Halloween II (2009).

Review #1751: Halloween II (2009)

Cast: 

Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Malcolm McDowell (Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers; with Chase Wright Vanek as Younger version), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), Brea Grant (Mya Rockwell), Howard Hesseman (Uncle Meat), Angela Trimbur (Harley David), Mary Birdsong (Nancy McDonald), Daniel Roebuck (Big Lou), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Howard Boggs and Seymour Coffins), Sylvia Jefferies (Misty Dawn), Bill Fagerbakke (Deputy Webb), Richard Brake (Gary Scott), Dayton Callie (Coroner Hooks), and Margot Kidder (Barbara Collier) Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007) and #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember a film like this. After all, it isn't like there are numerous timelines to consider for a series involving the exploits of a masked killer slowly going around and mowing folks from a little town called Haddonfield (which may or may not involve more than one sibling of the Myers family). Well, sort of. Not only was this the last Halloween film for nine years, it was also the second and final feature in Rob Zombie's interpretation of Michael Myers with his offbeat style of filmmaking, which is covered in plenty of gritty violence (and shots) alongside certain narrative and casting choices (and yes, Weird Al). Honestly, it has probably been too long since I watched Zombie's original attempt at re-inventing the series (six years), but the one point that stuck with me is in how sloppy it ended up being with actually being a meaningful different step from what had been done in the past eight Halloween films in trying to make the character scary again (the cynical answer would have been to not make one for like ten or twenty years in order to make folks forget). Its interpretation of Myers in origins is still ridiculous to ponder, if only because I am reminded that it was essentially an extended segue of what had happened before (which took less than fifteen minutes) that took away the mystique of what was merely just a force of nature, with John Carpenter even saying as much when asked about it years later. Of course, I do wonder if it felt so ridiculously built in overt "edginess" like its sequel ends up being, what with the whole "Charlie Manson on someone's wall" thing. Hell, would it surprise you that each film had an unrated Director's Cut - given the offbeat track record of Dimension Films, who can blame him? 

Zombie apparently wanted to kill everybody off in this film, as if to seal the idea of no third movie (the second movie made $39 million back on a $15 million budget, but an attempt at a "3D" film came and went), with producer Malek Akkad giving Zombie his blessing to try and not follow the rules that he had put for the previous film; in that sense, only Myers in the main trio seems to not be affected in terms of Zombie wanting to go...Zombie (sure, hallucinating seems different, but...no).  Of course, there is one thing to consider: the original Halloween II (1981) wasn't very good (of course, the family angle, thought of by Carpenter and Hill, was later called "foolish" by Carpenter himself), so what do you expect from this film? The movie differs considerably depending on what you see: the Theatrical Cut is 105 minutes long while the Unrated Cut is 119 minutes, which includes alternative footage to go with re-cuts, with the most notable difference being that the Laurie character spirals downward right from the jump (as opposed to being less off the bend in the Theatrical version, which had the setting as one year later as opposed to two)...and of course the ending is altered. You know you are not on a good track when you start with a dream sequence. Regardless if it is there to add suspense, gore, or whatever, it is the easiest moment to generate eyerolls in preposterous-ness. If the first film managed to have plenty of brutality while perhaps being at the cost of suspense, you sure won't see much change here. Being an uncompromising film only works if I actually care about what is going on. The strangest thing is this: it somehow manages to be more interesting than the original remake...but it also is easier to make fun of, one for folks who want to see how much a director can go up their own...you get the idea. If Zombie wanted to make a trashy movie with weird aspects completely different from what was, he surely accomplished it with an assortment of aspects that I'm sure you will all "appreciate", such as weirdos talking about adventures with corpses, Margot Kidder playing a psychiatrist, music at a concert that will make you appreciate listening to Zombie's stuff instead, the aforementioned white horse, and a movie where the only folks to like are either because of camp value (McDowell) or in small amounts (Dourif and Harris). This is the kind of movie that is perfect bait for even the smug to pick at, particularly ones who don't care to look into the psyche of every main focus. The problem is that I fit into the latter category, but I do fit into the category of making fun of terrible movies, so there is that. Besides, the last interesting idea that this series ever had was the climax of Halloween 4...which was two decades ago.

Taylor-Compton does what she can with material that surely must be interesting to consider depending on which version you see: one where she eventually goes nuts, or one that is pretty much nuts from the drop. It just so happens that it isn't as interesting as the movie thinks it is in actually latching on to her perspective, which mostly involves screaming. Strangely enough, Halloween (2018) would try its own angle in the eyes of trauma with Laurie, which I imagine has inspired its own curiosity and detractors. Oh look, a Rob Zombie movie with Sheri Moon Zombie, who would have ever guessed? Hell, she randomly shows up time to time as a hallucination (which when paired with "hobo Michael" is quite the contrast) that results in bemusement more than anything. True, one probably can't imitate Donald Pleasance and his character of Dr. Loomis for very long without seeming pale. So, why not have McDowell play him like he was Dr. Phil? It is amusing in a cynical way, if only because McDowell seems exactly the type to play an odd role in a movie teetering on the edge of mismatched-ness, but his scene-chewing in the name of ego is far more interesting than hearing a plethora of one certain curse word to go along with boring folks in edgy stuff (of course, his turn in the climax is probably a bit too late). What I mean about "edgy" is that there are certain times when the movie seems to be trying to make a point about how an attack affects everyone around them...it just ends up with the resonance of a "uh huh, that's nice dear." Dourif and Harris are experienced enough with these kind of movies, and that is likely why they probably resonate better than most of the folks present here, in that they actually rate well to the generic stuff present without being crushed by it. Well, of course, there is Mane to consider in whatever he is meant to be doing with the whole derelict composure thing with Michael, which is more amusing than anything (in a series full of offbeat scenes with the character to begin with). As a whole, Halloween II is a mess, one made by Zombie with the intent of saying...something...about the dynamic that comes from a killer and his target that seem more alike than at first glance while looking on the shift of all involved since that one terrible night on Halloween. Of course, Halloween (1978) succeeded best not because it tried to explain anything, but because it executed shock in a way that had not been seen by audiences of the time. Halloween II (2009) only accomplishes the notion that having an offbeat flawed interpretation of its main character is still a flawed interpretation, regardless how much curiosity one has for a "different" follow-up when compared to the other features past and present.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars. 

Happy Halloween. I'm sure you folks are having a wonderful time in the holiday season, and I hope you enjoyed seeing 23 reviews in 31 days. Of course, we're not quite done yet with horror, so sit back for Halloween: The Week After Part 3, which will cover horror films as it says on the tin (until November 7th). Who knows what should come up...

Next Time: Halloween Kills.

Saw (2004).

Review #1750: Saw.

Cast: 

Cary Elwes (Lawrence Gordon), Leigh Whannell (Adam Stanheight), Danny Glover (David Tapp), Ken Leung (Detective Steven Sing), Dina Meyer (Detective Allison Kerry), Mike Butters (Paul), Paul Gutrecht (Mark), Michael Emerson (Zep Hindle), Benito Martinez (Brett), Shawnee Smith (Amanda Young), Makenzie Vega (Diana Gordon), Monica Potter (Alison Gordon), Alexandra Bokyun Chun (Carla), and Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Kramer) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman and #1556 - Insidious)

Review: 

"It changed our lives. Sure, it really wasn’t the film I set up to do, yet it ended up being this cultural phenomenon that we never expected. I never expected that my first little, as I refer to it, my student film would ultimately go on to have such a cultural impact."

If any horror film could help to help define the first few years of the 21st century, you could likely make a great case for Saw to be in the argument. Oh sure, the quality of each feature has varied from film to film (for which there were six sequels in the next six years before the supposed finale was followed by two standalone movies), but one can't deny the lingering legacy that arose from an interesting presence from two soon-to-be known directors from Australia. James Wan and Leigh Whannell met each other when each were attending the Royal Melbourne Institute Of Technology, for which they bonded over their shared interest in horror. Years later, they wanted to make a film for as cheap ($5,000) and simple as one can make when having to work dead-end jobs; Wan and Whannell each suggested ideas to each other, but one idea by the former really stuck through: two guys in a room that had a dead body lying on the floor with a gun and a tape player. Whannell ran with the idea and expanded on it to what became Saw (for which he came up with the title); since they wanted to prove that they could actually do it, they took one scene from the film and shot it as a short (picking the scene involving the reverse bear trap for Whannell to act). Shot in Los Angeles in 2003, the short attracted attention from a variety of interested funders, with Evolution Entertainment being the one that Wan and Whannell went with because of the freedom granted to do the film their way (with a shooting budget of roughly $700,000 for eighteen days of shooting). 

Sure, it is gruesome, but it has a few fair merits to consider beyond just classifying it as the starting point for so called "torture porn." Pffft, I say, as this term seems to exist just for "higher-minded critics" to degrade horror films that just happen to make folks uncomfortable while being different from the usual fare (in other words, some folks are squeamish for stuff that seems tame to others). Besides, it would be the sequels that would up the ante in gore (which even got the 3D treatment with the seventh film), while this film is actually more reminiscent of Seven (1995), what with the exploration of a hunt for a killer that dabbles in sins. Undeniably, that film is superior in pretty much every way when it comes to its psychological aspects and main detective pair, but at least Saw manages to accomplish a portion of the terror that can come from the simple act of having two folks in a room with tension over trying to stay alive in a macabre mystery-thriller. Honestly, I thought it was a fine movie, all things considered. For 103 minutes, it balances itself out with a few elaborate traps and a few semblances of plot (in flashbacks, complete with red herrings) that hold up the interesting premise long enough to stick the ultimate landing, which likely will provide curiosity to those who prefer to sit through their films time and time again; its quality may vary from person to person like a puzzle game, where if one likes the process they'll go back to it and look to scramble it all over. Undeniably, the acting isn't the strong suit of the film, but I was fond enough of the presences captured anyway (although this is more because of the familiar faces more than anything, which can boomerang the other way around if in a lesser film); sure, Elwes may overact a bit with the material, but he makes the most of it with reasoned interest, since he has the overall story to work with (as opposed to Whannell, although expecting him to have great acting isn't exactly feasible). Glover and Leung do okay in the procedural aspect, albeit in the sense that it goes about as well with the film as it would on a buried script of a TV procedural. Bell is mostly utilized for his voice more so than physical presence for most of the film, but he gives it his effort for a role that could have veered into one-note (puppets don't count). The final turn of the screw for the closing is on the money, at least when it comes to not insulting its audience completely while being quite definitive in its lasting note on a killer that tests the will of survival of his would-be victims with traps that makes for a stone cold time. As a gritty feature with sparse features (such as in its shots and design), I would say it is a worthy accomplishment for what Wan and Whannell wanted to do in filmmaking, one that accomplished its ride of curiosity without stumbling over the clichés. It might not be a great piece in horror filmmaking, but it sure made its mark count with its interesting premise and execution that opened the door for further grips into terror in puzzle traps, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Halloween II (2009).

Final Destination.

Review #1749: Final Destination.

Cast:  

Devon Sawa (Alex Browning), Ali Larter (Clear Rivers), Kerr Smith (Carter Horton), Kristen Cloke (Valerie Lewton), Daniel Roebuck (Agent Weine), Roger Guenveur Smith (Agent Schrek), Chad E. Donella (Tod Waggner), Seann William Scott (Billy Hitchcock), Tony Todd (William Bludworth), Amanda Detmer (Terry Chaney), Brendan Fehr (George Waggner), and Forbes Angus (Larry Murnau) Directed by James Wong.

Review: 

“I was actually flying home to Kentucky and I read this story about a woman who was on vacation in Hawaii and her mom called her and said ‘Don’t take the flight tomorrow, I have a really bad feeling about it.' She switched flights and the plane that she would have been on crashed. I thought, that’s creepy- what if she was supposed to die on that flight?”

Oh sure, throw a wrench into the horror film with tinges of the supernatural, that is sure to work out. Technically speaking, having no visible murderer is probably the logical step in trying to make new horror films in the new 21st century without relying on all of the clichés from before. The idea came from Jeffrey Reddick, who was an employee of New Line Cinema for years (working in the worldwide marketing department). A horror fan growing up in Kentucky, he was so gripped by A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) that he actually wrote a brief script revolving around a sequel (sending it to New Line Cinema's chairman Robert Shaye, who encouraged him to keep writing). With the script that became this film, it had actually started as an idea for a spec script for The X-Files, but it was the advice of a work colleague that persuaded him to try and make it into a film script (which was done as a spec script sold to New Line). After working with producers Craig Perry and Warren Zide in developing the script for sale, James Wong and Glen Morgan (a writing pair who had written for the show) were brought in by New Line to produce and direct, and they became involved with re-writing the script in order to have it be made as a film; Wong was quoted as wanting to do for "planes and air travel what Jaws did for sharks and swimming". Four follow-up films followed in the next eleven years (2003, 2006, 2009, 2011), with a potential for a sixth in the near future.

Sure, they wanted to do something that makes you weary about planes like Jaws for sharks, and I guess the build-up to the plane sequence is the most interesting part of the movie in terms of claustrophobia. They wanted to make the entertainment value in the ride and not so much in the outcome that supposedly respects its audience. Honestly though, the ride just is not that interesting to go with, mostly because a ride is only as good as the amount of distractions that get in the way (besides, I am reminded of William Castle when it comes to "ride movies", and he knew how to make a gimmick count). With a movie like this, there are just too many distractions for me to appreciate the movie as anything other than a very average movie that either could have been manipulated for dark laughs or something weirder - the only respect that comes out is that it respects folks who want the easiest deaths possible with the bare minimum of suspense. Honestly, the biggest problem with the movie is that you could probably think of a better movie with the bare ideas presented here than what actually has come from something that probably thought more about the death scenes than what really could have been an interesting way to make a movie about someone cursed with the knowledge of impending death. Of course, my interpretation probably doesn't differ much from the intended idea: instead of having a lead character that looks like a freak to some of the folks (as opposed to say...thanking him?), how about just making him an actual weirdo right from the jump? Or hell, why not a series of deaths that could actually be interpreted as something beyond obvious "accident" material (i.e. more than just a guy slipping on water)? Think about it: a dude goes around telling you the plane is going to explode and a bunch of folks get snared into not dying: what better way to test out fate than by putting them to the test (and it would probably help without having bumbling FBI agents)?  Instead, one is stuck with a middling movie that goes through all the motions with the bare minimum of suspense, which thinks it is clever with the use of John Denver references every now and then (naming your characters after horror directors only works if you aren't thinking about the directors, incidentally). Cardboard cut-outs getting killed with Rube Goldberg-type deaths is still cardboard cut-outs getting killed. The curse of knowing the potential for death could have made an interesting movie, really. That, or maybe it really was something suited for television. Sawa, to his credit, gives it his best for a generic movie, filled with lingering confidence that for the most part keeps on the level with the whole "well, I saw death but I dare to not go insane" thing; simply put, he could be less polite. Larter is also alright, gripped with a sense of knowing that comes from the generic outcast role (incidentally, she would be the only returning actor for the sequel). Smith might be flat, but at least the character is semi-interesting when it comes to one scene near the climax involving trying to get out of the cycle of death (at least, until its end note). Technically, the best performance is from Todd, who has exactly one scene to go and talk about death and runs with it (which includes saying "mack daddy", somehow), which I guess helps out if one needs exposition. The others are pretty flat, in that clichés only work if the ride is fun. It isn't really, but that probably plays into my weird creep theory (the only one who reacts in any interesting way is someone who shows irritation when two of the survivors fight, which is immediately followed by them dying); Cloke is the only adult among teenagers (a loose term, but it checks out), and she has the least to really do besides the death scene (look, you can't spoil a movie that only has a finite bodycount among seven); when you are wondering how much more you could have involving Scott as comic relief, you might have a problem. Roebuck and Smith stumble with the blandest of possible procedural clichés (which only reminds me of how this might have played out before 2001). As a whole, it is a slasher movie with all the middling clichés from before except the part where there is a visible slasher figure. Sure, it has a few decent effects and ideas, but as a whole, making a silly horror movie with one neat trick is still making a silly horror movie, no matter how much gloss you put on it. While I undoubtedly will look on the follow-up films at some point, I can only hope they found better ways of trying to make the ride count for something beyond what they did here.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Saw (2004)

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).

Ring (1998).

Review #1747: Ring (1998). 

Cast: 

Nanako Matsushima (Reiko Asakawa), Hiroyuki Sanada (Ryūji Takayama), Rikiya Ōtaka (Yōichi Asakawa), Miki Nakatani (Mai Takano), Yuko Takeuchi (Tomoko Ōishi), Hitomi Sato (Masami Kurahashi), Daisuke Ban (Dr. Heihachiro Ikuma), Rie Inō (Sadako Yamamura), Masako (Shizuko Yamamura), Yōichi Numata (Takashi Yamamura), Yutaka Matsushige (Yoshino), and Katsumi Muramatsu (Kōichi Asakawa) Directed by Hideo Nakata.

Review: 

There are a variety of ways one can approach Japanese horror (also referred to as J-horror), but the most important thing is to try and remember the distinctions that come from looking at horror from a different country, particularly when a handful of these films have ended up being remade for Western audiences. Oh sure, there are movies like House (1977) that have endured without other cloying hands, but one focus lingers through a variety of these films in their focus on the supernatural along with Japanese folklore (whether involving ghosts or spirits), and films like Onibaba (1964) and Kwaidan (1965) are some of the numerous examples of the genre at its most ambitious. Of course, we are here to talk about Ring, so let us get on with it, particularly since it would be one of numerous films to find itself turned into an Western product like its counterparts in Dark Water (2002), Ju-On: The Grudge (2002) and others. The film arose from a novel of the same name, written in 1991 by Koji Suzuki. That book was successful enough to be followed by two further novels to form an initial trilogy with Spiral (1995) and Loop (1998), while Birthday (1999) was a short story collection; S (2012) and Tide (2013) was written by Suzuki as a new series of Ring novels. The first adaptation of the book was actually in 1995 with a television production that premiered on Fuji TV. The screenwriter for this film is Hiroshi Takahashi. Now, here's some fun confusion: the film would be followed by a plethora of sequels...including one that was released at the same time at this film. Yes, Spiral (1998) was released at the same time as this film as part of the strategy of Toho (distributor) in the hopes of increased revenues, which shared the same producers along with four castmates (Ban, Sanada, Matsushige, Nakatani) but with different directors/writer (unrelated to this, there was another production made in South Korea with The Ring Virus in 1999). Unlike Ring, Spiral was a failure, but a sequel would be constructed with Ring 2 (1999), which brought Nakata and Takahashi back that ignored Spiral while featuring several of the cast from Ring. Ring 0: Birthday (2000) was a prequel that had the same writer from the first two Rings based on the aforementioned 1999 book. Sadako 3D (2012) was a sequel...to Spiral, and it was followed by Sadako 3D 2 (2013); Sadako (2019) is based on the last novel of the series. Oh, and there were a bunch of other media such as manga and television...and an American remake (but you already knew that). 

Nakata did not initially spring to becoming a horror director, although he watched films like The Exorcist or the Amityville Horror series during his days in high school; he watched even more films in university, quoted by him as roughly 300 films a year during his studies, and he went to work for Nikkatsu studios after he had done his exam-work, where he worked a number of years as an assistant director. It was his work on Don't Look Up [Joyurei] (1996) that attracted interest from producers, and it was Koji Suzuki himself that asked him to direct Ring (who saw the way he worked on the other film). Ring was made for roughly $1.5 million dollars while having a production time of roughly five weeks (there was a pre-production period of three/four months); he noted one key difference in that the novel was a horror-mystery novel with a key device being a psych-meter being used to try and solve the mystery (along with changing the gender of the main character) to go with no shots of anyone actually dying (i.e. no details of the process like in the book). So, one is instead making a movie benefitting from urban legends...which sounds like something seen in Candyman (1992); this is merely an observation about perspectives in filmmaking, since Nakata studied various methods of story-telling that ranged from Kabuki theatre to The Ghost of Yotsuya (1959) to ancient histories and traditions in Japan, such as Onryō ("vengeful spirit") or the exploits of alleged clairvoyant Chizuko Mifune. So, yes, a movie about folks who hear about a tape that supposedly curses you to death in a week if you see it (in a certain resort in Izu) could have seemed quite silly if in lesser hands, particularly since this is a film that doesn't try to go with gore. Of course, it is the benefit that the film doesn't go with cheap tricks that makes Hideo Nakata's Ring work effectively as it does, as it manages to be quite eerie and riveting in its composition that leaves a good deal of things to the imagination of the viewer for effect that will likely work well for horror folks regardless if they see the film before or after the American version, which share distinct similarities and differences (namely in their methods of revealing certain details). Matsushima and Sanada (likely familiar for his action roles) make for a fair duo together when it comes to balancing curiosity and lingering fear that keep the film on its toes for 96 minutes when it comes to reasoned drama with each other (at least when one isn't thinking about who has mystical powers anyway such as the quiet Otaka), no matter which one you end up liking more. Of course one would remember the performance of Rie Inō when it comes to those brief moments involving Sadako, complete with an unnerving sequence in the end that doesn't even require much more than simple movement. The cursed tape has an interesting effect with being shot on 35mm that had some stuff added to look grainy, which works out pretty well in shuffling one's nerves and curiosity. It also  extends to the slow build in narrative threading (some concrete, some not) that plays on one's expectations and pre-conceptions with a sense of spirituality that made it a refreshing standout in its era, particularly with its final shot and lines that seals things quite carefully. If one is looking for a calmly paced horror film that grabs curiosity with a few resourceful techniques and solid tension, one could be right at home with a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Mummy (1999). 

Candyman (1992).

Review #1746: Candyman.

Cast: 

Virginia Madsen (Helen Lyle), Tony Todd (Candyman), Xander Berkeley (Trevor Lyle), Vanessa Estelle Williams (Anne-Marie McCoy), Kasi Lemmons (Bernadette "Bernie" Walsh), DeJuan Guy (Jake), Gilbert Lewis (Det. Frank Valento), Carolyn Lowery (Stacey), Stanley DeSantis (Dr. Burke), and Michael Culkin (Phillip Purcell) Directed and Written by Bernard Rose.

Review: 

"One of the things I like about making horror films is that there's a certain amount of freedom about them - people don't have to hug and kiss each other at the end, and say 'I love you Mom', it doesn't have to have a positive message. You hear people saying movies should be responsible; I think they should be irresponsible. It's always seemed to me monstrous arrogance that people are going to see your movie and come out the better for it. I'd rather they came out worse."

As Bernard Rose stated, one just has the freedom to do what they can when it comes to horror, mostly because it seems to be the easiest genre that one can make a captivating and eerie experience that doesn't have to be cornered into one spot for everyone. It is strange to consider that this is the film most might know Rose best for, since he has had a lengthy career in his native England in filmmaking, which started from a young age in super 8 mm before working in television and music videos; he made his debut with Smart Money (1986), but his third effort in Paperhouse (1988) gave him his first bits of notice. At any rate, he has continued to direct (while occasionally writing and serving as his own editor and cinematographer). It was a chance meeting with fellow Brit Clive Barker, fresh off trying to direct an adaptation of his own work with Nightbreed (1990) that would lead to Candyman, since Rose had an interest in one of Barker's stories to make into a film. Barker agreed to license the rights to that story: "The Forbidden", which was set in his native Liverpool. There are a few differences from turning a narrative published in an anthology collection into a feature film, such as the fact that the only details about the title character that are told involve the hook, bees, and a few skin details (such as wild glittering eyes), and Rose allowed Todd and Madsen to flesh out their character stories with a bit of free rein for the creative process. The film was a mild success upon release, making a bit over three times its $8 million budget. As such, it was followed by two sequels in the decade: Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh (1995) and Candyman 3: Day of the Dead (1999) featured Todd as the key lead (with only Culkin returning for one of the films), although neither were as successful. After failed attempts  in the early 21st century to make another film, a new one finally was released in 2021 (titled...Candyman, because we have moved into an illogical era of sequels using the same title as before), which featured a handful of returning actors from the first film.

What we have here is a film at the epicenter of myths and creeping dread, one that re-invents the romantic monster. Think about it: Rose intended the title character as more of a romantic figure rather than a terrifying villain, one that while being a boogeyman is also one with elegance to spare in terror that has his own gothic design in a lair made by folks that believe in the legend (each of these examples could spring to mind works such as Dracula or The Phantom of the Opera, although Rose noted it is more similar to the tale of Samson); of course, being based on legends such as the Hook and the Bloody Mary probably help in that regard as well. Fear and superstition go a long way towards making a curious film in fear, whether that involves one of ghouls with hooks or urban crime. It also is a film that makes its setting seem like a character in its own right (as reflective of the focus on segregation in the poor areas of Liverpool in the story): A select amount of days were shot at Cabrini-Green Homes, a public housing project in the city of Chicago that had an infamous reputation for its construction and violence; just a few years later, the projects would be demolished and re-developed; folks in the city might recognize certain elements from real life details about life in the projects in the film, since journalist Steve Bogira noted similarities between the film and certain elements of his report "They Came in Through the Bathroom Mirror" (written in 1987), which detailed the life and death of a woman from a robber that came into her apartment from a hole in the bathroom medicine cabinet. At any rate, the other key step involves balancing terror with a title character that doesn't appear until nearly halfway through the 101 minute movie. In that sense, we have a fairly game cast to make it all count. Madsen is the key to the film working out besides what one knows and needs in Todd, mostly because she has to maintain sensibility for a role that could have been fairy forgettable with a quieter presence or one without as much curiosity. Todd is exactly what you would expect with a distinct voice and aided by effects and certain shots, which results in an eerie and involving performance that stands on its own in distinctiveness within the slasher genre. They make for a useful pairing in their tête-à-tête with each other that involves a bit of hypnotic movement (albeit one playing on a particularly cliché that may or may not reach). The others in the cast follow fine in their own ways, such as a stoic Berkeley or well-placed timing with Williams or Lemmons (because how else would one react to circumstances with a curious observer that likes to in urban corners with scary legends?). The score by Philip Glass only serves to keep one on their toes with an appropriately eerie sound. If you think about it, a movie involving a killer ghost that comes around if you say their name five times could be a ridiculous idea, particularly if it is one that doesn't have a measure of what it means to make a gripping horror movie beyond just cheap slasher thrills. And yet, here we are with a movie that utilizes its setting and viewpoint on the nature of superstitions to make a worthwhile classic, touching upon issues such as racism with fair execution that likely makes this one of the most interesting horror movies from the 1990s. Nearly three decades later, there probably is no time like the present to check this one out for yourself.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next-No, wait a minute.

...

THE HOUSTON ASTROS ARE GOING TO THE WORLD SERIES! AGAIN! A week remains on A Month of Horror, but I'm saying this now to make sure my resources are properly focused on what needs to be done...or so I think. Hell, this is the 17th review of the month, so I would say we are on the right track. 

Houston vs. Atlanta? Hell yeah.

Next Time: Ring (1998).

The Lost Boys.

Review #1745: The Lost Boys.

Cast: 

Jason Patric (Michael Emerson), Corey Haim (Sam Emerson), Dianne Wiest (Lucy Emerson), Barnard Hughes (Grandpa), Edward Herrmann (Max), Kiefer Sutherland (David Powers), Jami Gertz (Star), Corey Feldman (Edgar Frog), Jamison Newlander (Alan Frog), Billy Wirth (Dwayne), Alex Winter (Marko), and Brooke McCarter (Paul) Directed by Joel Schumacher (#197 - Phone Booth, #217 - Batman Forever, and #218 - Batman & Robin)

Review: 

“Warner Bros. took a big chance with this movie, and with me, because they really didn’t know what the heck I was doing."

The 1980s must have been an interesting time for horror fans to see come out on the screen, particularly for folks who wanted to see a fresh rendition of the vampire. They certainly got their money's worth with this spectacle, one that definitely owes as much to MTV as it does to Peter Pan. There were a sea of movies with vampires in that era (and, of course, a great one with Nosferatu the Vampyre in 1979) such as The Hunger (1983), Fright Night (1985), Lifeforce (1985), and even The Monster Squad (1987). But when it comes down to lingering influence, one can't ignore the lasting endurance of The Lost Boys, which inspired filmmakers such as Joss Whedon. The original idea came from James Jermias, a grip at the time on studio lots that had read Anne Rice's 1976 novel Interview With the Vampire (which if you remember had its own adaptation in 1994), which led him to think about Peter Pan and the idea of vampires that could come out at night to fly without growing up (hence the title). He wrote the screenplay with Janice Fischer in 1984, but their idea involved pre-teens rather than adults (for example, the Frog brothers were written originally as eight year old Boy Scouts and the character of Star was a boy). The following year resulted in the script being sold for a fair sum with plans to have Richard Donner direct, albeit with a re-write. Jeffrey Boam was brought in to do a fresh draft, but Donner would not be around to direct, since Lethal Weapon soon was offered to him. Enter Schumacher. If you remember, he had gotten his start in Hollywood as a costume designer before dabbling into screenwriting with Car Wash (1976), with directing coming in The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981) before having his first notable hit with St. Elmo's Fire (1985), which had been produced by Lauren Shuler, who recommended Schumacher for this film. If it wasn't for the fact that he developed ideas of his own upon seeing the script (which he described as "Goonies Go Vampire", complete with a cave), he would have turned it down...instead, he found inspiration involving teenaged vampires with motorcycles (for his part, he believed vampires to be a metaphor for oral sex), one that he tasked to make the "coolest vampire movie ever made" (in his words). At any rate, the film is generally considered one of Schumacher's most enduring works, which included a few more horror films in a three decade career before his death in 2020.

Honestly, it did take me a while to buy into this film, mostly because one has to remember that Schumacher really seems to have a fascination with getting pretty shots that might as well have been edited for a music video before getting on with creeping weirdness. But it always manages to keep you drawn in with the characters of the night with a curious charisma to go with wonderful design and effects that make for a fun time. Sure, it is a horror film, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few tinges of humor to ride along with the experience in offbeat characters. Of course, one has to start with the lead in Patric, who actually had to be convinced repeatedly to do the film; he does a fine job here, one that has to balance calmness with eccentrics at every turn that either want to party or take him. Haim matches him just as well, probably best exemplified by the scene where one finds out the other is a vampire with a mirror and all one can say is that they are going to tell on 'em to mother. Wiest is the general straight-laced one of the main triangle that we are introduced to, and she makes it count with useful grace that is warm to follow on the side when not thinking too much about creeps at night. Undeniably, the highlight of the film is Sutherland, who has the most presence among the vampire cast-mates despite not having as many lines as the others; regardless of line count, he gives it his all in evocative charisma in a way that hadn't been seen in a vampiric lead in quite a bit of time, one that oozes along with carefree life befitting the requirements needed for a creeping film of wild living in the night. Feldman and Newlander make a worthy pair of offbeat hunters, selling it beat by beat in half-hearted chuckles. The same can be applied to Hughes, who actually might be my favorite presence in terms of his stubborn approach to everything that includes various traits such as "going out to the country" by turning on the ignition and doing nothing and acting stoic when it comes to the climax with vampires formerly around him. Others do well in smaller focus such as a hazy Gertz and a ruffled Herrmann, but one will find plenty to keep interest for 98 minutes. It moves with the mood of a glossy project with appropriate music trimmings (such as Tim Cappello performing "I Still Believe" in full detail and sax) and a worthy look that I think hits most of its marks with the right touch of effectiveness without becoming a cliché of the youth.

 

The film was a fair hit on release, making back its $8.5 million budget three times over while being a considerable video hit. There were ideas of doing another Lost Boys film with Schumacher involved (with his suggestions being one set during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and a "Lost Girls" film), but they never came to pass; instead, two direct-to-video sequels came with Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) and Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010), which each featured just Feldman and Newlander returning to their roles. Sure, The Lost Boys might be an acquired taste for folks that have their own preferences for vampire horror (with or without tinges of humor), but when it comes to glossy roaring chaos, no one is better suited for such material than Schumacher, and he milks it all for what is needed in curious entertainment. In a decade with a handful of re-inventions, one can't go wrong with The Lost Boys for a fresh take on the desires that comes with eternal youth and bloodlust in all of its weird trappings.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Candyman (1992).

The Howling.

Review #1744: The Howling.

Cast: 

Dee Wallace (Karen White), Patrick Macnee (Dr. George Waggner), Dennis Dugan (Chris Halloran), Christopher Stone (R. William "Bill" Neill), Belinda Balaski (Terri Fisher), Kevin McCarthy (Fred Francis), John Carradine (Erle Kenton), Slim Pickens (Sam Newfield), Elisabeth Brooks (Marsha Quist), Robert Picardo (Eddie Quist), Margie Impert (Donna), Noble Willingham (Charlie Barton), James Murtaugh (Jerry Warren), Jim McKrell (Lew Landers), Kenneth Tobey (Older Cop), and Dick Miller (Walter Paisley) Directed by Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch)

Review: 

"We have a fondness for this kind of thing. They're our fairy tales. The trick, then as now, is to try to find a way to connect this material to people who are younger and don't have a background in the classics."

As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to one good scare. And as it turns out, there was plenty of room to expand on the legend of the werewolf, mostly because there had been quite a lull in meaningful story-telling since the most prominent wolf film came with The Wolf Man (1941). Of course, there had been a handful of werewolf films in the subsequent four decades, such as 1957's I Was a Teenage Werewolf (released by American International Pictures, an inspiration for filmmakers like Dante), but the 1980s seemed like the best time to let loose with a beastly tale for the times. 1981 ended having three major horror features with werewolves as the subjects for general release: The Howling (released in March), Wolfen (released in July), and An American Werewolf in London (released in August); while An American Werewolf in London was the most successful of the group, this film has managed to endure just as much in its own perspective on the werewolf that has worthy effects and cast to work well four decades after its release. To start with, this film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Gary Brandner, released in 1977 (the first of three in the series). However, production of the film resulted in various scripts and directors going through to the point where it became a loose adaptation, complete with Jack Conrad being replaced by Joe Dante while Terence H. Winkless was replaced as script-writer for John Sayles (who had worked with Dante on Piranha in 1978); a cursory glance of the source material notes similarities within stark differences: the circumstances of the opening attack (and occupation) are altered, alongside the fact that the setting was a town as opposed to a patient resort (complete with a certain connection); lastly, while both end with two characters getting out of the town, each have different ways of inducing an open ending (in other words, the last line is both a gag and bait). Strangely enough, Brandner would co-write the screenplay to Howling II: Your Sister Is a Werewolf (1985), the first of seven sequels to this film, which had loose continuities with each other that resulted in two theatrical releases and the rest direct-to-video (perhaps it was irony that this happened at all, since Dante apparently stated in a Q&A that he disliked the book...with Brandner in the audience). 

A movie with character presences like McCarthy, Carradine, AND Pickens? Shoot, sign me up for 91 minutes. Sure, the in-joke references added by Dante to stuff like previous horror films (or naming characters after horror directors) or with certain wolf names is fine, but the curiosity will vary depending on one's taste, much in the same way one wonders just what a werewolf desires from humans: cattle or prey. Of course, it really is about what it means to deal with one's animalistic desires in the guise of a werewolf movie that actually plays like a slasher for a significant amount of time (as devised by Dante, who wanted to bring in the supernatural elements slowly); having a protagonist that isn't a werewolf probably helps in freshening up the expectations, too. Wallace does fine in balancing the long and winding road that comes with seeing weirdos at every turn, whether that means "self-help" folks or lingering nightmares of reality, which she sells better in its second half. Macnee pops in from time to time with his take on dignified quackery that seems pretty relevant now when it comes to the line of what is the best way to spend time with desires of animals. Dugan does okay with a cursory role (one that in an older movie perhaps would have had him as the lead focus), at least until the climax anyway; Balaski is also fine, but anyone that can handle terror with wolves like a champ is worthy in my book. Honestly, it is the supporting folks that seem to generate more curiosity (although Stone and his stoic timing, wolf or not, is close), which comes out best with the ever-casual Pickens or the spry nut in Carradine, while Brooks captivates well in presence (without saying much) and Picardo makes a worthy adversary in looming creepiness. 

Rob Bottin was responsible for the werewolf transformation scenes (which involved humanoid creatures rather than the desire of the studio to use "large wolves", as quoted by Dante). If you remember, there was also another werewolf film in 1981 with An American Werewolf in London, and the effects man for that was Rick Baker, who had decided to help with the effects for this film as a consultant and designer (since London had been stuck in pre-development for nearly a decade); when the other film actually did start to ramp into being made, Baker left to do that film (while giving advice to Bottin). The effect involved air bladders (as suggested by Dick Smith), animatronics, and spirit gum that had the actor in the chair (Picardo) being there for ten hours (of course, there were also parts that had to be done with animation and stop motion, although it isn't as lengthy is usage); Bottin also helped to supervise the way his effects would be shot and lit, for what its worth. While Baker would end up being the winner of the first Academy Award for Best Makeup (while Bottin didn't even get a nomination, which instead went to Stan Winston for Heartbeeps), one can certainly appreciate each effects man for what they managed to do with making their mark count in conviction when it comes to matching the mood of what is required from each transformation: one that looks painful and one that looks prideful. As a whole, I admire the way the film handles the werewolf legend with atmosphere that lends attention for terror and satirical fun that makes for a worthy curiosity as one of the most curious horror features to come out in the 1980s. No matter which werewolf film of 1981 was better than the other, the important part to remember is that each one served as a worthy crawl in horror that weaved their own perspective on the creature with distinct effects that only seem to look better and better after four decades with conviction all the way around for the season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Prom Night.

Review #1743: Prom Night.

Cast: 

Leslie Nielsen (Mr. Hammond), Jamie Lee Curtis (Kimberly "Kim" Hammond), Casey Stevens (Nick McBride), Eddie Benton (Wendy Richards), Michael Tough (Alex Hammond), Robert A. Silverman (Mr. Sykes), Mary Beth Rubens (Kelly Lynch), Pita Oliver (Vicki), David Mucci (Lou Farmer), Joy Thompson (Jude Cunningham), George Touliatos (Lt. McBride), Sheldon Rybowski (Seymour "Slick" Crane), and Melanie Morse (Henri-Anne) Directed by Paul Lynch.

Review: 

Hey, you like movies that seem like other movies? Well, you certainly will have one here with the movie: Want to think about Halloween (1978)? Or how about Carrie (1976)? Or how about phone call creeps like Black Christmas (1974)? Or maybe Saturday Night Fever (1977) is your preference...so why not a revenge flick involving prom, a masked killer, and more? Well, you might not believe this, but you get all that and more in a puddle of a slasher movie. Incidentally, if one is thinking about Friday the 13th (1980) in this discussion, Paramount Pictures actually had a choice to distribute both of those films, but Avco Embassy Pictures ended up with this film because they wanted to release it in more theaters than Paramount (over a thousand as opposed to hundreds). But let us give a little detail to its creators first, hmm? Before he went into film, Paul Lynch worked as a cartoonist and a photographer before he made his venture into filmmaking in 1968 in television. He made his feature film debut with The Hard Part Begins (1973) as one of his "people pictures". He had an idea to do a horror film after hearing about the success of films like Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left (1972). Actually, he had approached Irwin Yablans (the producer behind Halloween who had thought of the initial idea) with an idea about a killer gynecologist, but instead he was moved into doing a themed horror film instead. Although he has continued to direct since this film, this is likely the most notable one most would know in his line of work, which involved a handful of films done in his native Canada along with countless television series work. The film had two writers: the story was done by Robert Guza Jr while the screenplay was by William Gray.

Keep in mind, there are numerous red herrings presented here, since one gets to follow along with numerous folks in its multi-faced presentation of high school weirdos that just happens to have a total body count of seven. So what does it involve you may ask? Well, there is a group of four children that get into an accident involving a dead body that think to hide their involvement from everyone...six years later a raspy voiced person (who just happened to have see what happened) calls each of them up and targets them for death. Of course it also just happens to be the same time that the man accused of being the killer has escaped the asylum...oh, and of course the whole "revenge at prom" thing is also present to go with a potential suspect in a janitor that likes to look at the folks. Oh hell, you'll have a good guess who it is if you pay attention to a certain bit of minutes in the beginning/end before it reveals itself. If you can believe it, Leslie Nielsen is here in one of his last serious roles (since this was the year of Airplane!, remember). Unfortunately, he doesn't have much to really do despite the high billing, since he kind of disappears for the middle of the film (it doesn't help that there were a few scenes removed from the theatrical version). At least Curtis helps out, albeit with acting and dancing. Granted, the role seems a bit too tailor-made for her, as if it should have been someone who wasn't already familiar with stuff like Halloween, but the perception at that time was that it was a B-movie; apparently the role was meant to be played by Eve Plumb (known for The Brady Bunch) before Curtis piped in with interest (of course, this decision also helped with securing financing, so there's that). What I am saying is that it all seems a bit too familiar, despite the fact that she is probably the best presence in the whole film (because she is the most caring of these weirdos). It's funny to think about: she was also the best of the "teenage" actors in that aforementioned Halloween film, which had more trouble with its loopy dialogue but managed to do more with its atmosphere to endure as a classic. At any rate, both of those films (along with the 1980 releases of The Fog and Terror Train) helped developed her image as a "scream queen", which works to the film's advantage in lasting legacy (one wonders what would have been with Plumb, but...). Stevens is kind of dull, but given the whole "oh hey, remember six years ago?", I guess that is better than if he was simply trying to hide away. Benton gives the all in trying to distract the usual horror stuff with melodrama that is pretty silly but "worth it", considering other highlights being Rybowski being a weirdo in a van to go with Mucci's tough guy act (and of course, the whole fight and head thing).

Of course, the film doesn't really have that much gore in it, as intended by Lynch to avoid a gratuitous feeling. It should be pointed out that the best scene however, is the one that Avco added later: a head-rolling scene involving the disco and screams. This is just a weird movie, one that has a variety of episodic moments that eventually get around to mysteries: by the 30th minute, you haven't seen someone get harmed, but you will have seen a cafeteria fight where a guy gets attacked in a ski mask. Oh, and you get a dance sequence by the time an hour has passed, because this was done around the era of disco. Honestly, I am fine with the music, because if you want to make a horror film that tries to not look like a cheap Canadian production, go big or go home (of course, if you are intending to see it, try to find a good looking version, since I initially found a version on the Web that looked really murky, but thankfully there are better ways to see it, which also includes a restoration). In that sense, it might be up to one's patience about what will win out for 92 minutes. There were follow-up movies, albeit ones only loosely connected to each other: Prom Night II: Hello Mary Lou (1987), Prom Night III: The Last Kiss (1990), and Prom Night IV: Deliver Us from Evil (1992), alongside a remake in 2008, and I cannot imagine any of them matched the curiosity of the original (besides, there would be other films involving a killer knowing a secret such as I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)). For some, it might be a bit too dated to really hold interest within slashers in its era, while others will find a neat little gem involving mystery and disco that works on its own shuffle. Honestly, I found it okay enough to hold up as something to recommend, since it has just enough patience in its composition to make it all worth it.

 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It's time to amp it up with the 1980s, which means more than two films for this decade and beyond with horror features...

Next Time: The Howling (1981).

The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Review #1742: The Legend of 7 Golden Vampires. 

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (Professor Van Helsing), David Chiang (Hsi Ching/Hsi Tien-en), Julie Ege (Vanessa Buren), Robin Stewart (Leyland Van Helsing), John Forbes-Robertson (Count Dracula; dubbing by David de Keyser), Robert Hanna (British Consul), Shih Szu (Mai Kwei), Chan Shen (Kah the High Priest/Count Dracula's host), Lau Kar-wing (Hsi Kwei), Huang Pei-Chih (Hsi Po-Kwei), and Wang Chiang (Hsi San) Directed by Roy Ward Baker and Chang Cheh.

Review: 

This might read like a tombstone for Hammer Film Productions, but this is probably the most fitting film to etch a mark of the end of the road, because by the time of the 1970s, the company became a victim of their own success. As one might have noticed, the quality of the movies dipped a bit in the era, but the key statement that can be stated about their time is that they were at their best when they could entertain their audiences without having to tread all the familiar grounds of repetition. Oh sure, they had been a company since 1934, but it was only in the mid 1950s that they truly became a name of curiosity in horror with their color filmmaking and content, which involved using characters such as Count Dracula, Frankenstein, and various others, with The Quatermass Xperiment (1955) being the first key step. Of course, putting in more and more gore/violence/sexual content can only go so far, particularly when American markets started to see restrictions become more loose by the time of the 1960s. The attempts at refining the familiar with the times resulted in a variety of films in varying quality, but the studio would go into liquidation by the end of the 1970s (sure, the name is still around...); I'm sure you are aware then of how the Dracula series would go into self-parody with the films done in that era. Hell, in 1970, they released two Dracula films with Taste the Blood of Dracula and Scars of Dracula (the latter essentially serving as a revitalization of the series). Two years later, they thought they could set a Dracula film in the current day (while revising the timeline yet again in a series where continuity is glops of putty) with Dracula A.D. 1972, which resulted in more chuckles. No points for guessing where The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) went with "Dracula wants to destroy humanity with a plague". But hey, Hammer tried one more time, and they sure did go out with a film worthy of batting an eye. At the helm was a co-production involving Hammer and Shaw Brothers Studio (who until their reorganization in 2011 was one of the biggest studios in Hong Kong). Don Houghton (writer of the last two Dracula films) served as the screenwriter along with producing the film with Vee King Shaw, since his father-in-law had connections to the Shaws. Of course, familiar readers (or viewers of dreck) will recognize that the Shaws would continue to dabble with collaborating abroad that resulted in films like Meteor (1979). So yes, at least the folks at Hammer and Shaw did not bring complete rookies for the task of a British-Hong Kong production, since one would hope for no rubes at command. Baker had experience with the Hammer folks, having directed five features for them previously, with one of them being Scars of Dracula (1970) (another vampire movie he did was The Vampire Lovers, released the same year as the first of what was called "The Karnstein Trilogy"). He had a forty year career of directing films in numerous genres, with the most famous being A Night to Remember (1958). Of course, the Shaws were not quite happy with Baker, so they brought in a new director to help with the action. Perhaps it made sense that Baker would be joined by Chang Cheh in direction (albeit un-credited on screen); while this may not be the best introduction to him, he was described in his time as "The Godfather of Hong Kong Cinema", inspiring future directors like John Woo and Quentin Tarantino with films such as One-Armed Swordsman (1967), the first hit of a handful in a prolific career of wuxia movies. The two studios collaborated on one other film together in Hong Kong: Shatter (1975), which also starred Cushing.

When it came time for an American release, it was called "The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula" and featured looped dialogue (cutting whole scenes out and moving the prologue around) and scenes that changed an 85 minute movie into a 79 minute one (of course, I am watching the non-edited movie) - thankfully one can watch the version as intended. At any rate, this is the ninth and final film from Hammer in their Dracula series, and it is one of only two to not feature Christopher Lee (the other was The Brides of Dracula (1960), which had Cushing for the second of five appearances as Van Helsing). After a series of scripts that had seen him go from being guilt-tripped into doing movies because of the threat of folks losing their jobs to seeing the series go into self-parody with confusion, it is fitting that Lee did get to see the end of the series with a script that has even less for the character to do than usual. No, really: he shows up for less than five minutes in the whole movie, and the man playing Dracula is even dubbed (remember, in this film he assumes the form of a desperate priest who has seven "golden" vampires at his side after escaping Transylvania, which was like prison because...?). If you are wondering just what is different about "Golden vampires", well, they wear silly masks while tying women to platforms to drain blood into a pot as they galivant with swords and medallions (also, the battle is actually against six vampires, since one is killed in a dialogue-less scene right near the beginning). So what is the result of an international hodgepodge of The Magnificent Seven with kung fu and vampires? Well, it makes for a very curious failure, but a failure is still a failure, no matter how much kung fu, vampires, violence, and an assortment of flesh there is. Cushing at least gives it the old college try with dignity in the face of narrative gobbledygook, and at least it can be said that he does what is needed in usual decency (granted, not enough to save the movie, but still). Stewart does not fare as well, mostly seeming bored out of element, whether when trying to flail in romance or flail as the non-kung fu presence in the film (well, Ege is there too, but she just has to play to the glamour part in these films). Chiang does fine with the kung fu elements for a film that really tries to coast on folks going from place to place to fight, which means he makes a casual follow without much support (the siblings are there just to attack folks). Dracula is really not much of a focus here when there's the trouble of an obvious dub, and while Keyser is a fair voice, the makeup put on Forbes-Robertson in those brief moments is hysterical, and the fact that the last fight in the movie between the lead and the adversary ends in less than two minutes makes this laughably insulting. Honestly, the fights and the gore probably are the only things worth getting into, since the pace of the film plods along with no real amount of stakes to go around; the vampires don't pose much of a threat beyond chuckles, and the main folks seem better suited for a real kung fu movie than this. As a whole, folks who want to see where the seams finally ripped off for Hammer or folks who dig camp are the ones who will care enough to possibly seek it out, and I guess that is better than nothing. For horror, it isn't a true winner, but it could win out for the schlock at heart.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Prom Night (1980)

Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Review #1741: Dr. Phibes Rises Again.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Dr. Anton Phibes), Robert Quarry (Darius Biederbeck), Valli Kemp (Vulnavia), Peter Jeffrey (Inspecter Trout), Fiona Lewis (Diana Trowbridge), Hugh Griffith (Harry Ambrose), Peter Cushing (Captain), Beryl Reid (Miss Ambrose), Terry-Thomas (Lombardo), John Cater (Superintendent Waverley), and Gerald Sim (Hackett) Directed by Robert Fuest.

Review: 

Admittedly, watching Vincent Price in an American International Pictures production is like catnip to some folks. It sure is hard to resist seeing him in a worthy production, which if one remembers went pretty well with The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971). The success of that film generated a hasty demand for a sequel, which would have Price return alongside supporting characters Jeffrey and Cater. The film was written by Robert Blees and Robert Fuest, with the latter also serving as director; the script however required a mediator in producer Louis M. Heyward, since the writers did not see eye-to-eye (as one might see from writers to directors). If you remember, the original film was quite interesting in its madcap ghoulishness, complete with Price in one of his most memorable roles (complete with a gramophone voice). Of course, how does one follow a movie involving revenge being done with murders inspired by the Plagues? Well, fiddling with the original is one step, which they do with a voiceover in the beginning that now has the title character aiming to bring his wife back from the dead...after he is restored from when he had replaced his blood with embalming fluid. Oh, and a specific alignment of the planets with the Moon apparently has brought him back. Well, yeah, I guess if this had been a movie in an earlier decade, one could have probably tried to pull a fast one on the audience by just pretending nothing happened (or something). Anyway, if you wanted to see Phibes, I guess focusing on him trying to bring life works...until you think as to why would that be the case if he already got revenge on the doctors who operated on his wife when she died (with him getting in a car wreck while getting home) - of course, I forgot to mention that the earlier film was set in 1925 (which means the sequel is set three years later in 1928). Well, I guess he could also have wanted revenge for the fact he had to come up with a whole new face and voice, and I guess at some point in time he really did just think to himself, "what if I had a hidden temple in Egypt?" Screw it, the important part is that Phibes has returned and is ready for interesting times with designs that maintain the art deco feel from before without too many deviations (of course Kemp is replacing Virginia North as the silent Vulnavia, who had been harmed in the first-forget it), complete with filming done in Spain for the desert scenes.

Of course the simple plan of bringing back his wife from the dead AND finding a river that will give them both eternal life is not so easy, mostly because of the other lead actor in Quarry, playing someone just as interested in the secrets of life. This naturally leads to why Phibes goes around and enacts a new series of inventive ways to curtail the expedition with death, whether involving getting killed by hawks or killed with sandblasting. Honestly, the way that the deaths happen probably reflect the quality of the movie: not exactly as good as before, but still curious enough to work interest well; it may not be very scary, but I guess it will work out for those already comfortable with the usual AIP aims. Price lingers a bit less than before with this film, and while it may not exactly hone all of his tendancies of memorable acting, he still makes it work with sly engagement that keeps us on his side despite everything just as before (accompanied by a silent Kemp, who does fine). Quarry was evidently groomed by AIP to be a replacement for Price (as mentioned by Heyward in an interview, who also felt his career was being mangled), as evidenced by his star roles in both Count Yorga, Vampire (1970) and The Return of Count Yorga (1971), with AIP having served as distributor for each. While Quarry never quite got the star turn he might have merited from more work (as AIP turned away from straight horror in the decade), he at least gives his all in obsessive determination, one whose morality has slipped away faster than his life for intriguing curiosity, playing a fair straight man to all the campy stuff that goes around; besides, he gets to share a scene with Cushing and play ruthless - imagine that; Lewis plays the assuring lead lady that gets the last line (at least if you don't count a singing Price) for a fair chuckle. At any rate, it is also fair to see Jeffrey and Cater again, as they bumble around a bit in trying to step on to the case that results in a few useful cracks, such as one scene involving them coming onto the peculiarity of an organ being brought onto a ship (one that saw a man get killed and put into a giant bottle in the water), which also involves Terry-Thomas being brought in for a chuckle. The conclusion probably saves the movie, in that it is worth it just for the amusement of seeing just who gets what they deserve from their actions (and of course, a song); while the film was fairly successful, the idea to do another film ran into problems in coming up with a suitable script that never materialized.. As a whole, it is a bit more campy the second time around that results in a decent engagement of time (88 minutes) with useful enough imagery to make it worth it in my mind. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires.

Also, let me get a note out of the way. In case you didn't know, the Houston Astros are set to compete in the American League Championship Series for the fifth time in five years. As such, I am hoping for a great series that leads to further play in October (and November...?) for the team that starts tonight. 

Go Astros!

Spider Baby.

Review #1740: Spider Baby.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr. (Bruno), Carol Ohmart (Emily), Quinn Redeker (Peter), Beverly Washburn (Elizabeth), Jill Banner (Virginia), Sid Haig (Ralph), Mary Mitchel (Ann), Karl Schanzer (Schlocker), and Mantan Moreland (Messenger) Written and Directed by Jack Hill (#1654 - Blood Bath)

Review: 

"It was the first film I could really call mine. It was the only time I actually did a film that wasn't an assignment."

If you remember, the first film released with Hill's name as director was Mondo Keyhole (1966). Of course, there is a bit more to that story, since he came from the (unofficial) school of Roger Corman in the 1960s, and his first key task would be to shoot 20 minutes to be added on The Wasp Woman (1959) for syndication in television, which occurred in 1962. The following year, he would be given the dubious task of being the fourth director asked by Corman to direct scenes for The Terror (1963), which also came with re-writing the script (of course, he wasn't given credit for directing, but neither were the others). Gil Lasky and Paul Monka had a bunch of real estate profits they wanted to invest into a horror film, and they happened to have met Karl Schanzer, who suggested that Hill would be a good choice. 12 days of shooting happened in Los Angeles in August of 1964, but fate dealt a cruel hand when a market crash held up all of Lasky and Monka's assets. David L. Hewitt acquired the film years later and re-titled the film while releasing it alongside Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horrors (also just known as Gallery of Horror). For three decades, the movie's original negative was lost (with middling VHS versions existing in the 1990s, remember) before being acquired by Hill, who had a clean transfer done along with adding a scene deleted from release that he would call his "Director's Cut". 

It sure is a shame that the film did not receive much attention in its time, because it certainly has an interesting place among the line of horror for all of the aspects that would play prominent in more noted films in the half-century since its release. I think there certainly is a line that can be drawn through the timeline that could go from The Old Dark House (1932) to this film to others like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and House of 1000 Corpses (2003) with their own type of eccentric characters that happen to live in an infested house of murder and other such things. Of course, one involves a chain saw, the other involves rock music directors, and the other is whatever it is...Spider Baby is a creepy movie that holds its own when it comes to vicious goofiness, one that is disturbing in the chuckles drawn, and one will likely be drawn to this from the opening title song (composed by Ronald Stein while sung by Lon Chaney Jr himself, who apparently had a good time singing about spiders, ghouls, and other stuff). Basically, it is a film for the ghoulish at heart, and I readily enjoyed its 81 minute run-time in all the little weird things it ends up doing in building up its ultimate punch-line by the end that merits curiosity. 

This was released near the end of Chaney's career, which had gone through ups and downs in horror and character actor roles (film and television), but it can be safely said that this is definitely one of his best roles. He goes after the role with the right sense of dedicated warmth and edge that comes from contrasting all the strange kooks that inhabit both sides of this on-screen family, one that still has the timing necessary to make the material work with fondness; this is best signified by the scene between Chaney, Washburn, and Schanzer talking about staying together after the discovery of a dead man and the promises one has to keep (while the eyes start to water a bit). Redeker and Mitchel play the "normal" folks (framing the film for its beginning and end), while Ohmart jots in with assertiveness. One can't forget about the trio of eccentrics. Haig doesn't have much to say (as part of the plot, since the older one gets in the family, the less they say...), but he does well with a hodgepodge of moments that goes for weird within being a strong mute that likes to look at everybody (to varying results...). This was the debut of Banner (who had graduated Hollywood Professional School in 1964) in what became her most noted role before her untimely death in 1982. She plays the title character (i.e. someone who likes to play a game called "spider baby", as seen in the opening scene with Moreland). She does pretty well here in generating playful terror, which includes plenty of shots involving spiders in some way (such as tying someone up). Washburn is most likely known for both her appearances in Old Yeller (1957) and this film (having appeared sporadically in TV and film as a child). She contributes to the savagery in her own potent awareness that seems innocent like the other two on the surface that help the movie stay on its feet. Schanzer finishes it off with sniveling potency. As a whole, the movie relies on generating terror with atmosphere in terrorizing chuckles without needing overt effects or bloody gore, which results in a curious charmer that likely will reward folks who see it again and again. Hill would go on to explore further in exploitation films in the next couple of years, but Spider Baby has managed to find a place within his line of work worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Dr. Phibes Rises Again