Hardware.

Review #2620: Hardware (1990).

Cast: 

Dylan McDermott (Moses "Hard Mo" Baxter), Stacey Travis (Jill), John Lynch (Shades), Iggy Pop (Angry Bob), Carl McCoy (Nomad / Zone Tripper), William Hootkins (Lincoln Wineberg Jr), with Mark Northover (Alvy), Paul McKenzie (Vernon), and Lemmy (Water Taxi Driver) Directed by Richard Stanley.

Review: 

I suppose it was eventually time to encounter a Richard Stanley movie, so why not go with his first one? Born in South Africa in the era of what he called a "police state", he was interested in filmmaking from a young age and studied at Cape Town Film School. When he was a teenager in school, he made a short film called "Incidents in an Expanding Universe" that was set in a dystopia that provided some steps into what became Hardware. He moved to London in his twenties and did work directing music videos before traveling to Afghanistan to document the Soviet-Afghan War (specifically by joining a guerrilla Muslim faction) that saw him see plenty of danger for him and his camera man. With Hardware, it came out of the process of wanting to actually get one of his scripts made that happened to take comments into account for what people "wanted", which namely ranged from a chainsaw to a fire stunt that saw him apparently write it in a week (he later stated that he was in a "pretty hellacious frame of mind at the time"). The film was shot in an abandoned place called the Roundhouse in east London (with the opening in Morocco) and ultimately found a place of distribution with Miramax. Even with cuts made to dance around an X rating, the movie was a mild hit (on its reported budget of over $1 million) and Stanley directed three further features over the next few decades, most notably with Color Out of Space (2019). Stanley kept busy, of course, writing various unproduced screenplays (one of which apparently being "Hardware II") along with directing a documentary on the life and times of Otto Rahn. 

Red skies, bills involving clean breaks with procreation, and a world seen and heard through a screen, it's a future not all that distant from what we wish to tell ourselves, as if "stupid, sadistic, and suicidal" actually could be a mantra. Is it a familiar type of "cyberpunk"? Maybe. Is it a familiar type of slasher? Probably. Is it still my kind of movie to at least give credit to? Oh you bet. Around the time of release, Fleetway Comics sued the filmmakers for plagiarism because of perceived similarities between the film and "SHOK!", a 1981 short story (as written by Steve MacManus and Kevin O'Neill) that had appeared in a spin-off publication of 2000 AD; as with Hardware, both happen to involve the remains of a droid from a devastated zone getting into the hands into a sculptress that re-assembles and traps her in her place (one goes for body heat, one is weak to moisture). Whether having inspiration from Soylent Green, the novel Damnation Alley, or with Saturn 3, I had plenty of interest in actually seeing the movie because of the dreary charm that comes through in a world where there just isn't anything to really latch onto for hope besides just aiming to drive out the noise. It's the illusion that there even is a fight worth having when a killer robot is just going to grind you away (in packaged fascism) that is probably more fit now in our rusty times. McDermott and Travis have their own differing way of interacting with the world of sludge that sees them engage in, well, passion (as seen by a delightfully disgusting Hootkins) before it gives way to a monster flick. I think I enjoy it more within its latter half of the 94 minute runtime when it gets to the cruel showcase of mayhem, ranging from a pervert viewing a real bug-eyed presence to a solution drenched in moisture and actual futility. As a whole, Hardware is bleak, unsettling, familiar, and the kind of movie fit for all times in the decayed corners of a world going down the tubes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Welcome to Halloween: The Week After - Crazy Eights. All the way to November 7, we will be clearing the road with horror movies that I couldn't quite get to in October and hopefully have some fun with it. But first, let's take a tiny detour in curiosity with the next movie:

Bordello of Blood

Ravenous (1999).

Review #2619: Ravenous.

Cast: 

Guy Pearce (Captain John Boyd), Robert Carlyle (F.W. Colqhoun / Colonel Ives), David Arquette (Private Cleaves), Jeremy Davies (Private Toffler), Jeffrey Jones (Colonel Hart), John Spencer (General Slauson), Stephen Spinella (Major Knox), Neal McDonough (Private Reich), Joseph Runningfox (George), Sheila Tousey (Martha), and Bill Brochtrup (Lindus) Directed by Antonia Bird.

Review: 

"Ravenous’ is more about social misfits than the whole seductive nature of power. I would like to think that someone who enjoyed it only as gallows humor would start to think. The metaphor of power and a society where we’re encouraged to be competitive is, to me, not a great society. As a European, observing early Californian history and making a film about that — I kind of believe Europeans were responsible for a lot of stuff that happened here. Robert Carlyle’s character represents that. The Europeans practiced genocide. I think the good things about America — we’re (Europeans) not responsible for.”

A long time ago, in a frontier not too far far away, there were people in this world that came out of a travelling party with survival coming by the one thing you could not expect, at least if you believe what survives in historical fact. Alfred Packer claimed that he survived a number of days on roots within a brutal wilderness of what was not quite the state of Colorado in the winter of 1874. Aside from being a petty thief, Packer was not exactly a consistent man with his stories of survival, so it perhaps came as the tiniest bit of surprise that it wasn't so much a man making a tall tale of survival to cover a robbery but instead a claim that he survived on the bones of his party members (to say nothing of the Donner Party from three decades prior, where a group of pioneers saw 30+ people perish and a few bones missing along the way). Anyway, Ted Griffin was a first-time screenwriter that had graduated Colgate University. All of a sudden, Ravenous was one of three screenplays that got sold to a studio in a week, with Fox 2000 slating a director with Milcho Manchevski (director of Before the Rain [1994]) by 1997. Shooting was done in Mexico alongside Slovakia that saw production squabbles between its producer and Machevski to the point where an attempted replacing with Raja Gosnell went nowhere. Antonia Bird was brought in to direct because of the recommendation of her business partner, Robert Carlyle. Bird was involved in theatre from the age of 17 with Coventry Rep and directed a total of four films (Priest [1994], Mad Love [1995], Face [1997]) alongside the various TV and theatre involved as both producer and director. She did not get everything she wanted for the finished film, as post-production saw a voiceover included alongside the quotes you see in the introduction (i.e: "He who fights the monster must make sure not to become a monster."- Friedrich Nietzsche is then followed with "Eat me!"- Anonymous) that she felt was "superfluous". Even with a budget of $12 million and an initial release in over a thousand theaters, Ravenous was not a hit at the time of release. 

This ended up being Bird's last feature film as a director, as she spent the rest of her time as a TV director until her death in 2013 at the age of 62. Such a pity for a movie with interest in the intensities of competitiveness. What Bird saw the movie as was the perils of consumption and all that comes with a focus on two people that happen be the embodiment of drug pusher and junkie (in a sea of folktale movies, going with a version of the Wendigo myth from native Algonquian folklore is pretty interesting). It isn't exactly a fight for survival in the woods type of movie, it isn't exactly a fight for revenge, it isn't exactly the kind of movie for everyone...and it is still pretty damn fun. It's the type of movie to absorb in all the absurdities and pleasures that come with its atmosphere and tremendously game cast that remind you as many times as possible that one really should eat to live as opposed to living to eat when it comes to horror and pitch-black humor (did I mention the off-kilter playing of music in banjos, violins and more from Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman?). This is the kind of movie that does wonder about people who maybe see others as mere meat slabs. Pearce is given a pretty thankless task if you want to play devil's advocate: a weary junkie with nowhere to actually run. It isn't a road to seeing him becone a hero, it is a road of actually knowing what one is beyond a string of meat and desires, where one must see if they can actually atone with all that they did. Undeniably, Carlyle runs away with the show with his devilish qualities worth seeing as basically a vampire, one that believes it is more courageous to walk with him than to walk against him. He plays around with who he is to others around him with a type of confidence that could only come from someone who really has lived the tricks of the trade and decided he liked the taste too much to let it go. The body count actually is a bit considerable despite the careful pace (in fact, you might be more squeamish about seeing meat than blood, save for one scene), and Jones* manages to play off the general absurdity of his situation in wayward elegance for a few chuckles (McDonough is not in it much, hut his intensity is worth a look). It is a movie filled ominous delight over what happens when power truly does seep into the flesh and the inevitable crash of junkie and dealer in lyrical darkness that is actually pretty fun. It takes plenty of time to get there among flesh, blood, and the stark terror of the frontier, but the ride is worth it at least once, I believe. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy Halloween. Hell of a time for a triple header, we will see you later for Halloween -The Week After: Crazy Eights.

*I would be remiss not to mention that Jones would later be charged in 2002 for crimes involving a minor involving posing for photographs that saw him sentenced to probation and become registered as a sex offender for life.

Basket Case.

Review #2618: Basket Case.

Cast: 

Kevin Van Hentenryck (Duane Bradley and Belial Bradley), Terri Susan Smith (Sharon), Beverly Bonner (Casey), Robert Vogel (Hotel Manager), Lloyd Pace (Dr. Harold Needleman), Bill Freeman (Dr. Julius Lifflander), Diana Browne (Dr. Judith Kutter), Joe Clarke (Brian "Mickey" O'Donovan), Ruth Neuman (Duane's Aunt), Richard Pierce (Duane's Father), Sean McCabe (Young Duane), Dorothy Strongin (Josephine), and Kerry Ruff (Detective) Written and Directed by Frank Henenlotter (#2215 - Frankenhooker)

Review: 

"There's a fine line between horror and comedy. And part of the fun with Basket Case, you never knew what punchline you were going to get. Whether the punchline was going to be a comical punchline or blood in your face. And I think they’re both equally valid and, in some cases, the blood in your face is equally funny. I always enjoyed blurring stuff. "

​

I figured, if you're going to have a curious type of Halloween, you have to go back to the well of quick budget movies that splatter all over with a certain type of charm all over the guts. Frank Henenlotter had been influenced by exploitation and sexploitation movies that he had seen in his younger days for what he became as an adult, for which he spent many of his days after turning 15 on 42nd Street in New York. When he was doing production on the short film The Slash of the Knife [1976], he met Edgar Ievins, a producer, and the two tried to come up with something that could be done on some money. He walked around Times Square and wrote the screenplay from that atmosphere that he experienced (incidentally, he was influenced enough by Herschell Gordon Lewis to where he dedicated the film to him). Various cast members had either worked previously on Slash or were students of the American Academy of Dramatic Arts (according to Van Hentenryck, they had to be careful in rehearsals, as they had no times for re-takes). The creature effects and makeup were created by Kevin Haney and John Caglione. The film opened on New Year's Eve of 1981 on limited release before getting a theatrical release by Analysis Film Releasing in April 1982 (complete with blowing up the 16mm print to 35 mm). For the most part, the film was a decent hit on the various circuits it made, for which it served as a midnight movie in various places. Two sequels to the film followed in 1990 and 1991, each with Van Hentenryck in the lead role. Basket Case was restored and selected for preservation by the Museum of Modern Art in 2017, which Henenlotter noted was a moment of humility and pride for him.

When the film was at the backends of the Cannes Film Festival, the film did earn one noted quote about its quality from film critic Rex Reed*, who was asked by someone what he thought of the film, for which he said it "is the sickest movie I've ever seen", which earned a place on movie posters (whether the quote was actually said by Reed as a spur of the moment or was arranged is up to you, but a few words that don't initially sound like an endorsement, well, sure sounds like something...). There's a bit of the eternal misfit in all of us. The joker, the smoker, the one that lurks in our mind and lurks in the shadows. It just happens to be down and dirty in the atmosphere that you just don't see or feel now. It isn't a curious thriller involving a Siamese twin such as say, Sisters (1972) because it instead is one hell of a slasher with tremendous gusto of violence that happens to be darkly amusing in what it shows in the dynamic of these two beings that truly cannot live without the other. It's a bond drenched in blood that probably has more heart in it than one might want to admit, even when considering one side likes to scream (and telepathically communicate, naturally) more often than not. Van Hentenryck and his awkward stiffness does make for a fairly compelling lead among a sea of offbeat one-note characters that makes his torment of outsider/killer all the more harrowing in its naturalness (to a point) in the face of something that could've easily been straight evil or, well, even more campy. It may be a madhouse, but you get your shots of puppet/stop-motion mayhem that makes for the appropriate "oooh" when the time comes to show it, even if its route of getting there is a curved road of amusement (i.e. it's not enough to have a revenge plot, one must dump information in a drunken stupor as well). With a production budget of less than $50,000 that led to a few obvious low-budget quirks, you've got a winner with this film if you stomach what it wishes to hustle in demented sleaze filled with the energy and audacity to show a man and his basket go all the way possible in man-made horrors for devastating effect. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Honestly, given how full of shit Reed was at times, this is pretty funny.

Linked: Basketcase (1982) Monster Madness Sigh. I miss the old Monster Madness. Unrelated note: it's time for Ravenous!

Kuroneko.

Review #2617: Kuroneko.

Cast: 

Kichiemon Nakamura (Gintoki), Nobuko Otowa (the Mother), Kiwako Taichi (Shige), Kei Satō (Raiko), Hideo Kanze (the Mikado), Taiji Tonoyama (the farmer), Yoshinobu Ogawa (Raiko follower), and Rokko Toura (a warlord) Written and Directed by Kaneto Shindō (#2500 - Onibaba)

Review: 

In the times of feudal Japan, there was plenty of time to see the lands visited by samurai within civil war, whether that involved the time revolving somewhere before/after the first millennium or in the later later times. People once could see people with hikimayu involving plucked out eyebrows for smudges to go along with painted teeth (I say this because you'll see it in this film alongside others such as Rashomon [1950]). But all of that pales in comparison to a ghost story that deals with the forgotten type of people within alleged conquest and mythmaking, the type of people that live and die in the margins because there are only so many people in the world before it all seems futile. In that sense, it probably seems apt that Kuroneko (the translated title is "A Black Cat in a Bamboo Grove") came around just a few years after the vitality and urges that came out with Onibaba (1964), which you might remember had peasant women survive on the killing and robbing of samurai; Otowa starred in both movies (as she had done in various other films that ranged from Story of a Beloved Wife [1951] to A Last Note [1995]). At any rate, here's a movie with dead peasants that come around to lure samurai into the bamboo groves with a certain type of futility to it all. 

Of course, it isn't a simple period (jidaigeki) horror movie, because even the onryō (vengeful spirits) are thought to be really interesting things to focus attention on beyond simple revenge stories, to the point where there exist three people that were called the "Three Great Onryo" with Emperor Sutoku, Taira no Masakado, and Sugawara no Michizane. It's not enough to see retribution in the physical sense, you might as well feel the torment in the psychological far more than anything. Of course, this happens to involve plenty of shots that deal in the distance of where things lurk, whether that involves hovering or those that loom over the bamboo or, in some other odd way, upon the soul. The most straightforward moment of the film is in its start involving the pillaging of the two women by the samurai that naturally lead to the process of death and life being twisted into pieces for those to seek blood through what might as well be a dance of death (anything could be a dance of death if you want to be a 1st-year blowhard, but it's a bit more literal here). It eventually dispatches with seeing select samurai take a one-way ticket to hell because of the eventual reveal of Taichi beyond being a man of names and "virtue". It is a pretty harrowing movie to sit through in the dance of death and perhaps some sort of sympathy for their impossible pursuit of all swordsman to meet their preferred fate that may see their blood drip into hell. Even hacking off an arm isn't the straight-forward easy thing to dealing with spirits, because even purification proves to be a probing case of cloying voices, tricks, and other odd things. It's the kind of "enigmatic" type of horror that is worthy of actually allowing oneself to see it all the way to the end of its 99 minute runtime where all eventually leads to the same place regardless of one's alleged place in society reigns: dust that blows in the wind until the last measure of memory and spirit is extinguished. In general, this is a movie fit for those who dig atmosphere where spirits reign free to pursue a dance of death that is unsettling and all the more curious to actually watch play out in devilish charm.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

As per tradition for the past few Halloweens, it's time to have a big show of reviews for the big day. Next up: Basket Case.

Song of the day!

Supplemental song

Alligator.

Review #2616: Alligator.

Cast: 

Robert Forster (Detective David Madison), Robin Riker (Dr. Marisa Kendall; Leslie Brown as young Marisa), Michael V. Gazzo (Chief Clark), Dean Jagger (Slade), Sydney Lassick (Luke Gutchel), Jack Carter (Mayor Ladue), Perry Lang (Officer Jim Kell), Henry Silva (Colonel Brock), Bart Braverman (Thomas Kemp), James Ingersoll (Arthur Helms), Royce D. Applegate (Callan), and Angel Tompkins (Newswoman) Directed by Lewis Teague.

Review: 

It wouldn't be a proper time to enjoy horror without at least one creature feature, particularly in the era of everyone seemingly trying to get in on Jaws (1975). For all of the movies involving bears, whales, spiders, and piranhas, it probably isn't surprising that there had to be one involving alligators and the old urban legend about them being around in sewers (you hear a few people say every now and then that they found one) that Brandon Chase apparently was inspired to jump on the idea-wagon as a producer. Lewis Teague had all of two films as a director when he was hired with Dirty O'Neil (1974) and The Lady in Red (1979), with the screenwriter for the latter film being John Sayles (who you might remember as the co-writer of Piranha [1978]). Teague hired Sayles to deliver re-writes to the script, namely because the original draft apparently had the title creature thrive on beer from a sewer near a brewery; as such, Sayles received co-credit for the story with Frank Ray Perilli while Sayles did the screenplay. A 36-foot alligator was made out of rubber with a frame of aluminum for which two men could get in to carry the weight and move. Of course, a real alligator moves low to the ground that look a bit different from the test of the actual suit, so Teague elected to try and treat it less of a scary film and one filled with some wit, which had to basically double up for the fact that they couldn't use the creature as much as they wanted (or, in some cases, using a real gator on miniatures). Filmed around the Los Angeles area to double for a setting in the Missouri area, the movie made a bit of money for the time and Teague would end up doing a few other movies involving pets with Cujo (1983) and Cat's Eye (1985). Incidentally, when Quentin Tarantino was doing preparation for casting with Jackie Brown (1997), the type of character that Forster had played in Alligator helped stir him into casting Forster.

Sure, the movie doesn't have the fortitude to really get many fearful moments out of an really large alligator (in this case one enhanced by eating disposed animals that had growth formula in them) eating people with such a ravenous bloodlust, but it is damn fun to watch play out. You've got a well-paced runtime (91 minutes), a fairly game cast that plays it casual without going for all of the obvious jokes, what's not to like? It actually does feel like a companion to Piranha, namely with how higher-ups try to react to the bubbling developments of man-made horrors with subterfuge that at least ends the way you would hope would happen in the real world: being punished for doing so. Of course, with the gator, it just happens to go all across the city, whether that involves the streets or the suburbs or the high-rise to really show that it's an equal opportunity eater. It eats politicians, kids, and cops all the same. Forster and Riker do in fact make a capable duo together, mainly because each are fairly competent for their jobs even in the face of absurdity, whether that involves dubious history with partners for a cop or the doubts of being taken seriously as, well, a scientist. Forster has a weary type of casual nature that is inviting from the get-go, a man who reflects on his balding hair (as suggested by Forster himself) and moves along to the beat of his own drum for wiseass charm. Things can try to shake him (smarmy reporters, sneaky alligators), but he just moves along without looking like he wants to be anywhere else or just crack all the jokes. There are a few pitch-black moments involving the mayhem of alligator-on-people, mainly with the climax because if you're going to have something to culminate the endgame, you might as well involve a whole party to see the fruits of man-made labor before trying to suggest the idea that the nightmare isn't all the way over. Entertaining without straining itself in a monster mash with charm, Alligator is a movie fit for all seasons.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

You're Next.

Review #2615: You're Next.

Cast: 

Sharni Vinson (Erin), Nicholas Tucci (Felix Davison), Wendy Glenn (Zee), A. J. Bowen (Crispian Davison), Joe Swanberg (Drake Davison), Margaret Laney (Kelly Davison), Amy Seimetz (Aimee Davison), Ti West (Tariq), Rob Moran (Paul Davison), Barbara Crampton (Aubrey Davison), L.C. Holt (Craig / Lamb Mask), Lane Hughes (Tom / Fox Mask), Simon Barrett (Dave / Tiger Mask), and Larry Fessenden (Erik Harson) Directed and Edited by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong, #1753 - Blair Witch, #2192 - Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire)

Review: 

"I think people are tired of being punished by violence and so forth. While “You’re Next” is a super violent film, we approach it completely differently. It’s not about showing you the extremity of violence or how much it hurts or whatever. It’s about showing it from a different perspective and actually just trying to make a fun horror film."

Sure, why not? I honestly had this movie vaguely stuck in my mind due to a review I heard about it many, many years ago*. And it happened to dovetail with the thing known as "hey, it's on a movie pack with a bunch of other movies, why not?". You're Next was the fifth full-length feature film from Adam Wingard, and this one happened to be written by fellow collaborator Simon Barrett, who had written A Horrible Way to Die [2010]. Apparently, the thing that spooked Wingard the most in horror was home invasion movies (citing Them [2006] and The Strangers [2008]), so Barrett took it from there, where he wrote a script that was inspired by Agatha Christie mysteries alongside screwball comedies (he later noted after filming a possible subconscious inspiration from A Bay of Blood [1971]). The cynical mindset of Barrett (as stated by Wingard himself), along with some improvisation with the dinner conversation scene, also played key to the movie. The movie originally premiered in 2011 in film festivals, for which Lionsgate acquired distribution rights, but business snafus (namely a studio merger) led to the movie being shuffled around and only released in theaters in August 2013. Years later, Wingard stated that he considers the film as being part of the same continuity with The Guest [2014] and Onslaught [2026] as a sort of "trilogy", for what it's worth.

Really it all comes down to just how much you can stomach of the characters and the pursuit of having fun with a survival movie that basically throws the premise upside down. Being a cross between Home Alone and The Strangers (and perhaps The Last House on the Left) can only go so far for those who find something in its slasher entertainment or bits in pitch-black comedy. I was fine with it, although it definitely wears its quirks (flawed or not) on its sleeve for 94 minutes. It's basically the kind of movie you play with The Cabin in the Woods [2011] to see a sort of "modern" perspective of playing around with the slasher with some chuckles, although your milage may vary over which actually accomplishes that better. You get a considerable body-count and a bit of quick pacing to set up some fanciful murders that range from garrote wires to axes to, well, blender-bashing. So yes, it's a movie with a person trying to be among the last ones standing that, well, actually does sound like the type to maybe thrive in a survival film with masked killers that don't really talk much (what's there to know in an array of people that aren't really who and where they want to be). In that sense, Vinson is a dynamic choice to help carry the film with unshakable confidence that is basically present in only her when compared to the dry nature of the others (in some ways intentional, and in others being the result of a lack of things to really do). Sure, being the only generally likable person among the cast to have enough time (oh poor Crampton) could be a detriment to some, but I went with it because, well, mayhem does have some charm to it; smug is one thing, wisecracking is another, and I think it fits with the latter more than the former. The eventual reveal of the true nature of what's going on in the house is at least a little clever, mainly because it gives some curiosity over how things will play out when one becomes offbeat in the face of being complicit in crimes. The first death of the dinner table people is kind of funny in the actual buildup and I imagine the very last moment is meant to be darkly amusing. Sure, it lacks a real true faceoff for its climax, but I was at least satisfied with the journey in getting to the resolution with the best laid plans in fact going to hell. As a whole, You're Next is a horror movie that wants to play it both ways in mayhem in the home and dark humor. I found it just fine, and I suppose that is more than enough to carve out a worthy place on the shelf.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*The review in question was this one by hey, Midnight Screenings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQL6U0BE6Q - which basically called it "post ironic, cute, hipster bullshit" that equated it to The Strangers crossed with Home Alone but not being effective to get away with being "cute". 

*Same pack with stuff such as It Follows, Cabin Fever, and a couple of others.

The Maze (1953).

Review #2614: The Maze (1953).

Cast: 

Richard Carlson (Gerald MacTeam), Veronica Hurst (Kitty Murray), Katherine Emery (Edith Murray), Michael Pate (William), John Dodsworth (Dr. Bert Dilling), Hillary Brooke (Peggy Lord), Stanley Fraser (Robert), Lilian Bond (Margaret Dilling), Owen McGiveney (Simon), and Robin Hughes (Richard Roblar) Directed by William Cameron Menzies (#448 - Invaders from Mars, #449 - Things to Come)

Review:

Oh sure, why not go with the gimmick movie? This was the final movie to be directed by William Cameron Menzies (for which the credit is listed as "production designed and directed"), who you likely remember from such films as Invaders from Mars and Things to Come; he directed fourteen movies, four as a co-director. With this production, the film was based on the story of the same name by Maurice Sandoz (which apparently had illustrations from Salvador Dali), with Daniel Ullman serving as screenwriter. While it ended up as his last directorial effort, he didn't leave film entirely, with his last fieldwork being the associate producer and designer on Around the World in Eighty Days [1956]. Suffering from cancer, Menzies died in 1957 at the age of 60.

It really does depend on how much you can forgive from the ending. No, really, you either are into the movie for the atmosphere of being entrapped in a tight space and wondering just what lurks in the dark, moving around that has such a grip on one guy. I wonder how the 3D was for the movie when it was released. Sure, you only get the smallest of gimmicky stuff with a bat flying at the camera, but it's mostly a movie trying to make you feel like you're at a haunted house, filled with fog, only men for butlers, odd little trees and locked doors (and, for a thankfully brief amount of time, a narrator to foreshadow some of the stuff that happens). And yet...it just doesn't come all the way together. Hurst and Emery can only carry the movie (one of 80 minutes) before you start to get restless at the fact that Carlson does not make for much of a spooked man. For someone who is meant to try and stop people from coming in, he has the qualities of a stone statue that don't make for particularly interesting drama. His peril (suddenly looking older because, well, castle-aging) is as intense as a wet sponge. The group of friends don't even lend themselves to a potential body-count or anything other than the most mild of "oh hey, that's a person" reaction. It's all mood-based vibes on feeling the atmosphere and crushing feeling of the unknown and oh good grief, at a certain point, that's just not enough. 

And then the moment of truth happens of when you get through a maze and figure out just what the hell is there. The following either sinks the movie into amusement or just takes the cake in sheer audacity, so the following lines will be marked in white for you to scroll if you are curious.

So, in the movie, a bunch of people eventually all come to the castle to confront the guy who basically ghosted them to live in the place with some servants. What they find is that there is a thing lurking around the manor at night while their doors are all locked. The thing that lurks in the castle is actually the real master of the castle, who is...a frog. No, really, the master is a person born in the 1700s that somehow never made it past an amphibious "embryonic stage" that made him only able to live a long time because he was a frog-like creature (who bellows like an elephant, by the way) that liked to swim in a pond. And then, with the powers of a frog (neat costume)...he gets spooked, runs and then falls from a balcony to his death when the others discover him. A *prideful* 200-year-old frog, dead from a fall. You see the frog-man for all of what, two minutes? He actually gets a gravestone at the end, stating "Sir Roger Philip MacTeam, Bart. of Craven, 1750-1953". Imagine if someone actually asked about that gravestone! I just couldn't help but laugh. You get looped in to watch a movie of shadows and fog with the bare minimum of curiosity of what's in the maze, and a damn frog is there! Maybe that Frogs horror movie made them scary, but shoot, who's afraid of frogs? My mom is one, but still...

Now, you might be wondering. How does the real master being...well, that...mean that a guy decides to drop everything and then go back to relative normalness when the macabre end comes? Well, it doesn't matter now, Carlson's character just...goes with it. I couldn't help but chuckle when the big moment came to go along with the eventual explanation, particularly for a movie that didn't even bother to have one of these people engage in real tension. They just...find the secret and then it solves itself in the most convenient way possible. Imagine if anyone else asks among the group about their experiences and they get...that for an explanation. As a whole, there are highlights to be found within its look and select moments from the crew of people having to deal in maze-bound terror, but I just wish I enjoyed it more. It's a curious movie, but it just wasn't for me.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Company of Wolves.

Review #2613: The Company of Wolves.

Cast:

Sarah Patterson (Rosaleen), Angela Lansbury (Granny), David Warner (Father), Tusse Silberg (Mother), Micha Bergese (Huntsman), Brian Glover (Amorous Boy's father), Graham Crowden (Old Priest), Kathryn Pogson (Young Bride), Stephen Rea (Young Groom), Georgia Slowe (Alice, Girl Killed by Wolves), Susan Porrett (Amorous Boy's mother), Shane Johnstone (Amorous Boy), Dawn Archibald (Witch Woman), Richard Morant (Wealthy Groom), with Danielle Dax (Wolfgirl), Jim Carter (Second Husband), and Terence Stamp (The Devil) Directed by Neil Jordan.

Review: 

"In a normal film you have a story with different movements that program, develop, go a little bit off the trunk, come back, and end. In this film, the different movements of the plot are actually separate stories. You start with an introduction and then move into different stories that relate to the main theme, all building to the fairy tale that everybody knows. The opening element of the dreamer gave us the freedom to move from story to story."

I figured that with all of the ideas around for anthology horror movies, what about ones that happened to stray a different path? In 1979, there was a collection of short stories published called The Bloody Chamber that had been written by Angela Carter. Among the ten stories included "The Company of Wolves"'. These were stories in which Carter aimed to "extract the latent content from the traditional stories", as opposed to what others might call adult renditions of fairy tales (such as "Bluebeard", Beauty and the Beast, and in the case of Wolves, "Little Red Riding Hood". This was only the second movie for Neil Jordan, who had studied literature and history before becoming involved in student theatre and later television in his native Ireland. He met Carter at a writer's conference, and she wanted to do a screen version of one of her stories rather than, say, a 30-minute thing for a TV company. Jordan later stated that to him, the film is a "fairy tale" while challenging the notion that it had to belong to any category of horror, fantasy, or as a children's film. With shooting in England that dealt with heightened sense of reality in mind (per Jordan's ideas) from production designer Anton Furst to go against a limited budget, most of what was desired came across on screen, save for the ending, where they wanted akin to diving onto a floor rather than, well, what you get with wolves and screams. Chris Tucker (of The Elephant Man fame) was behind the effects behind the wolf transformation scenes (most of the wolves used were actually dyed dogs). Carter was involved in one further adaptation with The Magic Toyshop in 1987 for cinemas/television prior to her death in 1992 at the age of 51; both of her screenplays were included in the collection The Curious Room.

Oh sure, "fantasy-horror" is one thing, but having a structure akin to a Chinese box (one box fitting within the next) is fascinating enough here for at least one check within its 95 minute runtimee. So, what are those embedded stories? Well, they come around as someone dreams from their country house about being in an old village with a forest that revolve around a few tales of a young groom with a unibrow (yes, yes, "eyebrows that meet", granny could only know so much) that has a call of nature to see him go away for a time, another involves a unibrow man that encounters a dark-suited man in a car (with one neat cameo) with a potion to offer, another story offers a woman appearing at a wedding party to put wrong to right (devastating fun), and the last tale involves a she-wolf who gets shot and bandaged before going back into the night. And in the midst of that, you get to see some time with Lansbury playing a superstitious grandmother for a good chunk of time. It's a macabre tale that some will probably read with "Freud" on the mind (who among us sees wolves in a sensual matter? well, I don't say that, but...) while others like me have a chuckle at the tales provided in offbeat charm. Patterson accompanied a friend to an audition and wound up being cast. Her vulnerability in the face of development of growing up and looking at the world as one to actually be involved in beyond seeing things as either made of snips (and sails & puppy dog tails) or sugar (and spice & everything nice).  It isn't a movie for going along with the narrative in a straight line, but the horrors of growing up and seeing the world around you for what it really, madly, truly, deeply, looks like. You look at the movie and feel entrapped in a dream that is worth seeing all the way through for what comes in and out in reading the film besides the head-rolling, wolf-splashing time seen here. Horror, fantasy, fairy tale(s), it's a good time for the season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*This is like when people discuss if Peeping Tom was actually a horror movie - stop lying to yourself! This is almost as annoying as those who don't like too much gore in their horror movies.

From Beyond.

Review #2612: From Beyond.

Cast: 

Jeffrey Combs (Dr. Crawford Tillinghast), Barbara Crampton (Dr. Katherine McMichaels), Ted Sorel (Dr. Edward Pretorius), Ken Foree (Bubba Brownlee), Carolyn Purdy-Gordon (Dr. Bloch), Bunny Summers (Neighbor Lady), and Bruce McGuire (Jordan Fields) Directed by Stuart Gordon (#2127 - Re-Animator)

Review: 

"The thing that was great about the Organic Theatre was that we did all kinds of plays. I'd like the same thing to be true about my movies. One of the great things about genre movies is that as long as you follow the rules of the genre you can do anything you want and say anything you want. There's a tremendous amount of freedom. I got into a conversation with a friend that the horror films are really the subconscious of the movies."

Sure, there was going to be another H. P. Lovecraft-based movie sometime after how fun Re-Animator (1985) ended up being. Stuart Gordon wanted to make a handful of Lovecraft movies, complete with having select people coming back with the cast and crew here. The script was written by Brian Yuzna (who had produced Re-Animator), Dennis Paoli, and Stuart Gordon, with Paoli writing the screenplay. With the choice to film cheaper, Gordon went with an Italian crew that saw shooting on a Rome soundstage. There were multiple crews heading the effects (John Naulin, Tony Doublin, John Buechler, Mark Shostrom), but even with that in mind, getting an R rating from the MPAA was annoying because of the total effect of the graphic moments rather than specific stuff before he cut select frames to secure it (these trims were eventually recovered and put into a director's cut release in the 2000s). It wasn't a major hit at the time, but so it goes. Gordon would work again with Combs on films such as The Pit and the Pendulum [1991] and also Crampton with the direct-to-video Castle Freak [1995] but didn't get to do a Lovecraft movie again until the 2001 Spanish movie Dagon. 

The original short story (as originally published in 1934) by Lovecraft was a first-person story dealing with one man's experiences with a scientist named Crawford Tillinghast that had a certain type of device that dealt with creatures and the deaths of servants before it gets resolved pretty quickly. Here, Combs plays Tillinghast as the assistant to who else but a man named Pretorius. It's got everything you would hope for in a medium-sized enjoyable movie that isn't quite as well-executed as Re-Animator, but it is a fun one. You've got a giant animatronic puppet, talk about "pineal glands", a truly dynamite trio to go through house-bound mayhem with a bit of brain-eating to go around. It's a delightfully looney type of slow bubbling fun that practically feels like candy for those with the time to let it sift through for 86 minutes. It's a game of trying to deal with the horrors of maybe just letting the machine that goes around delivering horror and pleasure in the alternate dimension go on that goes for the weird and hits for some dark amusement. Combs gets a chance to attempt calm in the face of danger and disturbing monsters that happen to lurk around in a different dimension that is easy to get on his side of apprehension. It probably helps that he is paired with Crampton and her own journey of discovery within the growing world of malformed desire and ideas of what they believe they want in the mind (this is a long-winded way of saying, yes, one can say technobabble and dabble with wearing an S&M outfit for a scene). Of course, the underlying glue up to a certain point is Foree, who really is quite charming in delivering measured humor in being gripped in the growing absurdity. Sorel appears from time to time and delivers a few deliciously sleazy moments fitting for the moment with kinks and slime to go around. The body-count is a considerable few given the amount of cast, but it's still pretty rewarding for those folks too. You've got some slimy flies to go along with the realization of the third eye and brain-eating to criss-cross with the terrors of being gripped in a machine that doesn't even need your consent to turn itself on. Getting through addiction of the senses or brain-eating is one thing, surviving the aftermath of that is another. The danger is that horrible stuff is just all around us and there probably is nothing you can really do about it when it comes to turning into sludge at the end of the road besides not being burnt dead sludge. In that sense, it's depraved in a way that is my kind of horror fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Daughters of Darkness.

Review #2611: Daughters of Darkness.

Cast: 

Delphine Seyrig (Countess Elizabeth Bathory), John Karlen (Stefan Chilton), Danielle Ouimet (Valerie Chilton), Andrea Rau (Ilona), Paul Esser (Pierre), Georges Jamin (retired policeman), Joris Collet (butler), and Fons Rademakers (mother) Directed by Harry Kümel.

Review: 

"My films are about other films — that’s obvious. I’ve always watched an enormous number of movies, and I still do. These days, you can see everything online — especially old French cinema in beautiful quality. It’s a problem for film archives, of course, but wonderful for viewers. I don’t consciously pay homage to anyone, but I’m shaped by the filmmakers I admire: Joseph von Sternberg, John Ford, and, of course, Alfred Hitchcock — the Mozart of cinema."

Sure, what's horror without at least one arthouse scare? Yes, here's an international production between Belgium, France, and West Germany that ended up filmed in English. Harry Kumel (who had started directing features with Monsieur Hawarden [1968]) was approached by a group of producers who apparently wanted to make something "erotic, bloody, full of horror". Given that he was still in the midst of preparation for Malpertuis (1973), he had a good chance to take on the task, complete with being inspired by the supposed exploits of Elizabeth Báthory, a Hungarian countess that had been accused of torturing and killing several girls and women from 1590 to 1610 before she was convicted (alongside her servants) and eventually died in prison in 1614. Supposedly, she bathed in the blood of virgins to retain her youth, which, well, obviously was more folklore hokum than based on fact; of course, the lead character is also styled after Marlene Dietrich (for which Kümel once called her a "demagogue"), while Rau's is meant to be styled after Louise Brooks), so there's that. Interiors were done in Brussels, Belgium. Four writers ultimately received credit: Kümel, Pierre Drouot, Jean Ferry (who upon hearing it said it was "the great liberation!"), and Joseph Amiel. Apparently, Kümel still gets offers to talk about the movie every now and then and once stated that his French distributor "has to delete the film from YouTube almost every week", although he also noted that where the sincerity starts/ends is "intentionally ambiguous" (this was probably a reply to one certain critic that called the film the type to belong in what she called "psychological high Gothic").

Sure, the movie dances around the idea of someone being a vampire for quite a while in its 100-minute runtime. But it's a war of nerves within the dance of art and sleaze, and I suppose that's part of the interest for a movie that has plenty of womanly desire within the game of dominance. I guess you could call that bleak, or maybe there's something else lurking within the fringes of not just being the Dracula's Daughter of would-be vampire wooing. It's the horror of contradictions with a group of people that probably shows the horrors of what "love" seems to actually be more than anything. It dilly-dallies around a hotel with few people around while showing a couple that is most decidedly not waiting to assert their love or trying to go home as opposed to those castle-bound/village-bound vampire movies. It's a cold modern movie (well, 1971 modern) that I wish I could like more than I ended up doing, which is mostly because it does loiter a bit too much in actual execution besides some dances with the erotic (to be honest, it works more with Rau and her energy more than, well...). It all rides on Seyrig and her performance that basically glides across the proceedings with icy charm that can play head (or neck) games with the best of them, which is pretty unsettling to see with such easy targets. Rau doesn't say much, but she seems a bit less unsettled than Ouimet, that's for sure. Probably the one regret that stuck with Kümel was the casting of Karlen, who apparently was cast with photos that had been a few years old (at the time, the former Dark Shadows alum was in his late thirties - of course, Kümel wanted Malcolm McDowell, who was ten years younger). Granted, the fact that Karlen is playing the one male lead to a certain type of unpolishedness (well, for a character that has the twist that, well, doesn't actually want to call Mother...whoever that is). At least Ouimet and Karlen being unsettling together is mostly on purpose. The film rides on atmosphere and the occasional moods that come in color before eventually, finally, getting to what really is going to go on with creatures of the night that happen to leave a trail of bodies in their wake. Never boring, it's a mild success for those who like some curious choices for their vampire movies, that's for sure.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

The Damned.

Review #2610: The Damned.

Cast: 

Macdonald Carey (Simon Wells), Shirley Anne Field (Joan), Viveca Lindfors (Freya Neilson), Oliver Reed (King), Alexander Knox (Bernard), Walter Gotell (Major Holland), James Villiers (Captain Gregory), Tom Kempinski (Ted), Kenneth Cope (Sid), with Rachel Clay (Victoria), Caroline Sheldon (Elizabeth), Rebecca Dignam (Anne), Siobhan Taylor (Mary), Nicholas Clay (Richard), Kit Williams (Henry), Christopher Witty (William), David Palmer (George), and John Thompson (Charles)

Directed by Joseph Losey.

Review: 

Sure, let's see what's with the British and sci-fi/horror. Known as The Damned in its native Britain but These Are the Damned in its original American release (as distributed by Columbia Pictures), the film was based on the 1960 novel The Children of Light by H.L. Lawrence by Evan Jones. At director was expatriate Joseph Losey, who reluctantly accepted because of his desire to keep working as an American that was still reeling from the blacklist of the previous decade (it was he who brought in Jones to do the script rather than the one originally co-written by producer Anthony Hinds and Ben Barzman). Due to demands from Hinds (who once stated his loathing of both Losey and the film), there would be more than one version of the film lurking around to pair for a double feature. It actually was meant to be just a 95 minute movie (complete with already being rated with an X certificate), but Losey went with the suggested Hinds edits (heaven forbid a bleak movie be a bit bleak for audiences) for an 87 minute version on release for the UK (of course, the movie ended up being released first in Australia in 1962 before the UK release of "The Damned" for a title rather than "The Brink" in 1963). Columbia ended up quibbling even further and released it only in 1965 with a 77-minute version called "These Are the Damned" (because, hey, Village of the Damned [1960]). Losey would continue to direct all the way until his death in 1984 at the age of 75, leaving behind such films as The Boy with Green Hair (1948), Boom! (1968), and The Go-Between (1971).

Sure, it's a horror movie in the perils of potential Armageddon that goes with atmosphere over gore (as one does when focusing on what lies beneath kids that happen to be a bit cold) that does in fact make for a pretty curious movie that really does have no winners. The best of intentions can in fact lead to the potential for the most horrifying of possibilities in a time where people really did believe in the looming threat of a Cold War blooming into actual nuclear holocaust where only the fateful few may survive. Naturally, it is a potboiler type of movie that gets to that point by first starting out with a gang of tough-guys and the relative ease in which they engage in violence for a world that both loves and hates the ones who are angry to it all. You might remember that Hammer liked what they saw from Reed* in The Curse of the Werewolf [1961] to cast him with a few more interesting roles in movies such as this and Paranoiac [1963] before exploding later in the decade. His performance here weighs heavily in the time you see him for what lurks in the hearts of men within his instability and his odd dynamic with his onscreen sister in Field that suggests more than meets the eye in the cloying rot that pervades us more than we wish to admit. This doesn't take away from Carey and Field, don't get me wrong, because they still make for suitable presences to get caught in the structures of chaos with very few choices for themselves that might as well fit the title of the film more than anything. Knox and his cold logic in the ideas of reasoned intentions does fit for the key piece of seeing where all things lie when plans and human nature crash into a fiery hell. The interactions with the kid actors generally go pretty well in seeing the unsettling nature of what things really are like outside of a bubble, where cold choices really can be made by the most alleged warm-blooded people imaginable. The damned could inherit the Earth, but for what? As a whole, it is the horrors of the inevitable that really drive the movie for better or worse, one that makes a pretty damned cold time that is worth at least one curious watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*One year after the film came out, Reed got into a bar fight that saw him fear the worst because he ended up with plenty of stitches and a scar on his cheek. But he lived on.

The Amityville Horror (1979).

Review #2609: The Amityville Horror (1979).

Cast: 

James Brolin (George Lutz), Margot Kidder (Kathleen 'Kathy' Lutz), Rod Steiger (Father Francis 'Frank' Delaney), Don Stroud (Father Bolen), Murray Hamilton (Father Ryan), John Larch (Father Nuncio), Natasha Ryan (Amy Lutz), K. C. Martel (Greg Lutz), Meeno Peluce (Matt Lutz), Michael Sacks (Jeff), Helen Shaver (Carolyn), Amy Wright (Jackie), Val Avery (Sergeant Gionfriddo), Elsa Raven (Mrs. Townsend), and Irene Dailey (Aunt Helena) Directed by Stuart Rosenberg.

Review: 

In 1974, there was a terrible murder in a house on 112 Ocean Avenue in a neighborhood in Amityville on the shoes of Long Island, New York. The man killed six family members and ultimately was convicted to life in prison, where he resided until the day he died. One year after the murders in the house, the Lutz family moved into the house with their children and dog. 28 days later, they fled the house, claiming that strange things of the paranormal spooked them enough to leave and never return. The Lutzes were introduced soon after to a man named Jay Anson, who they decided to send many hours of recollections of what they apparently saw and heard on tape, for which Anson wrote a book published in 1977. Samuel Z. Arkoff of American International Pictures fame quickly bought the rights to the book from Anson, who actually wrote a teleplay for what was originally envisioned for a TV film before Sandor Stern was hired to write the eventual screenplay. For probably obvious reasons, the authorities did not allow the filmmakers to film at the actual Amityville residence, so they settled with a place in Toms River, New Jersey for location shooting. Perhaps lost in the shuffle is director Stuart Rosenberg, who had done a string of "okay" to middling movies since Cool Hand Luke (1967). Both Brolin and Kidder were asked by the studio to do promotions for the movie that basically had them see the actual house and talk about the claims made by the Lutz family, for which they later doubted the actual claims. The movie was a considerable hit with audiences, and there has been a few people who have noted their appreciation of the movie, most notably with Stephen King, who eventually saw the film as an "enduring classic of its kind" that argued for it serving as a parable for financial anxieties. Anson died the year after the film was released. Two months after the release of the film, the attorney of the murderer claimed that he and Lutz made up the tales of the house being haunted over a series of drinks. Various people went on to look at the house, most notably with Ed and Lorraine Warren (a pair of so-called "demonologists"*) while Mr. Lutz registered the phrase of the book as a trademark and later stated that the film producers embellished events in the movie. Both the actual house and the Toms River house have seen renovations (with the former having its address changed) and the people of Amityville would rather see people shut up about the house. Unlike other franchises that came around because people wanted to make some sequels, Amityville took the cake for shamelessness. Dino De Laurentiis oversaw Amityville II: The Possession [1982] (for which the Lutzes sued to have no affiliation) while the road to the gutter went to 3-D the following year that was the last theatrical release until the 2005 remake. Amidst all of the subsequent indie and direct-to-video slop* (of which there are dozens, with the most recent being "Christmas Vacation" in 2022), discussions for a re-imagining have occurred for years.

With all of that in mind, it gives me no pleasure to say that I loathed this utterly mediocre movie. It actually almost makes me irritated to see anyone try to hold it up as anything other than a mealy-mouthed, shambling, fraud of a film. Far from being one of the "scariest films ever", it will only inspire the viewer to bash their skull in the company of their own house because heaven forbid having to watch one more minute of a movie with no actual scares in it. Ahhhhh, the house we paid money for is turning into a money pit! Ahhhh, I'm having totally-real nightmares about a murder I never saw! Ahhhh, my phone keeps giving me static when the dopey priest is calling! Ahhhh, there's no real ending! I hope you get my perspective, because I'll be damned if I could understand Stephen King's perspective* or any perspective that doesn't call it a turgid, uninspired mess of fiction (besides, when having a fear of money troubles, my thoughts go to "get the calculator", not "how can I make this into a horror story?"). At least when The Blair Witch Project (1999) tried to play their horrors off with the mythology of being based in some sort of reality, there was the idea of an actual threat amidst all of the madness. Here, all the movie has is a few spooky images and the occasional Lalo Schifrin musical beat to carry a movie that is too irritating to take as either a joke or based in reality. Apparently, Brolin was approached about doing the movie, so he read the book with some pants over the door and somehow, when he was reading a "scary part" of the book, the pants fell off the floor that spooked him enough to laugh and also decide, yes, he had to do this film, one where he plays it with growing agitation and the appearance of a shaggy bum. He can only go so far in trying to lift this movie up with any semblance of terror and vulnerability as a patriarch that can only keep chopping wood. Kidder and Steiger basically took the film on for the same reason of wanting to accept any job offered (the latter in particular had been recovering from open-heart surgery). I think you can see the level of "commitment" on display from each person, with one basically giggling through the crap with Kidder (I sure wish I could laugh at this movie without checking how long it is to end the 118-minute runtime is) and the other trying their damndest to chew the entire screen with Steiger that actually borders on embarrassing after, what, the stigmata starts to show? It doesn't even matter if the movie had any sort of made-up explanation of why the house is what it is, what could possibly hold up such vaunted spooky things such as black ooze, exploding doors, malevolent sash windows, disappearing cash, and babysitters getting locked in closets while an imaginary being later revealed to be a pig is in the area. I could go on and on, but I think the best way to assess a horror movie is this: did I enjoy what I was watching? No, not really. Would I recommend it even with the acknowledgement that there have been just as many flawed movies involving spooky houses or the semblance of tension even with a lack of monster/explanation? No, because it personally annoyed me and didn't even have a payoff. Would I like to see just how the two subsequent "sequels" and remake turned things into an even bigger joke? Well, never say never. I think you get my point: The Amityville Horror is a dull, shambling mess that is mostly fit for those who know the fine line between doggerel and, well, dogshit.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day - a special one on the day of the World Series of Milwaukee Brewers and the Tampa Bay Rays: a song from Milwaukee's own Steve Miller - go Brewers!

*There is probably some perspective that offers a good reason to check out direct-to-video stuff or "on-demand" stuff. For me, it just sounds like the biggest waste of time imaginable - I'm here for stuff that made a theater, what's the point?

*Yes, yes, The Conjuring became a franchise with the loosest characterizations of the Warrens. It should be noted that aside from being frauds that have no credibility in any shape or form (I do not engage with "ghost hunters", I would rather see them get a real job), Ed was accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old. Lorraine personally wrote into the contract of the film series that her and Ed would not be portrayed as "engaging in crimes, including sex with minors, child pornography, prostitution or sexual assault. Neither the husband nor wife could be depicted as participating in an extramarital sexual relationship". At least the Warrens are both dead now.

*What, was King still snorting cocaine when coming up with that perspective? 

Doctor X.

Review #2608: Doctor X.

Cast: 

Lionel Atwill (Dr. Jerry Xavier), Fay Wray (Joanne Xavier), Lee Tracy (Lee Taylor), Preston Foster (Dr. Wells), John Wray (Dr. Haines), Harry Beresford (Dr. Duke), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Dr. Rowitz), Leila Bennett (Mamie), Robert Warwick (Police Commissioner Stevens), George Rosener (Otto), and Willard Robertson (Detective O'Halloran) 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, #2267 - The Walking Dead)

Review: 

Oh sure, let's pick another mad scientist movie from the old old days. At least this one came before the advent of the Production Code, which means you can get a movie with themes that involves murder and cannibalism (okay you won't see people eat others straight up, but, well, beggars can't be choosers), complete with the early two-color Technicolor process (for over 40 years, only the black-and-white version was thought to exist).. The film is based on the 1931 play of the same name by Howard W. Cornstock and Allen C. Miller, for which Robert Tasker and Earl Baldwin served as the credited writers on the film (incidentally, there was an actual killer with one nickname being the "Moon Maniac" that had killed and apparently eaten several people prior to being apprehended in 1934 and executed). A mild success with audiences, Curtiz wound up directing Mystery of the Wax Museum the following year in that soon-to-be obsolete Technicolor process, complete with Atwill and Wray as the leads and a few returning crew members (such as cameraman Ray Rennahan and designer Anton Grot). 1939 saw The Return of Doctor X from Warner Bros. that isn't exactly a sequel given its completely different cast (complete with Humphrey Bogart as the re-named title character). Night Monster (1942), released by Universal featured Atwill in a similar scientist role.

You might wonder what's the setup for something that only goes 76 minutes. Well, it involves an investigator sticking his nose all over figuring out who the creepy man is going around killing people on a full moon that leads to suspicion around a medical academy and the oddballs that are around it (an amputee that studied cannibalism, a pervert voyeur, a paralytic, and a guy studying the effects of the moon). Trying to measure who did it by electrical systems getting the heart rate up before a re-enactment doesn't work the first time but trying it the second time with the people handcuffed to the seats leads to the real creep. This barely mentions the outright annoyance that comes with the bumbling reporter played by Tracy that just has to pervade the movie, complete with time spent in a spooky house (skeletons!) before you get what you really want to know: what lies beneath "synthetic flesh" and the makeup of a nutty scientist? Wray probably comes out the best in spry charm (one has to when playing against a goof before having to be the one rescued at the end), although Atwill certainly made enough of an impression (not quite at full ham, but jolly would be the best way to describe it) that he would get tabbed to do a number of mysteries/horror dramas for the next decade. It all really goes on how much exposition you are willing to go with for this movie, which seems to dawdle on getting to the point of its mumbo-jumbo science when all you need to know is that a guy is going around with hands to spare eating people and will gradually reveal themselves anyway regardless of any "traps". The effect for the actual monster does look pretty good in a disturbing type of clay-man that goes hand in hand with the old comic book type of color present for the film that does give the film a look worthy enough to keep invested. As a whole, Doctor X is a mixed bag: it bumbles and stumbles around the most interesting part of what you might expect from a mystery horror with a fluky setup that happens to also look pretty fascinating with a useful enough edge when actually dealing with the murky world of men and flesh that may make it a worthwhile time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day! 

The Funhouse.

Review #2607: The Funhouse.

Cast: 

Elizabeth Berridge (Amy Harper), Cooper Huckabee (Buzz), Largo Woodruff (Liz Duncan), Miles Chapin (Richie), Kevin Conway (Freak Show Barker / Strip Show Barker / Conrad Straker, The Funhouse Barker), Wayne Doba (Gunther Twibunt, The Monster), Sylvia Miles (Madame Zena), William Finley (Marco The Magnificent), Shawn Carson (Joey Harper), Rebuka Hoye (Strip Show Dancer), Jack McDermott (Mr. Paul Harper), and Jeanne Austin (Mrs. Ellen Harper) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, #2134 - Lifeforce, #2281 - Eaten Alive)

Review:

It has been a while since Tobe Hooper had made a movie for theaters, if you remember. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) was followed up by Eaten Alive (1976). Then there was the miniseries adaptation of Salem's Lot that came out on CBS in 1979 (of course, internationally there was an alternate, much shorter cut). At any rate, Larry Block had a script about a carnival and teenagers, and Hooper was surely interested in doing something that would remind him of one of his favorite movies with Nightmare Alley (1947), so it was basically a match made in heaven. Independently financed and shot in Miami (the setting was Iowa, but who is noticing), the film was subsequently acquired by Universal Studios for distribution. that saw a select group of rides and attractions from a defunct carnival while the oddball animals and actual carnies came from, well, travelling carnivals. Rick Baker was responsible for the effects of the monster that basically looks like an albino, complete with a mime playing the character. It was a mild success with audiences, and Hooper was soon approached by producer Steven Spielberg to direct Poltergeist (1982), which was an even bigger hit*. As noted by Hooper in a making-of video in later years, he was quite proud of the final result with The Funhouse (if you've read Quentin Tarantino's Cinema Speculation, he also comes to that conclusion)*.

I suppose there is something unnerving that can come from the carnival or stock show. Sure, I wouldn't be the first to say it, mainly because I generally didn't have that many spooky moments looking at the rides or people operating it. At any rate. I can say that this was a pretty fun movie anyway because of the style and tension that is played here for a slowly-developed slasher (when the body count is over three, yea, that sounds about right). For about half of the 96-minute runtime, one is focused on the atmosphere that slowly envelops our main group of four (with one stowaway) before the mayhem starts, but I can see where the likability of the film hinges a bit on how much you can take from such rascal behavior (with exactly one person playing a teen that actually was in their teens with Berridge); this is the type of movie that freely cribs from both Psycho [1960] and Halloween [1978] in its intro scene for the sake of doing so (Hooper was quoted as saying it was there to let people know quickly they were watching a "genre picture" and make the film "a little safe"). But the real showstopper is the "funhouse" itself with how intimidating it all ends up feeling with its wide spaces and traps that doesn't have to border completely on reality because of the delight in playing in illusions (complete with some stellar timing with a crane). Berridge has plenty to try and carry with such an ordinary role that goes through basically a different world with the carnies as opposed to the tense "real world" with her parents (with a brother that thinks shower terrorizing is funny) and a would-be lover and his dumbass friends* (to say nothing of the goofy youth that basically is in the movie to suggest some sort of lesson of being a sneaky dweeb, at least I suppose so when all he does is just get caught and released). I'd say she does about as well as possible with vulnerability as the old-masked killer, wearing a Frankenstein mask, gives way to the dysfunctional horror of man and his deformed would-be "man" of the present.  Additionally, as basically the ringleader of the rascals, Chapin makes for a worthy enough person to get snatched by the claws of "easiest mark to get killed in a slasher", while Conway and his numerous roles of the seedy barkers does end up being compelling to roll things along in gawking at animals, women, whatever seems nasty enough for a movie like this to show. It stalks terror in being stuck in a place rather than, say, excess amount of gore. Average or not, it is a pretty entertaining movie to actually experience in the sights and sounds of slowly being enclosed in a space one shouldn't step in and being left at the hands of one's own ingenuity and in some ways, luck to maybe leave with some of their mental state or body intact. In that sense, Hooper made a delightfully nasty little movie worth a look into.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Totally no controversies at all about it, no invented stories about it or people still perpetuating stupid conspiracies cough cough Joseph Khan is a hack, cough cough.

*Oddly enough, Hooper liked the subsequent Dean Koontz novelization of the movie that was quite substantial in its plot.

*When I used to have consistent friends and went to the stockshow one time, I can say we never thought about messing with the workers or trying to snatch the funds, so there's that.