) but honestly, I would probably rather watch them play out for the whole film. Of course, perhaps I am not the kind of person to really understand "meta" or whatever but consider that some have seen plenty of horror films that actually let you think about its cliches and don't come off as exhausting. The Deadly Spawn (1983) wasn't much more than its effects sequences, but I was more interested in where it was going to end up in its house-bound locale than here with its attempts at playing on the joke (it also didn't have an ending that made me roll my eyes). Hell, Shaun of the Dead (2004) just shut up and rode its romcomzombie foundation for a consistent ride that commented on the old stuff but actually was worth its stuff in the elements. But, well, I can at least say it isn't on the level of The Blair Witch Project (1999) in being overrated? You want horror movies with "meaning"? Then give me something worth its salt to actually hold up beyond essentially chuckling at itself. Time will surely give credit to this film for its playing with the tropes of horror, but I'm not going to lose any sleep in calling it average. It has a few interesting moments in curiosity in actual violence, specifically a moment of release to build-up the actual reveal, and it sometimes is funny when it comes to looking at them beyond cliches. But as a whole, it manages to overwhelm and underwhelm itself in misplaced ideas about horror and youth for overall execution that makes it just average in the long run. Go into the film with as little expectations or knowledge as possible and see for yourself, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: two better horror movies with elements of humor, and the first is Braindead.

Strait-Jacket.

Review #2301: Strait-Jacket.

Cast: 

Joan Crawford (Lucy Harbin), Diane Baker (Carol Cutler), Leif Erickson (Bill Cutler), Howard St. John (Raymond Fields), John Anthony Hayes (Michael Fields), Rochelle Hudson (Emily Cutler), George Kennedy (Leo Krause), Edith Atwater (Mrs. Allison Fields), and Mitchell Cox (Dr. Anderson) Produced and Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow, #2261 - Macabre, #2300 - Homicidal)

Review: 

Sure, William Castle got to reap the benefits of making a movie that seemed a bit familiar to Psycho (1960), which you might remember was a loose adaptation of the famed Robert Bloch novel. Bloch had just finished his first screenplays with 1962's The Couch (where he worked off a story that had been devised by Blake Edwards and Owen Crump) and The Cabinet of Caligari (which had its own litany of troubles). So anyway, here is a movie written by Bloch directed by Castle. Oh, but this one has a gimmick far more noted than buzzers and skeletons: it has the same star from What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) in established stars dipping in suspense: Joan Crawford (cast after Joan Blondell, star of, well, not Baby Jane, dropped out somehow). Crawford, if you remember correctly, had a hell of a time with her final decade in filmmaking, which resulted in a good deal of horror movies that come with casting old familiar names, which saw her career close out in film with I Saw What You Did (1965, re-uniting with Castle), Berserk! (1967), and, well, Trog (1970). Crawford had enough influence to make sure that Anne Helm (apparently nervous being cast opposite Crawford) was quickly replaced with Baker before rewarding the production with commitment in promoting the film (this went with a plastic ax giveaway of course). As for Bloch and Castle, the two worked together once again in The Night Walker, which came out the same year involving a different accomplished actress in the main role (Barbara Stanwyck) in his first film away not distributed by Columbia Pictures after five years (his last seven films were either distributed by Universal or Paramount); Bloch would soon work in collaboration with Amicus Productions on a regular basis, most notably doing six film scripts from 1965 to 1972.

The body-count is five, although two come for the prologue that just gives you a quick rundown of one person's solution to adultery way back when: the ax. How could I resist? Sure, Crawford may have been stuck playing for scripts that weren't exactly Mildred Pierce, but there is never a moment where you find her looking like it is beneath her talent to give commitment (and yes that includes the scene where they give her a wig to make her look years younger, but would you really think Crawford was in her late fifties with this?). Audiences did flock to the film despite such devastating critiques that called the movie "inexcusable for its scenes of violence" (seriously, did people just watch horror movies with blinders back then). It's very amusing to see a movie past and future Academy Award winners (Crawford and Kennedy, respectively) mixed in with a PR vice president for Pepsi in Cox (Crawford was a board member, incidentally) for a movie that goofs around with axe-murdering (Homicidal had a stabbing early, this one has fake heads chopped off with a sound effect that would be fun to guess about). Crawford is enjoyably on point for a film that relies on commitment to really make it work in vulnerability among a returning member of society and in family. She never looks foolish or makes one think they are wasting their time in seeing her play horror, and Baker clearly is game to match with her in reasoned timing that goes along with the rest of the seasoned cast. I like the bubbling tension in just what is going on in what you expect for a movie about nuts and axs and what you end up with in passive sadness in adjustment, albeit one that is undoubtedly a Castle film through and through (hokey is not a mean word when you like it). Strangely enough, the one thing that bugs me about the film is the exact last scene of it all, because it really doesn't need a tight-winded explanation of what you saw (hey, let it play out), it could've just ended right as that twist crashes into you; apparently, it was Crawford who "suggested" that scene be in the film to end it all. As a whole, I think it actually is a neat film, managing to get a worthwhile performance from Crawford in gnashing the screen that makes for a capable Castle experience.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Special Announcement: For the second straight year, you get to enjoy a Halloween Triple-Threat Spectacular: The Cabin in the Woods goes first.

Homicidal.

Review #2300: Homicidal.

Cast: 

Glenn Corbett (Karl), Patricia Breslin (Miriam Webster), Joan Marshall (Emily), Eugenie Leontovich (Helga), Alan Bunce (Dr. Jonas), Richard Rust (Jim Nesbitt), James Westerfield (Mr. Adrims), Gilbert Green (Lieutenant Miller), Wolfe Barzell (Olie), Jean Arless (Warren), and Hope Summers (Mrs. Adrims) Produced and Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow, #2261 - Macabre)

Review: 

You remember that William Castle had bet on himself with Macabre (1958) in promotional gambits wrapped in spooky horror. He followed it with films that continued the trend with worthwhile success with the following year with House on Haunted Hill and The Tingler. He kept it going with 13 Ghosts (1960) before putting his sights on two films for 1961, with the other being Mr. Sardonicus. Homicidal was written by Robb White in his fifth and final collaboration with Castle. Admittedly, Castle is just as much a presence here as the people are for the film, complete with him being in the introductory sequence that leads right to a needle-point title card (and of course, the buildup to the end). Yes, the film does have a special fright break, placed just before the climax that actually counts down for 45 seconds. One could simply leave the movie and get their money back if they were "too frightened". Of course, the response to the question you might have (why not hide and then see it a second time before leaving at the end?) was thought of by Castle too: a "Coward's Corner" and certificate of one being a chicken. With Castle delivering his style of promotion that involved travelling around from area to area to help promote his film by talking to people (he apparently would sometimes stand in the lobby of a theater showing the movie in order to discuss the movie with people who just saw it), it was no surprise that the film was a relative success at the time of release for Columbia Pictures (the distributor for Castle's films from 1959 to 1964). 

Sure, it may invite comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960) in the loosest of senses when it comes to twist endings and a certain type of buildup with carefully spread-out body-counts (both films have a kill count of two and even more coincidentally, Hitchcock had been interested in making Psycho after seeing the success of House on Haunted Hill on its low budget). It is the kind of craftsmanship that delivers exactly what you would want in macabre enjoyment that leaves one mostly pleased for 87 minutes. Sure, its opening sequence and closing outweigh the elements for the middle section, but it rolls along in relative comfort. Marshall was a fairly a regular presence on television but as it turned out, this was her first and only big role (complete with using a stage name for some reason) for a film prior to her death at the age of 61 in 1992. Once you realize the extent of what she has to do for the film (involving makeup because of her successful audition), you see a pretty neat performance to carry the movie along with examining the troubles of an unbalanced self. She is a strange egg from the first time we see her before she even gets into the amusing phony marriage bit, which probably delivers the best stunner of the whole film where she takes a kiss from the justice of the peace and promptly stabs him before waltzing out in the middle of the night. Breslin and Corbett don't exactly have much to really do to stand out among the bubbling schlock, but even solid normalcy is welcome when you wait patiently. Leontovich actually was more known in the theatre for her acting, playwrighting and teaching, with this just being her sixth (and last) film role, one in which she doesn't utter a sentence. She still does well regardless in capturing fear when matched against Marshall in that fine art of taunting tension that is closed out with the other cheeky moment of the film: seeing the body in the distance only to have the head pop out down the stairs. For those who like familiarity with a showman at the helm to deliver a few interesting moments in an era where the surface was only starting to get chillier and murkier. Regardless of how one regards Castle as a filmmaker, he sure made you take notice in his best day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Willard (2003).

Review #2299: Willard (2003).

Cast: 

Crispin Glover (Willard Stiles), R. Lee Ermey (Frank Martin), Laura Elena Harring (Cathryn), Jackie Burroughs (Henrietta Stiles), Kimberly Patton (Barbara Leach), and William S. Taylor (Joseph Garter) Directed by Glen Morgan.

Review: 

Remember Willard? You know, the movie about rats. In 1971, Bruce Davison had starred in the film loosely based on the 1968 novel Ratman's Notebooks by Stephen Gilbert, with Daniel Mann serving as director. It had quite the quartet (Sondra Locke, Elsa Lanchester, and Ernest Borgnine) to make for a movie that I wish I remembered better than the one time I saw it about seven years ago (I didn't even bother watching the "follow-up" 1972 film Ben, which has a title song that is played here). But I eventually figured I would reach this film, mostly because I assumed Crispin Glover would be a worthwhile lead presence in terms of oddball nature that I could lock away for a future time. Anyway, the film (which isn't exactly a remake since it elects to go with an ending distinct from both the original film and the book) was directed by first-time feature director Glen Morgan, who some might know best from his writing on select episodes of The X-Files. The movie wasn't a big success with audiences, but Morgan did direct again...with a remake of Black Christmas (2006).

It probably is a reflection of my hazy memory of the original, but this second rendition of Willard manages to justify its existence with a solid lead performance to go along with worthwhile timing in unsettling moments and even a bit of humor for a neat average movie. It won't rank up there as one of the great re-adaptations, because one can only go so far with a psychological portrait of a man hollowed out enough to enjoy rats with such a familiar structure (incidentally, this film features Davison...as a portrait on the wall). Granted, knowing the structure is kind of amusing for me when you get introduced to Ermey as a man of the rat race (pun intended) that gets to chew out our hollowed lead. Glover just seems to nail this role from the get-go in a way that is unnerving in the fact in the little things that come out that remind us of ourselves (of course, most of us have not cobbled rat-related books like Glover, who reworked the 1896 book Studies in the Art of Rat Catching for a collage book). This is a character that has been thoroughly hollowed out by authority around him that we can't help but feel sorry for, even if just a tiny bit when it comes to trying to make a place with something that he doesn't hate in his lonely state. His energy is infectious and fascinating to see play off the other members of the ensemble. Ermey is devilishly excellent in a role he seemingly could play in his sleep in rough demeanor, albeit one that makes me chuckle (in one scene, he is shown looking up dirty pictures). He makes the perfect foil in pushing, pushing, and more pushing when it comes to grinding people down until, well, you already can guess. Harring proves fine in those moments matched up with Glover in awkwardness while Burroughs gets to grind away in brief hamming of scenery (no one can beat Lanchester, but still). The rats here are mildly spooky, but I think you know that others will have their own reaction to creature features where it can't be whisked away so easily. The open-ended nature of its ending is quizzical enough to close the film on a worthwhile note, rewarding those who liked the journey set by Glover in creepy energetic nature and prefer a remake that just goes for solid creeps and mostly hits it. Sure, creature features don't always win in the scare department, but with an unnerving portrait of a man hollowed to all but rats in the world played to exquisite execution by Glover, you might have the right movie to watch one strange night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Bubba Ho-Tep.

Review #2298: Bubba Ho-Tep.

Cast: 

Bruce Campbell (Elvis Presley / Sebastian Haff), Ossie Davis (John F. "Jack" Kennedy), Ella Joyce (The Nurse), Heidi Marnhout (Callie Thomas), Bob Ivy (Bubba Ho-Tep), Larry Pennell (Kemosabe), Daniel Roebuck (Hearse Driver), and Reggie Bannister (Rest Home Administrator) Directed by Don Coscarelli (#1459 - Phantasm)

Review: 

"You know what? Bruce’s fans have always known he’s a great actor. Everybody in Hollywood just sees him has this clownish character. But here he gets to be really subtle. His best moments in this film are not showy at all, they are simple. And you can almost hear his fans think: I knew he was a great actor! I knew it! I’m glad that the film also appeals to his fans. Because it’s a story about age and death and friendship. It might apply more to someone in their forties or fifties or sixties. But to have the Evil Dead fans enjoying it, brings me so much satisfaction. "

In 1994, Joe R. Lansdale wrote a novella involving a not quite-dead Elvis Presley living out the end of his days in a Texas resting home...at least if a mummy has anything to say about it. Of course, that novella was weird enough to fit right in for an anthology collection (called "The King is Dead"), although most stories don't generally involve a growth being found around a certain male body part in detail. Around that time, he had been interested in working with Don Coscarelli (an optioning of his story "Dead in the West" went nowhere). Folks might remember him as the director behind the first four Phantasm films, with Bubba Ho-Tep being his first non-Phantasm film since Survival Quest (1989). Coscarelli was recommended by Sam Raimi to approach Bruce Campbell about doing a film together, and while it took a few years to get around to filming. Coscarelli wrote the screenplay that came mostly from Lansdale's novella, which had merely alluded to how Elvis switched places with an impersonator. The movie was shot at the Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Hospital in Downey, California to go along with effects provided by KNB EFX. The resulting movie (one that basically had no problem with the dialogue except for just who would narrate it, which eventually went to Campbell) received a limited distribution on the roadshow circuit (as toured by the director with the over three dozen prints struck of the film). While the film did not exactly inspire "Bubba Nosferatu: Curse of the She-Vampires" that you can see teased at the end credits (namely because Campbell had some issues with Coscarelli's ideas, which apparently intended to have Paul Giamatti play Colonel Tom Parker), the film has a fair cult following two decades since its release. Coscarelli returned to directing features with John Dies at the End (2012) while Lansdale wrote another Bubba story with Bubba and the Cosmic Bloodsuckers in 2017.

Sure, you go right for the title when it comes to wondering about the movie, it just stands right out. Aside from the casual interest in wondering just what lurks beyond the obvious in a mummy and an Elvis caricature, there are a few fun moments to have in the neat kind of shaggy comedy-horror movies. It casually moves along for 92 minutes for a mummy movie that goes with the most ideal target for a lumbering ancient being (that gets a cheeky explanation for where it came from: lost during a museum tour): old people that nobody will suspect to be sucked out of their life at a nursing home. Coscarelli took great care to make a film where our hero is not merely fodder for cheap jokes but instead is someone that we believe is the real deal in magnetic old glory that lives on just as much as the image people hold of Elvis in his prime. Campbell really delivered when it mattered most in pathos, pure and simple. Davis apparently was keen on the script enough to overrule his agent and express interest (Coscarelli had Mick Garris write a letter on his behalf asking Davis himself). He lends a charming dignity to the proceedings that has clear chemistry with Campbell and even a few moments to engage in humor (as one does when playing on JFK conspiracies and kooky explanations for claiming to be not dead and also dyed). The peril that comes with aging is knowing that the regrets will pop in our old minds just as much as the memories we tried to make in what we called our glory days. Some people get to live out their days in a blaze of choices and others sit there to rot in ways I can't imagine, and the film dwells in the company of aging goes well with the snappy dialogue that comes through (narration or otherwise) in mummy confrontation, codger style. The climax is poignant enough to deliver what you would expect from its surroundings that benefits its audience and sends them remembering that all really can be well in the end. It is straight to the point in offbeat entertainment that has a few chuckles and a worthwhile duo going along with the material on its face to deliver a movie worth popping in one night on the strength of its worthwhile reputation over the past two decades.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Earth vs. the Spider.

Review #2297: Earth vs. the Spider.

Cast: 

Ed Kemmer (Mr. Kingman), June Kenney (Carol Flynn), Eugene Persson (Mike Simpson), Gene Roth (Sheriff Cagle), Hal Torey (Mr. Simpson), June Jocelyn (Mrs. Flynn), Mickey Finn (Sam Haskel), Sally Fraser (Mrs. Helen Kingman), and Troy Patterson (Joe) Directed by Bert I. Gordon (#929 - Tormented)

Review: 

Okay, so it has been a while since I covered a Bert I. Gordon movie (seven years, in fact). Gordon was a filmmaker for over three decades, specializing mostly in effects-based features of varying quality. He served as a co-producer on Serpent Island (as directed by Tom Gries in 1954) before becoming a true director with King Dinosaur (1955). He added effects to his foray with his 1957 trio of films that started with Beginning of the End (1957). The following year, he directed three more films with War of the Colossal Beast (1958), Attack of the Puppet People (1958), and this one; amusingly, both films are mentioned in the film as part of a double feature here for a film that is sometimes referred to as just "The Spider" (I'm going with the title that takes me back to Earth vs. the Flying Saucers [1956]). This actually was among Gordon's last to go big (pun intended) on effects until Village of the Giants in 1965; it was also the fourth film of his with distribution by American International Pictures, but he stopped his association with the company due to money issues he had with them until the 1970s. The movie was written by László Görög and George Worthing Yates, each of whom had done their share of horror scripts (the former did The Mole People [1956] and the latter did the story for Them! [1954] along with five total film scripts for Gordon). 

Admittedly, it had only been three years since that other movie about spiders with Jack Arnold's Tarantula (1955). Earth vs. the Spider proves quite the chuckler, particularly since it just goes on a quick start in someone running right into the spider right then and there. In fact, the movie doesn't even play with the whole "finding out the creature is real beyond all doubt" (except for one grouchy sheriff played by Roth, who I should mention *sees the spider himself*) or even wonder how the big spider is, well, aa big spider, it just is there making noise (don't ask if spiders sound like that). This is a being that can take plenty of DDT (ask your grandpa) that only seems to knock it out temporarily before the power of rock-and-roll music (yes, you see a spider in your gym, and it means it's a *swell* time to rock!) bring it right back up again. I especially like that the spider leaves skeletons with no missing bones for folks to discover in caves, since the spider likes to chew flesh like it was cheese of the pizza. At least of the two lead actors were under the age of 25 when they made this film involving teenagers, and while the script sure has them lend themselves to plenty of silly stuff (surely, I must go into this cave to get a bracelet back that my dead parent gave me, also he happens to be in the cave because of that deadly spider thing), they aren't exactly grimacing in being stick with this film. The effects are about a notch above, say, The Giant Claw, for better or worse (Paul Blaisdell apparently made a giant spider leg to use for the film). One has to love that after the plan to simply cave-in the big ugly goes by the wayside, their next plan is to simply electrocute them with the use of power lines that ends up with the monster then falling onto stalagmites...and then they dynamite another cave-in. As a whole, it is cheesy and one-dimensional in a predictable but somewhat comforting way. You expect a silly monster movie with a title like that and you pretty much get exactly what you expect with a hokey mess here.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mad Magician

Review #2296: The Mad Magician.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Don Gallico / Gallico the Great), Mary Murphy (Karen Lee), Eva Gabor (Claire Ormond), John Emery (The Great Rinaldi), Donald Randolph (Ross Ormond), Lenita Lane (Alice Prentiss), Patrick O'Neal (Police Detective Lt. Alan Bruce), and Jay Novello (Frank Prentiss) Directed by John Brahm.

Review:

Sure, you might have heard of a 1950s horror film with "3D Thrills" starring Vincent Price...with House of Wax (1953). Columbia Pictures wanted to join in on the fun of 3D and employed the sane producer (Bryan Foy) and the same writer from that film in Crane Wilbur, who had gone from acting in the silent era to writing in his own right, which started with the 1922 play The Monster (which itself was turned into a film in 1925); he wrote (and directed) for a variety of genres from noir to horror, which included The Amazing Mr. X (1948). This was the second of three films with Wilbur and Price, with the next one being The Bat (1959). Up until that point, Price was getting lagged in noirs and adventure films, albeit not so much as the leading man (let's just put aside that first contribution to horror with The Invisible Man Returns at the very early part of his career in 1940). But Magician was the second of the eventual run that would come from Price in horror by the time the decade was over. This was directed by John Brahm as he was winding down his directing career. The German-born actor-turned-director had left his native country with the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s, eventually seeing him settle in America. He was a steady director for three decades (he directed the second remake of The Lodger) before adding television to his repetoire in the 1950s (he directed 12 episodes of The Twilight Zone, perhaps most famously starting with "Time Enough at Last"); he directed four features after Magician, with Hot Rods to Hell (1967) being his last prior to his death in 1982 at the age of 89.

Loosely set around the 1890s, what we have is a decent movie that isn't quite at the level of future Price films in devilish interest for what kind of madcap stuff could happen next, but he at least manages to make things work in a cut-rate 73-minute feature. Anyway, here's the gambit: a wannabee magician finds that the only way to get out of people trying to stop him from performing finds that murder is a handy tool. You do get to see a bit of stage magic when it comes to winding up how one would accomplish the act of severed heads or incineration for a curious audience. The plot is a bit out there, made clearest with the landlord character played by Lane, who just happens to be a writer for murder mysteries that surely won't come to play. The disguise parts (yes, in addition to would-be magic making, he also does disguises) is also pretty amusing. The body-count is more about what is implied in gruesomeness than actually seen (just your average stuff like having a head sawn off, death by strangling, and incineration), but it moves at a leisurely pace that leaves the viewer willing to accept at least some of its maneuvering. Price makes for a maniacally useful showman that we can follow with up to a point when it comes to genre-savvy viewers that like to see him play opposite a few weirdos and do-gooders in the mix. Murphy and O'Neal may be ordinary (fingerprint curiosity from the latter notwithstanding), but an average film with quiet faces besides the one we inquire to see is serviceable, while Gabor-Emery-Randolph make for quality fall-guys in such short time (take note of the fact that Price likes to impersonate the latter a few times when it comes to doing stuff). The climax is about on part with Wax the most, but it ultimately is serviceable enough to provide some average charm that might prove worth it for those who've been to the well of films of its ilk, genre, star, or otherwise. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961).

Review #2295: The Pit and the Pendulum (1961).

Cast:

Vincent Price (Nicholas / Sebastian Medina), John Kerr (Francis Barnard), Barbara Steele (Elizabeth), Luana Anders (Catherine Medina), Antony Carbone (Doctor Leon), Patrick Westwood (Maximillian), and Lynette Bernay (Maria) 

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, #2275 - The Wasp Woman)

Review: 

"I had a lot of theories I was working with when I did the Poe films... One of my theories was that these stories were created out of the unconscious mind of Poe, and the unconscious mind never really sees reality, so until The Tomb of Ligeia, we never showed the real world. In Pit, John Kerr arrived in a carriage against an ocean background, which I felt was more representative of the unconscious."

Well, when you get one successful movie based on the Poe stories, who not another? House of Usher (1960) and this film share the same screenwriter (Richard Matheson), the same cinematographer (Floyd Crosby), the same set designer (Daniel Haller) and even the same lead actor (Price). Apparently, one plan to follow up Usher was to adapt "The Masque of the Red Death", but either Corman or Samuel Z. Arkoff decided that the 1842 story "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Poe would be better to adapt next (Corman claimed that making Masque would inspire comparisons to The Seventh Seal [1957]); it wasn't exactly set in stone to make a series of Poe films yet, it just so happened that the first was a hell of surprise in being a hit that they thought they could another one. The original story was merely a brief tale involving the Spanish Inquisition that involved a razor pendulum and eventually a contraption involving moving red-hot walls, which made it a tough one to crack for adaptation at first. Matheson reflected on the fact that he basically imposed an "old suspense mystery" in an attempt to do Poe. A prologue was shot for TV that sometimes is included for home media releases to view. The next film in the Poe cycle would be the unusual one of the group in The Premature Burial (1962), which originally started out as a non-AIP venture in financing (before soon becoming one, although Ray Milland was the star). Matheson didn't write that film, but he did write for the next two Corman-Poe films with Tales of Terror (1962) and The Raven (1963).

Admittedly, one probably does have an early sense of familiarity watching this any time after doing so with Usher, since both start with someone going up to a foreboding place involving a doomed Price and a doomed lady. But if you know Corman well enough, you know that he had the spark to make a worthwhile venture when everything comes up his way in execution for 80 minutes. He may have had 15 days to shoot the film, but he makes the film look like it came out of the woodwork with no trouble at all, one that shows his craftsmanship and his imagination in perpetuating his ideas of Poe and the unconscious mind. As spearheaded by Haller, the film utilized a handful of discarded pieces of sets (such as archways and stone wall units) for its look that looks dazzling in unnerving enjoyment. I'm not quite sure which is better among Usher or Pendulum, but one would be forgiven for just going along with the ride when it comes to a seminal actor like Price to lead the way. One can wonder just how to describe how good Price is when you've seen him in plenty of horror movies, but he has that certain type of talent that means one never seems to see him phone it in just for the sake of it all. His descent into madness is our descent because of how lurid everything looks and feels to us. I can't help but smile when the film kicks into the climax in delightful terror, probably because there is something befitting in smiling at what otherwise is a scary prospect: torture-traps and looping into old traumas by manipulation. The fact that the torture device looks spooky enough to actually look dangerous helps to really bring it all together for a movie that could've just as easily weltered with such a specific amount of people to focus on (five, really). Kerr may be ordinary, but he at least is steady enough to keep things Steele may not have much to do, but she does prove a worthy conniving match with Anders when it comes to strange bedfellows, particularly when it comes to that final rundown and shot. In totality, it is a delightful movie, making a worthwhile addition to the horror tradition that plays loosely with the Poe story in the best way possible for one's mind to look with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.