Count Dracula.

Review #1913: Count Dracula.

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Herbert Lom (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (R.M. Renfield), Frederick Williams (Jonathan Harker), Maria Rohm (Mina Murray), Soledad Miranda (Lucy Westenra), Paul Muller (Dr. John "Jack" Seward), Jack Taylor (Quincey Morris), Jesús Puente (the Minister of Interior), and Franco Castellani (Renfield's Warden) Directed by Jesús Franco.

Review: 

Consider, for a moment, the state of Dracula movies in 1970. I think we can agree there are two actors you can think of when it comes to Count Dracula: Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Lee first played the role for Hammer Film Productions in Dracula (1958), which also featured Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Lee didn't return for The Brides of Dracula (1960), but he would return for the next couple of films with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968). Now here we are in 1970...with Christopher Lee playing the role of the Count in three films (as star, not counting any guest appearances), two of them from Hammer. Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while Scars of Dracula was released in November. But we are here to talk about the odd man out: Count Dracula, released in April of 1970 as a production between Spain, Italy, West Germany, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. An experimental film comprised from behind-the-scenes footage from the making of this film (which shows how the effects and sets were designed) was shot in high-contrast black-and-white that was called Cuadecuc, vampir (1971), which was directed by Pere Portabella. Lee would do a few more movies as Dracula, which even included a comedy with Dracula and Son (1976). Oh, but there is one more thing to consider: This was directed by Jesus Franco, a Spanish filmmaker proficient in many, many, many exploitation / B-grade movies (as done in Spain, France, West Germany, Switzerland, and Portugal) who directed from 1959 to 2014 that specialized in sex and sadism in his horror features (for which there are nearly 200 of them), which varied in budget depending on who was his producer. Harry Alan Towers, who he shot nine films for, was the producer on this film, which evidently was presented as a more faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (incidentally, Towers was behind the production of films that had Lee star as Fu Manchu). Well, at least as faithful as one can be, anyway, because not even the death sequence in the climax matches the book (as opposed to being stabbed with knives...here he dies in a fire). At least Lee's Dracula changes in age throughout the movie. There are a handful of writers: Erich Kröhnke did the story, while Augusto Finocchi and Jesus Franco did the screenplay, but there are others responsible depending on the language version: Harry Alan Towers did the English screenplay, while Dietmar Behnke did the German script and Milo G. Cuccia and Carlo Fadda did the Italian version.

So, when looking at the Dracula movies played by Lee (not counting the comedy), there is an undeniable appeal...it sure is a shame that it is not nearly as good as even the most average Hammer Dracula movie. Imagine being outclassed by Dracula movies that see an atheist-turned Christian lead hero. Well, the movie may be hampered by a low budget when it comes to failing to live to expectations, but the real problem is that the movie is just not exciting enough. It seems too static to go anywhere beyond what might have worked on television than a film experience. Granted, telling a book that is comprised of diaries for a film is hard, but there isn't an interesting perspective to really latch onto here. The 97-minute runtime moves with pale pacing that doesn't have a single striking element beyond just having Lee look slightly more interested to play the role with dialogue than usual. So yes, when viewing performances on a curve, his performances usually reflect the energy of the movie more than anything, which means he is the best part of a dull time despite not being his best portrayal of the character. Lom was apparently cast after Franco's first choice of Vincent Price fell through (my God, could you imagine how Price would have been? Oops, where were we?). Lom is technically a wise choice to counteract Lee as Van Helsing, mildly dignified in what is needed despite a silly script. He may not compare well to say, Peter Cushing (who went 12 years between portrayals), but he does fine in the exposition sequences, even if Lom and Lee don't share a scene on screen together (since heaven forbid both actors be on set at the same time). The core of Williams, Rohm, Miranda, and Muller are not particularly special, and this is a problem when Dracula isn't around for a good chunk of the feature (you know, the time after the Transylvania sequence). Kinski barely has anything to do besides a handful of "weird" moments involving flies and yep, it sure is a shame to be outclassed by Dwight Frye without saying a word. The silliest thing is not Dracula's death but instead a sequence where our characters are being stalked by deadly animals...that are stuffed. At least it makes one a bit complimentary to Francis Ford Coppola trying to do his own "faithful adaptation" of the book 22 years later. In short: Count Dracula may seem more like the book, but it doesn't come close to the exploitative fun that came from the Hammer movies, which means this movie is only worth watching if one is really into seeing Christopher Lee in movies or like cheesy horror movies. Don't take my word for it, Terence Fisher (who directed Lee in the first Dracula film twelve years prior) was quoted as saying “For the first ten minutes I thought, my God, it’s better than mine – and then I thought no it’s not!” I cannot recommend the movie as a good one, but if one really wants to see something with Lee or Franco, well, here is something to bite on if better movies aren't easier to find. A stinker is a stinker, but some stinkers are more fun to write about than others as opposed to actually sitting down and watching it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween, everyone. I hope you have enjoyed the horror reviews in October and enjoy your holiday time....and stay tuned for November.

I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Review #1912: I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Cast: 

Michael Landon (Tony Rivers), Yvonne Lime (Arlene Logan), Whit Bissell (Dr. Alfred Brandon), Malcolm Atterbury (Charles Rivers), Barney Phillips (Detective Sgt. Donovan), Robert Griffin (Police Chief Baker), Joseph Mell (Dr. Hugo Wagner), Louise Lewis (Principal Ferguson), Guy Williams (Officer Chris Stanley), Tony Marshall (Jimmy), and Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepe, the janitor) Directed by Gene Fowler Jr.

Review: 

Admittedly, making a movie about teenagers in horror could be an interesting time, if only because the 1950s had plenty to work with for audiences to enjoy, as evidenced by the output generated by American International Pictures. There were plenty of successes and failures with this studio, where a week was all one needed to make a movie like this, made on a budget of $82,000. This would be the first of a teenage craze with AIP, with Blood of Dracula and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein being released in November 1957 as a double feature that saw teenagers transformed into a vampire and a Frankenstein's monster, respectively. How to Make a Monster (1958) featured teens being hypnotized to kill while in werewolf and Frankenstein makeup. The film was directed by Gene Fowler Jr. He was more known as an editor, participating in films such as Tales of Manhattan (1942) and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). Fowler directed dramas and Westerns in his seven-film career of directing (1957 to 1959), with two exceptions: this film and I Married a Monster from Outer Space (1958).

Meh, it's not particularly interesting when compared to the slew of teenage-infused movies that came in its wake such as say, The Blob (1958), but there are a few nice things to say about its 76-minute runtime. It is at least a movie that tries to say something about teenagers and anxiety: kids sure get weird when you get on their case. In a way, it might remind one of another oddball werewolf movie in The Werewolf (1956), which had a werewolf transformation different from the usual full moon terror. In this case, the werewolf is triggered by some sort of "scopolamine serum" that helps someone in reverting their personality to primitive instinct (so yes, the doctor gives him a serum, then gradually convinces a teen that he was once a werewolf because somehow it will be good for the future of mankind...okay). This film just happens to have a janitor from the Carpathian Mountains who recognizes the threat, too. Honestly, the movie is also like the other one in not really knowing what to do with its creature (besides having both villain and victim be the same person), seemingly trapped in not doing anything more with its lead beyond the occasional line about being an ultra-aggressive dude. Landon would actually become a noted presence in television for three decades beginning in 1959, having been discovered by an agent while working as a gas service attendant near Warner Bros. (after hurting himself out of an athletic scholarship for javelin throwing at USC). He does okay with what is needed for impulse before the inevitable effects happen. After that, he kind of falls by the wayside when it comes to true dilemmas, as the movie doesn't really go farther than that when it is talking about someone being a wolf and being weird about it. Well, that or being a guy who can't control his temper, I guess. Bissell is the only other presence to focus on, since he plays the mad scientist type to about what you would expect, which basically means that if there was no mad scientist, the movie might even be more boring. So yeah, it is inevitable to see where these two go once they meet up, but you could only imagine how worse it could get. The teenagers are pretty stock, while the only noticeable support comes from future TV star Williams or the exposition-heavy Sokoloff. Besides, the body-count is pretty light, probably because the werewolf makeup comes and goes to varying effect. As a whole, it is a movie that has the blueprint for drawing a certain audience that ends up being a middling curiosity relic of its time, one that will either work out for those who desire something light and quick or not. For me, I can't quite recommend it as a good movie, but I recognize the staying power generated by an AIP flick like this one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Innocents (1961).

Review #1911: The Innocents.

 

Cast: 

Deborah Kerr (Miss Giddens), Peter Wyngarde (Peter Quint), Megs Jenkins (Mrs. Grose), Michael Redgrave (The Uncle), Martin Stephens (Miles), Pamela Franklin (Flora), Clytie Jessop (Miss Mary Jessel), and Isla Cameron (Anna) Directed by Jack Clayton.

Review: 

Admittedly, there are films that work best when considered for how they can cultivate atmosphere through dedicated execution, which generally happen in horror. Of course, some horror films get an interesting reputation through whosever eyes are viewing it. I was a bit curious about this film, if only because sometimes I worry a movie gets a good reputation in horror when it comes to ghost stories, real or not. This was the film to be adapted from The Turn of the Screw, an 1898 novella written by Henry James. However, it also utilizes text from the 1950 screen play (called The Innocents, which had Beatrice Straight and Peggy Feury as the star in separate theatre runs) that had been written by William Archibald. Archibald wrote the original screenplay for the film, but Clayton hired Truman Capote and John Mortimer to do re-writes because he wanted a script a bit more ambiguous on whether the ghosts were real or not. This was the third film script that had Capote as a writer. Most will know him as the writer of novels of fiction and nonfiction such as In Cold Blood (which he was in the middle of writing when approached by Clayton) but he did occasionally write for films, which included Beat the Devil (1953) and Terminal Station (1953). Mortimer was brought in to deliver a Victorian polish to the dialogue, but the film is generally thought of as having the spirit of Capote (he later described reading the novella as one without a plot). This was the second of seven films directed by Jack Clayton, who had worked a variety of studio jobs such as tea boy and editor before getting his chance to direct. The next adaptation of the material was in The Nightcomers (1971), which acted as a "prequel", and there have almost been as many television adaptations (four) than films (five).

Sure, it is possible to read a certain kind of repression and Freudian elements in a story of psychological terror. Oh sure, you could ask yourself if the ghosts are real or not, but I'll just go with the idea that they are, if only because I did not come to a ghost movie to watch a movie without a ghost (you can play the ambiguity card for only so long). However, it is the question of whether the kids are in danger or not that ends up being a really good question to think about. Besides, the movie is pretty good regardless of how you choose to view it, headlined by a tremendous performance by Kerr and an efficient pace at 99 minutes. It makes for an elegant and unnerving film, straddling itself in seeping paranoia that makes things not exactly what they seem. It has the touch of uncertainty that would be rivaled in films such as The Haunting (1963), if not topped. The cinematography was done by Freddie Francis, who had won an Academy Award for his work in Sons and Lovers (1960) before becoming a director the year after the release of this film. He helped to dissuade Clayton's annoyance at 20th Century Fox insisting that the film be shot in CinemaScope, a bigger aspect ratio than the usual standard. Francis used the wide space for shadows to make for an uneasy movie by doing things such as painting the edges of the lenses and bright lighting, and all of this works out to the advantage of the movie, although one of its sticking points ends up being a singing of "O Willow Waly" (which is actually sung by Isla Cameron) that happens from time to time. There are three key actors here: Kerr and the two children with Stephens and Franklin (Wyngarde doesn't speak, Redgrave is only in one scene and Jenkins provides some support). Kerr does tremendous here, vulnerable in all the right aspects when it comes to Victorian standards that generates interest in how one views her perspective in terms of what is seen and what isn't seen from the doubts exhibited. Stephens (known for this and Village of the Damned before becoming an architect) and Franklin (screen debut) do well, pulling one into the idea of innocence that imprints well on your mind that dawdles on the little things, such as how they interact with Kerr, such as the little embrace Stephens does with Kerr or the little moment Franklin shares when arising from bed late on a windy night (with Kerr tossing and turning) - whether they are just kids being kids or possibly possessed is up to you to squirm over. Jenkins proves quite fretful enough to support the core cast, wavering in the right points needed while Wyngarde makes a quiet terror anytime he looms for moments on screen. The climax is delicately handled to the right touch of what is needed from the source material while also circling back to its opening (writhing hands in a dark background) in the right execution. As a whole, the movie is quite eerie and effective in telling a good ghost story with a dance of ambiguity that results in a generally effective piece of looming terror fit for the patient horror eyes, one where not every explanation is needed to make the pieces fit right. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Curse of the Fly.

Review #1910: Curse of the Fly.

Cast: 

Brian Donlevy (Henri Delambre), George Baker (Martin Delambre), Carole Gray (Patricia Stanley), Burt Kwouk (Tai), Yvette Rees (Wan), Michael Graham (Albert Delambre), Mary Manson (Judith Delambre), Charles Carson (Inspector Charas), Jeremy Wilkin (Inspector Ronet), and Rachel Kempson (Madame Fournier) Directed by Don Sharp.

Review: 

Return of the Fly (1959) was not exactly a good movie to follow The Fly (1958), but you can at least understand where one would have fun in making a quick buck when success had just struck before. Robert L. Lippert loved making movies on the B-level, making over 200 movies. Of course, by 1966, now he was making movies in England that had distribution by 20th Century Fox, because making movies in Hollywood was not as cheap (plus with the Eady Levy, there was a tax on box office receipts in England for nearly two decades). This was the phase in his career that saw films such as Witchcraft (1964) and The Earth Dies Screaming (1964), for example. His career ended with The Last Shot You Hear (1969) when he and Fox mutually parted ways. At any rate, Lippert figured he could churn out one more of these films with the rights he had, so he tasked Harry Spalding, the writer behind plenty of Lippert productions, to go along with the idea. Don Sharp was recruited to direct, and he stated that the opening pages at the asylum were pretty good although he said the overall script "wasn't good enough". It did not help that he and Spalding were not particularly happy that Donlevy was cast as the lead, because Spalding actually envisioned Claude Rains (by that point 75 years old, as opposed to Donlevy, who was 64) in the role. In fact, it seemed to help Sharp lose confidence in what he made, since the only reason he did the film was to get back in the directing chair after spending months doing second-unit work on Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965); Sharp had moved from acting to directing by the mid-1950s and would direct for three decades.

The film never received a proper video release on VHS or LaserDisc, being rarely seen for many years until the 21st century, and it didn't help that the movie was little seen on release in 1965. Calling it the movie where a fly isn't present is probably the easiest way to describe it, but there are a few decent points made when not mired in complete mediocrity. Both Fly sequels aren't good, but they make useful curiosity pieces as the depths one can go in trying to draw blood from a stone. This film is technically a sequel, in that it retains the family name seen in the last two films (Delambre) and even shows a still from the second film that tries to connect the dots, although the Delambre here is...the son of the guy who got turned back into a human in the second one, I think (well, maybe the elder Delambre is the one played by Donlevy, but the second film had him named Philippe, so...). Hell, put it like this: a guy got turned into a fly, went nutty, then got turned back into a human, but his offspring have after-effects...a curse, you might say. Yep, that is what the title refers to, as the family is cursed to keep trying to do teleportation (oh, and they had tested on others, with...less than savory results); they basically act like mad scientists, but with a bit less competency (one guy teleports across the continent but can't go anywhere because he has no passport and gets sick to go along with that - the climax of his fate is just as amusing). With an 86-minute run-time, the result is a movie that doesn't particularly get more interesting than the opening scene with a woman breaking out of an asylum and casually lying her way in hitch-hiking (yes, the escape is presented in slow-motion). The rest manages to be a stiffly executed feature that moves in exactly one way that seems inevitable in plodding nature that means one is trapped with a movie that never reaches greatness or awfulness. It is too modest to go anywhere beyond mildness, as if the idea of a family trying to reach for "the greater good" is just a bit too quiet. 

Well, casting the man behind a number of tough guy roles and The Quatermass Xperiment (1955) seemed like an interesting plan. Donlevy isn't terrible in the film, but I think you can see where the filmmakers seemed like they didn't have the guy they wanted, since he seems a bit too quiet to really make the role seem anything more than a pale one, and I imagine even an elderly Rains would lend some gravity to the situation. You should feel the ooze of a man who sees experiments go really wrong (including on himself) and decides to go full speed anyway. This goes for Baker as well, who has to deal with the fact that he has a middling chemistry with Gray that tries to play the angles of both having secrets on the other and her possibly going nuts (ooh, the asylum escapee thinks she is going nuts, wonder how that will work out). Seeing the reaction to the first wife being used to test the experiment (and the horrifying result probably sounds a tad more interesting, but I digress. It just seems all too plain, never really seeming to gain much steam besides a few cheap effects, such as a writhing mass concocted by teleporting two people in the same chamber, or the moments where the younger Delambre starts to show his age. The feeling of inevitability overwhelms the movie in a way that just makes things out to feel like obligation rather than general interest. There are ideas here that could make for a fun time, but it just can't go beyond first gear to really get anywhere. It is a watchable sequel, and in some ways, it may prove a bit better than Return of the Fly but neither movie hold a candle to The Fly (original or remake). If you want to see just where the road leads in sequels for horror movies and like to see obscure movies not be held out, I suppose here is your chance.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Review #1909: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Cast: 

Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Review: 

"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.

The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate. 

If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role. 

As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Tomb.

Review #1908: The Mummy's Tomb.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dick Foran (Prof. Stephen A. Banning), John Hubbard (Dr. John Banning), Elyse Knox (Isobel Evans), Wallace Ford (Babe Hanson), Turhan Bey (Mehemet Bey), George Zucco (Andoheb), Mary Gordon (Jane Banning), and Cliff Clark (Sheriff) Directed by Harold Young (#511 - The Three Caballeros and #1799 - Carib Gold)

Review: 

Two years after the release of The Mummy's Hand (1940) came this film, which retained a couple of actors from this film as a sequel (of sorts) to this one. Foran, Ford, and Zucco return for this film, while Lon Chaney Jr replaces Tom Tyler as the title character. Honestly, I fail to see the point of having Chaney in the role, since he doesn't have a word of dialogue beyond all that makeup, and he would end up starring in the next two of these films. Given the time that the film it was made, it should only make sense that the film re-uses footage from the previous Mummy film, and this is done to recap what happened in a ten-minute opening (while Zucco is used to do other exposition before dying after monologuing). So yes, an hour-long film is really 50 when you take that out. You could call it incredibly redundant, but I guess it works if you really don't remember mediocre movies like before. I would like to point out that it is set "thirty years later", which would actually mean this film was set 30 years in the future and since the last one was a contemporary film...well, 1970 sure looks like 1940. 

It sure is a shame that this sequel is only just the same kind of mediocre horror movie, complete with oddball decision making that goes along with the benefit of having less comic relief without dragging along for an intolerable hour. You get a body-count and a silly motivation for the climax, what more is there to say? At least Bey makes for a useful adversary, following in the footsteps of Zucco in terms of smooth devotion before the inevitable story bits come in. So yes, a bunch of actors in elderly makeup are taken down by a mummy that survived being burned that moves at an amusingly slow pace. Hell, one of the guys gets killed when he is cornered at a wall and doesn't think to just...run to the side of him. But hey, the townspeople get a bunch of torches and chase the mummy, which happens to remind one of the Frankenstein movies, with the mummy being a tool to kill, which isn't too fun. My favorite bit is the group of townspeople staying still with their torches before they decide to throw some of them into the house the mummy is present (while people happen to be in the house). In short, nothing really is improved from the last film despite the small improvements from before. Maybe it is a bit interesting to see where the story ends up for Foran and Ford along with Zucco (seemingly alive after getting shot down a staircase), but yeah, they don't really have much to do to make you care very much about what goes on, so the disposability of them isn't exactly a shocker. Hubbard is just kind of there, existing only to interact in the mildest of mild things when the mummy is not on screen. Knox is just as bland, only serving as an object for desires of the most predictable kind, because this is yet another Mummy movie where the priest wants the girl for himself (the last one had them plan to eat tana leaves to be immortal). Sure, it is nice to see Bey in the role rather than someone who would play it for stereotypes, but nothing really changes in terms of captivating drama beyond the mild horror things. As a whole, if you want only a movie that serves the basic requirement of mummy terror and nothing else, then it will probably rank better than the prior Mummy sequel, but otherwise, there isn't really much to say in terms of positivity besides calling it mediocre.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Mad Love (1935).

Review #1907: Mad Love.

Cast: 

Peter Lorre (Dr. Gogol), Frances Drake (Yvonne Orlac), Colin Clive (Stephen Orlac), Ted Healy (Reagan), Sara Haden (Marie), Edward Brophy (Rollo the Knife Thrower), Henry Kolker (Prefect Rosset), Keye Luke (Dr. Wong), and May Beatty (Françoise) Directed by Karl Freund (#622 - The Mummy)

Review: 

There is something that appeals well to my being for films that got a bit of a bad rap in contemporary times, especially with a useful actor or director at the helm. You may remember that there was already an adaptation of the novel Les Mains d'Orlac (as written by Maurice Renard) with The Hands of Orlac in 1924. This was not only the first American film appearance for Peter Lorre but also the last film directed by Karl Freund. Freund was born in Bohemia (modern-day Czech Republic), and his interest in film began as an apprentice projectionist in the early 20th century. He would work as a newsreel cameraman before he became a cinematographer, which he would do for many films in Germany, most notably with films such as The Golem: How He Came into the World (1920) and Metropolis (1927); the unchained camera, one that involved a camera without a tripod, was his invention. He moved to the United States in 1929 and continued his work on the camera, even winning an Academy Award for The Good Earth (1937). He had directed one film with The Sensational Trial (1923) in Germany before his move, but the majority of his ten features as director came in America, with The Mummy (1932) and Mad Love (1935) being the most known. With Lorre, he was born in Austria-Hungary to Jewish parents, and he had begun acting in stage since the 1920s in Vienna before moving onto Germany for films. M (1931) made him a noted face with audiences, as it was his first major role as an actor. Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) only made him more noted. He left Germany for America when Hitler came to power, and this was his first American production. Over the next couple of years, he would do a handful of features as either the menacing heavy or in B-movie fare before his death in 1964. The film was released by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (as part of a deal with Columbia Pictures that had him do the film there in exchange for him getting to do Crime and Punishment), which apparently did not want the film to show a trainwreck of any scenes of...handsy play with statues.

Florence Crewe-Jones was behind a translation of the Renard story while also doing an adaptation with Guy Endore. John L. Balderston and P.J. Wolfson did the screenplay while there were a handful of contributions done by other writers such as Gladys von Ettinghausen, Leon Gordon, Leon Wolfson, and Edgar Allan Woolf. The film was not a considerable success, making less than $400,000 with audiences. Oddly, it became a strange point of contention with a film essay involving Citizen Kane decades later. See, Mad Love and Citizen Kane had the same cinematographer in Karl Freund (brought in to do additional filming after Chester A. Lyons had been the sole cinematographer) and film critic Pauline Kael accused the director as copying the visual style of the earlier film for his feature. In short, let us close out this diversion by calling the essay a sloppy and incorrect piece of junk and move on. The movie, unlike the previous Austrian production, focuses more on the doctor character rather than the character with transplanted hands. Of course, it is hard to top Conrad Veidt in terms of lead dominating performance, so going with Lorre in a different way does make things seem a bit fresher. This results in a curious movie that only runs at 68 minutes that rewards viewers who like Lorre and his endearing presence of creeps more than anybody else in the film. For one, his character is a tragic one, a guy who happens to like weird horror plays in the time not spent curing sick kids...well, that, and the obsession with an actress to the point where he buys a wax figure of her. It is the descent of the doctor rather than the descent of someone with new hands that is the focus here, going from savior to mastermind. He proves quite creepy when it comes to be a master manipulator, one who oozes on an efficient scale that makes the movie entirely his to control in disturbing obsession. You know who liked him in this? Charlie Chaplin, because he called him "The Greatest Living Actor" when he saw this film. Well, it doesn't mean the other actors are bad, it just means they get a bit overshadowed by such fun, most of being on Clive, who makes for quite a mild breakdown, although Drake (known mostly for her work as a terrified heroine on numerous works in the 1930s) does make a quality presence that Lorre can match up with in offbeat mannerisms, which is certainly odd when it goes up against the relief done by Healy, Beatty, and Brophy. At any rate, it is a movie about the outsider in a time where people wanted something a little more escapist that has certainly aged well despite its limitations. The pacing hasn't improved from the last one, and it certainly makes a shaky leap to get to its ultimate end goal, but as a whole it makes for a solid deranged cult classic that probably ranks a bit higher than The Hands of Orlac in the long run when it comes to efficient and off-putting horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Halloween Ends.

Review #1906: Halloween Ends.

Cast: 

Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Andi Matichak (Allyson Nelson), James Jude Courtney and Nick Castle (Michael Myers / The Shape), Will Patton (Deputy Frank Hawkins), Rohan Campbell (Corey Cunningham), Kyle Richards (Lindsey Wallace), Jesse C. Boyd (Officer Mulaney), Joanne Baron (Joan Cunningham), Rick Moose (Ronald), with Michael Barbieri (Terry), Destiny Mone (Stacy), Joey Harris (Margo), Marteen (Billy), and Michael O'Leary (Dr. Mathis) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018) and #1752 - Halloween Kills)

Review:  

Part 1: The Shape of BS

It took about a week to write this review, albeit mostly on purpose. I had a vacation coming in October because, well, it is baseball season, but I figured that a month of horror would need at least one 2022 film (as it turned out, this is the third from this year). Besides, there is plenty to talk about when refreshed and having covered thirteen films already, so let us get going. As much as I wanted to rush out a review that covered this film in quick detail in order to cover a new horror movie for the season, I think that the best way to give the film justice is in excruciating detail. No, this won't be a bit-by-bit picking of the film, but it will try to satisfy all of the angles that I'm sure will make this one of the most divisive horror movies in quite a while. If one wants to be pedantic, there have been premises suggested for Halloween films that never came to pass that I'm sure would be familiar to those who watch this film, since one of the ideas presented in the gap between Halloween films (2010-2017) involved a mockumentary where people would get slashed while a "Halloween" movie was being filmed. You could argue that the movie is meant to be bold with the way it wants to finally, finally, close the Halloween series (at least until Malek Akkad decides to make a deal with a producer besides Blumhouse to do it all over again). We have seen twelve follow-up films now, with varying "timelines". Halloween (2018), the first reboot to ignore continuity since the last film to ignore continuity in Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), was pretty fine when I saw it back in 2018, but my opinion did diminish slightly when I heard that there would not only be a sequel but then another sequel. You know why? Yes, I am still stubborn in the belief that the 2018 Halloween would have been better off as just one thing, with no attempts at baiting more. Sure, Gordon Green and Danny McBride thought about doing back-to-back movies, but you can't seriously tell me that this trilogy of films (2018, 2021, 2022) deserved to be a trilogy. How the hell does one have so little confidence in themselves to go through with this? No disrespect, but people still would've gone nuts for a back-to-back row of Halloween films. At any rate, Kills was a flat-out filler movie filled with a silly idea about townspeople going nutty that went hand in hand with silly dialogue, albeit being better as a pure slasher film. As with before, Gordon Green and McBride wrote the film, this time in collaboration with Chris Bernier and Paul Brad Logan; the ending apparently was re-shot to be more modest. The film was released both in theaters and on Peacock (yuck), and I imagine it will make slightly less than the other two in audience curiosity, but who knows.

Part II

It is amusing to think about how the new trilogy has cribbed elements of the films they ignored with II, 4, 5, 6, except the whole Myers sibling thing. For example:

Laurie enters the hospital and stays there for most of it (Halloween II / Kills) 

A town mob goes after Michael (The Return of Michael Myers / Kills)

Michael gets injured and rests underground (The Revenge of Michael Myers / Ends)

A radio shock jock talks about Michael, needles the town, then gets killed (The Curse of Michael Myers / Ends)

A weirdo Tommy Doyle (Halloween 6 / Kills) 

Michael returns to his old house to kill people who happened to live there (Halloween 6 / Kills)

A person possibly follows in the footsteps of Michael (4 / Ends). 

Of course, you could argue that Ends tries to play the trick of being like the first one in not having much of Michael Myers or perhaps serve as a new example of being the divisive "third film" such as Halloween III; Season of the Witch (1982). Halloween (1978) was a great movie, let us get this out of the way. The classic took a premise as simple as murder of babysitters in a small town and made it a great horror classic that looked and sounded great, complete with a menacing terror in "The Shape". So...how is it? You know what was a better horror sequel that tried to do a different take on the original? Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Watch that film instead. All right, you want more? Well...

Part III: Season of the Review

Halloween Ends is probably the most poorly executed of all the sequels that have come out in 40 years. I will say that it is average in terms of presentation and general filmmaking but a failure in the parts that matter most. Forget trying to call this the modern Halloween III in trying to push the boundaries of what can be done in this series, because this is just a lousy piece of dreck that makes the other one look less like hokey dreck. You thought killer masks with microchips from Stonehenge was bad? You thought Michael being a tool of a Thorn cult was bad? You thought trying to explain the psychology of Michael was bad? No, it is the idea of trying to make a movie where someone follows some of the footsteps of evil like Michael Myers that ends up being one of the most confounding misfires in this series. I think the only movie that managed to convey the terror of being killed by a shape of evil in a small town was, well, the original film. Every sequel since has either serve as a demystification of the killer or tried to amp up the gore, proving that one really can't capture lightning in a bottle twice. To be honest, the end result differed from what I really thought could have happened in this series: kill both Laurie and Michael as a full-fledged way to balance out good and evil. Granted, it would be pretty bleak, but isn't the point of doing a new "trilogy" to aim for something different? You could argue that Halloween: Resurrection (2002) and Halloween 4 came up with the death idea first, but hey, if you can do a better version of H20, then doing a better follow-up of H20 than what you got is not a hard tangent to leap to. But no, you have got to keep Curtis present and ready for another matchup of aging characters once again (box office dollars being the cynical reason). Maybe they wanted people to do think pieces about how the Rob Zombie features were better by comparison (uh, no).

Part 4: The Return of the Point

The 2018 version at least made a quality setup of an aged Laurie and Michael having their paths cross again, but it seems insulting to make a movie that tries to play with that for the last 25 minutes for a less inspiring result. The film isn't even better on a horror level than Kills, a mediocre hack of the fourth film. The slasher scenes are handled in a moderate level that falls by the wayside with bland social commentary that is not particularly clever. Who the hell thought seeing townspeople spew conspiracy theories about a killer was a particularly interesting idea? The Shape isn't exactly a hard presence to break down: he kills people without saying much of anything, he lurks in a way that may or may not be supernatural. John Carpenter aimed for "true crass exploitation", and every sequel has managed to only be just exploitation in different names. You could argue that Carpenter being involved as executive producer and music composer makes this sting less, but I imagine as long as the work and check clears, he doesn't really care (this isn't to knock Carpenter, because he obviously can do whatever the hell he wants - give him another shot at a film, you cowards!). 

Part 5: The Revenge of the Actors

Oh, right, there are actors in this movie. It relies mostly on the shoulders of Campbell, known for a handful of TV and film roles. In his attempts at trying to portray the descent of someone into madness in a love story manages to result in a bland performance. If you want to make chemistry between him and Matichak make sense, one would've actually had these two paired together earlier - as opposed to the third film of a trilogy! There is just too much of a hill for him to climb out of when it comes to trying to elevate a "new idea" that won't make you simply just watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). In short, he is only effective in bland brooding scenes that would've made him an ideal one marked for death in a crappy slasher movie. Matichak comes off as listless, seemingly stuck in autopilot mode for nothing to do besides act opposite the "bad boy" stuff, as if the dynamic between her and Curtis had been played out in the last two films (uh, no?). I do appreciate Curtis getting her last portrayal of a character without reaching 65 (as opposed to Donald Pleasance, who was past that age for three sequels while still probably being the best part of those films). There hasn't been a bad portrayal in these seven films, but I can't say that she goes out as a complete winner, because the movie fundamentally fails her when it comes to presenting her trauma and guilt (oh look, the character is depicted writing a book...kind of like how Rob Zombie's Halloween sequels (2007, 2009) had one of the leads write a book). The voiceovers used from time to time are cliche and uninspiring, and there is nothing to grab on when it comes to the inevitability of a final confrontation that is more of a wet fart of a swansong rather than something interesting. The rest of the characters are just there, mildly interesting but only reminding me that this probably could've worked as a miniseries or a mega-cut. Here are the run-times of the films: 106, 105, and 111 minutes. Yeah, I think you can take 300 minutes from these films combined and cobble it into two films, and maybe somehow make this look like a real narrative as opposed to whatever bullshit this is, which seems to think the audience is stupid. The last film thought they could play the audience like a fiddle for filler, so obviously they think they can get away with it again. Imagine having the highlight of your film being a character getting put through the grinder (unless you count the opening scene as, uh, effective). 

 Part 6: The Curse of the Conclusion

In total, I assumed when I took time to process the film that it would sound better in my mind. Some have made the argument that it is a mixed bag, one that really tries to do something different with the series besides just being a slasher film. Well, that may be true, but a pile of crap with salt in the middle still taste likes crap no matter how you try to present things. I won't go as far as others who (seriously or not) put up a petition to re-do the film, but I will say that the best way to view the film is to look at it as a parody, one that sees what happens when someone has gone so far up their own...you know where that they have lost sight of what Halloween was about. It was a haunted house movie built around a holiday dedicated to getting one good scare that Carpenter and company turned into something chilling. Gordon Green's 2018 film and the original Halloween II are probably the only interesting follow-ups since the original, but when it comes to wanting one pure good time, the original movie wins every-time, proving that the past can lurk from beyond in more ways than one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Sinister.

Review #1905: Sinister.

Cast: 

Ethan Hawke (Ellison Oswalt), Juliet Rylance (Tracy Oswalt), Fred Thompson (Sheriff), James Ransone (Deputy), Michael Hall D'Addario (Trevor Oswalt), Clare Foley (Ashley Oswalt), Nick King (Bughuul / Mr. Boogie), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Professor Jonas) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange and #1865 - The Black Phone)

Review: 

The best part of a horror movie is when one finds inspiration in a prior horror film experience and homes in their own interesting idea. When C. Robert Cargill saw the 2002 feature The Ring, he had a nightmare after viewing the film, one that had Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The scenario snowballed from there when spending time with Scott Derrickson in writing the script, where Cargill devised his idea of what a Bogeyman would look like that would stand apart from the usual entity, which had a look inspired by a picture Derrickson found on Flickr when looking at "horror" images (making a deal with said photographer, naturally). I'm sure you recognize the scenes with a Super 8 are in fact shot from a Super 8 camera. This was the fourth feature film from Derrickson, previously responsible for Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). Made on a budget of roughly $3 million that was made from a variety of production companies that included Blumhouse Productions, the film was a considerable success at the time, and a sequel was made in 2015 that had Derrickson and Cargill return to write it along with one returning cast member.

It is the pursuit for recognition that pushes the whole film. Sure, the entity looks both unfamiliar and alluring to us in appearance, but the goals of the being and the lead character we are watching are not too particularly different, and that probably is spookier than anything else. Granted, the thing likes to do elaborate sequences of terror like one might expect from a horror film, but that doesn't mean that the film lacks energy when it comes to making a good slow burn movie. Ten years have only made it seem all the more interesting in what endured best in seeing the clash of old and new technology within a movie that doesn't aim for a blood affair but instead a calm terror (you might ask how Google doesn't play a part here, but where's the fun in that?) It is a familiar movie, one that plays on the cliches of the past without trying to play it for laughs. It is one with a general patience in 109 minutes that uses its imagery well for those who pay attention and dig where it wants to dig in unraveling terror when it comes to old legends and not learning when to leave well enough alone. It isn't hard to see while the filmmakers felt Hawke would be an ideal presence to work magic with a character that would have been pure heel with a less talented actor. It is his film to shine in terms of craven charm that sells every moment of ambition or growing suspicion without a false note present. We know what kind of hostility will come from a spooky dark house and secrets from all sides, but it still works well with someone we can lovingly chuckle with in terms of how self-centered a pursuit can be with Hawke there to guide it as a haunted fool that we like, as opposed to someone we shake our heads at. Rylance and the others playing the on-screen family are about what you would expect in light charm, while Thompson chews in scolding grit for two scenes of neat timing. Ransone makes a bit of plucky charm on the sidelines while D'Onofrio makes his exposition-heavy side role worth viewing for a couple of minutes. I find that it is a pretty good horror movie, one that achieves the basic goal of making its premise work more than just on paper through the use of a decent cast headlined by one really good actor to go with some stellar Super 8 photography that makes this a movie warped in past and present for the right reasons. I especially like the climax, one that doesn't roll on a red herring or any kind of last-minute tricks to try and yield the inevitable, which means one gets a movie about a creature that feeds on attention - human or beast, and the movie knows what to say about the plight of each in where recognition can get you. Some will find it pretty scary and other may find it familiar, but they certainly will have an interesting time regardless because of how Derrickson and company came together to make a horror movie worth one's attention without having to strain credibility to get to that point.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Descent.

Review #1904: The Descent.

Cast: 

Shauna Macdonald (Sarah Carter), Natalie Mendoza (Juno Kaplan), MyAnna Buring (Samantha "Sam" Vernet), Saskia Mulder (Rebecca Vernet), Alex Reid (Elizabeth "Beth" O'Brien), Nora-Jane Noone (Holly Mills), Oliver Milburn (Paul Carter), and Molly Kayll (Jessica Carter) Written and Directed by Neil Marshall.

Review: 

"I very specifically set out to make the scariest movie I could. There was malicious intent on my part, I wanted to scare the shit out of people.”

Hey, sometimes you have to do a British horror film that isn't just a Hammer movie. This was the second feature film of Neil Marshall, born in Newcastle upon Tyne, England. He wanted to make movies since he saw Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which led to spend plenty of time with an 8mm camera and eventually study in film school before he got to do freelance work as an editor (such as with Killing Time (1995)). In 2002, he had his first chance to direct with Dog Soldiers, an action-horror film that made quite an impression. In fact, it was the success of that film that inspired him to make the film, since a reviewer asked when a "Brit" was going to make a really scary horror film again. After pitching an idea of a zombie oil rig movie went south, a three-hour train journey inspired the idea that became this film, with a co-producer being the one that came up with the idea of the main cast being all women (interesting to note the fact that we have to note this at all, but here we are). There are two endings in the film, with one being incorporated in North America (as distributed by Lionsgate) that aimed for a less depressing ending in order to get a wider release by basically cutting 30 seconds of the original ending (which depending on your perspective could actually be the happier ending). By coincidence, this film was released less than a month before The Cave, a horror movie about...well, you know (this movie was hurriedly shot in January and February for release in July). In 2009, a sequel called The Descent Part 2 was released, with the editor from the first film in Jon Harris being the director while two of the original cast members return. Marshall was a producer on the film, but he described in later years as "totally unnecessary".

Sometimes you need something that can have fun with making a horror film intending to aim for claustrophobia that exceeds the expectations by its premise for a delicately terrifying horror film. Seemingly inspired by Deliverance (1972) and The Thing (1982) without becoming pastiches of them, Marshall managed to make a movie that ruminates about the nature of grief and self-preservation that takes risks for the benefit of the patient viewer. It's the kind of movie that you can interpret through its title (without sounding embarrassing, of course). It has capable characters that seem like real folks before it veers into the parts of the creature feature that does have blood but not at the lose of the blood in one's head. In this case, it involves dwellers (appearing pretty late in the 100-minute movie) that look like cavemen that never left the caves (or Nosferatu (1922)) without having to spend much time on mythmaking besides what you see and hear from the mazes in caves that has quality lighting. Hell, even the climax is swift in execution, finding the right time to close things out without stopping dead in its tracks. One isn't too far removed from terror, whether that involves murky monsters, splatters of blood, or bones being set. In that sense, Macdonald does well in conveying the shaken build-up of someone filled with isolation and trauma that we care about in the descent towards in both cave and mind. Mendoza plays the other part of the descent in terms of self-preservation that is just as convincing to make an interesting look at a fractured pair of people without beating one over the head with it. They are a shaky duo of friends in all the right ways when it comes to seeing and hearing fractures.  The others do fine, although with a movie that does have a body-count, you can only roll with certain folks for a certain amount of time - Noone was probably the most interesting in terms of daredevil charm. I admire the attempt at showing a trip through trauma in all the forms it encompasses (such as old memories stinging in one's head or awkward reminders), it makes the endpoint all the more compelling. As a whole, it does invite plenty of chills for those who do not imagine themselves as fans of being in a tight space without much lighting (as captured brilliantly in sets). The climax is swift in ways you usually don't see in a horror movie (regardless of which cut you see), aiming for stone cold starkness and hitting the mark on that regard, if only because it seems like the kind of movie that earns its ending without being overblown about it (sure, there's a sequel, but why the hell does that matter?). As a whole, I enjoyed the movie in its imperfections and successes, one that sticks the landing in churning fears by finding the right story beats to embrace and dodge without mockery or stumbling in the ways that matter. Fifteen years has only made this seem better as a quiet gem, clearly.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

From Dusk till Dawn.

Review #1903: From Dusk till Dawn.

Cast: 

Harvey Keitel (Jacob Fuller), George Clooney (Seth Gecko), Quentin Tarantino (Richard 'Richie' Gecko), Juliette Lewis (Katherine 'Kate' Fuller), Ernest Liu (Scott Fuller), Salma Hayek (Santanico Pandemonium), Cheech Marin (Border Guard / Chet Pussy / Carlos), Tom Savini (Sex Machine), Fred Williamson (Frost), Michael Parks (Texas Ranger Earl McGraw), Kelly Preston (Newscaster Kelly Houge), John Saxon (FBI Agent Stanley Chase), Danny Trejo (Razor Charlie), Brenda Hillhouse (Hostage Gloria Hill), and Marc Lawrence (Old Timer Motel Owner) Directed by Robert Rodriguez (#1193 - Alita: Battle Angel)

Review: 

The vampire movie has many forms besides Dracula, but I am sure you already have figured that out. You could look at it from a number of ways, particularly in the 1990s, which saw films by Francis Ford Coppola (you know, that mediocre Dracula adaptation) and John Carpenter (Vampires). So yes, an action horror movie with Robert Rodriguez is certainly an interesting idea. This was the third feature film by Rodriguez as a director, who made his feature debut with El Mariachi (1992) that led into more success with Desperado (1995). The story was done by Robert Kurtzman (a co-creator of the KNB EFX Group, which was behind the effects of this film) while the screenplay was done by Quentin Tarantino (the third and last film he wrote without directing after True Romance (1993) and Natural Born Killers (1994)). Rodriguez and Tarantino, best friends since the 1990s, would collaborate with each other eleven years after the release of this film with the double-feature Grindhouse (Planet Terror / Death Proof). The film was followed by two direct-to-video sequels that were produced by Rodriguez, and he would develop a television series based on the feature in 2014.

Admittedly, the enjoyment of the film will depend on how big one is in a film that tries to blend action and horror with measured patience - it is action all the way, but at least the horror is fun. The first hour is all about the set-up in what you might see coming from the action cliches that Tarantino clearly has an interest in (he likened the film to The Desperate Hours (1955) but with a supernatural twist), complete with having a core group of characters that have useful rapport with each other. Watching a movie with killers that have a bit of charm does seem a bit familiar if you've seen some of Tarantino's work, but of course it also probably goes hand in hand with Rodriguez in terms of kinetic enjoyment (like many of his films, he served as editor). So yes, it is essentially like having a sandwich of two favorable elements packed together (say, peanut butter and jelly), if it works well for you, go right on ahead, because it will satisfy the B-movie dreams one could go for, complete with green blood splatter. It may be a movie of the macabre, but it is one with a good-natured smirk to things, which works just enough in trying to make one believe in the horror of a bar that offers both pretty women and vampires. This was the first major film role for Clooney, previously best known for his run on the TV series ER. He does pretty well here, wrapped in plenty of confidence and devilish charm that is interesting to see play out against both the action element and the eventual horror that clearly would suit him for future films. Tarantino must have been interested in following the tradition of other director-turned-actors like John Huston when it came to playing a role opposite Clooney. They share a decent rapport together in brotherly cohesion that holds enough weight to make him more than just being the lesser of the key quartet. Keitel makes it worth his while in reserved dignity in religious dilemma, but Lewis is the quiet leader in her offbeat charms that proves quite natural for all the turns required. The small moments with others is fun for those who like recognizable faces and names, such as Trejo (Rodriguez's second cousin), Savini & Williamson or with the triple cameos by Marin, which all have charm that invite a bit of imagination of their stories besides this one, and Hayek makes the most of her time on stage with allure - so yes, it is a fun little time for those into its spirit (oh, there are others who come and go like Liu or Saxon, which is whatever, and that is a sad thing from someone who digs Saxon but still thinks the movie is fine). The mayhem is plentiful that makes the 108-minute run-time go with clear enjoyment for making schlock to enjoy taking the cliches from the book and putting them in the grinder. You have a movie where a gun is on a man's crotch to go with brains being stabbed by a pencil and kids getting chomped by vampires - it all works out. As a whole, the action and horror elements done by Rodriguez and company make an interesting result, serving as a slightly more expensive B-movie that could please both genre lovers if in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Wolfen.

Review #1902: Wolfen.

Cast: 

Albert Finney (Detective Dewey Wilson), Diane Venora (Detective Rebecca Neff), Edward James Olmos (Eddie Holt), Gregory Hines (Coroner Whittington), Tom Noonan (Ferguson), Dick O'Neill (Captain Warren), Dehl Berti (Old Indian), Peter Michael Goetz (Ross), Reginald VelJohnson (Morgue Attendant), James Tolkan ("Baldy", The Medical Examiner), and Donald Symington (Lawyer) Directed by Michael Wadleigh.

Review: 

Sure, it is possible that there is no real big link between a film like this and ones such as The Howling (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981). But it is fun to talk about the one thing they do have in common: each are horror movies with killer wolves, with The Howling being released in March before Wolfen was released in July and American Werewolf in London was released in August. Wolfen was the least successful with audiences among the three, not making its $17 million budget back. The movie is an adaptation of The Wolfen, a 1978 novel by Whitley Strieber (a writer of thriller novels and a "non-fiction" book about being abducted...by non-human entities). David M. Eyre, Jr. and Michael Wadleigh were credited for both the screenplay and story while Eric Roth provided un-credited work. Apparently, the book and film share distinct differences, as the book had cops become the opening victims rather than a land developer (with wife and bodyguard in tow) and the climax is also different in how the lead characters handle the Wolfen. The film began shooting in 1979 for a targeted release in the fall of 1980, but delays would arise between Orion Pictures (the production company behind the film, which was distributed by Warner Bros.) and Wadleigh. It got to the point where the Directors Guild of America had a three-week hearing involving the rights of the director, who apparently had a first cut of four hours while complaining of having no budget reported to him (at least he was granted his choice of star with Finney, since Dustin Hoffman pestered him to try and get the role to no avail). The next cut was two hours and 29 minutes, but then the producers made an agreement to let Wadleigh shoot the remainder of things needed to be filmed before Richard Chew was sent to cut the film after Wadleigh was done and let go (John D. Hancock was sent to supervise the ADR sessions). This is how you get a final version of one hour and 54 minutes. This was the feature film debut of Wadleigh, who is best known for his work in documenting the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, for which he and his crew shot for a documentary that was released in 1970 to great success. At any rate, this is the only non-documentary that Wadleigh has ever shot.

You can tell that this is a movie written to feel four hours long that got hacked into something that is a procedural movie with flashes of horror that ends up with varying results. Man, do I wish that I enjoyed this film more than I did, because honestly, it pales when compared to the aforementioned other wolf films. For one, this film isn't a "werewolf film", because the wolves here are a spirit that may or may not be gods, ones that have walked the Earth for many, many, many years, as explained by a group of Native Americans that exists to defend their territory. So, yes, there isn't a werewolf transformation here, since the concern is really more about looking at urban decay and procedure, since one is trying to guess how folks are being terrorized by something that severs certain body parts without just thinking it is terrorism, complete with nice shots of New York (such as the South Bronx). A good chunk of this is actually fairly interesting (having a thermographic visual for the Wolfen perspective is one), but at a certain point you really are just waiting for them to stop window-dressing and get to the point. Yes, it does keep itself in the realm of seriousness without ridicule, but it only marginally has the element of shock to keep things going. Sometimes you have to cut the cord, and I think this means that we have a film that is watchable but quite average. I think the cast is assembled nicely, because Finney does make a quality leader. He keeps a shaky but composted attitude about what goes on without making it look like it is beneath him. Venora was actually making her film debut with this film after graduating from Juilliard School and stage plays. She does okay here, quiet but serviceable in the procedural element...the chemistry between not so much, but it isn't too corny. Olmos practically chews on the camera in brooding charm, which proves quite compelling. Tap dancer-turned-actor Hines provides a bit of levity to the surroundings as well, making a useful rapport with Finney in minimal moments. Noonan is offbeat and quite watchable in little moments as well, while O'Neill plays the cop beat about how you would expect. I really did want to like the film more, because there is something to brood over with the idea of nature vs. greed, but I think the pacing is a bit uneven to hold things together enough to really make capable thrills. This isn't to say that I wanted an effects show, because the movie does do fine with the perspective shots alongside ones with wolves, but I think a little more "oomph" is required here to make it less like a procedural that just happened to break out into horror, particularly with a low-key ending (again, one that plays to the allure of what is allowed to lurk in the shadows rather than the book's idea about things) - decent for the film's mood but also just okay. I wonder how this would have worked as a four-hour cut or as a miniseries, where you can play out all of the things you want in trying to do a Bronx tale of people getting cut down by wolves that have humans as their prey. In fact, if you want to play semantics about better procedurals, Q, released the following year involving a winged serpent, handled its balance of procedural and creature elements with more reverence than this film (schlock or not, some things work better to others). At any rate, Wolfen is a decent film sandwiched in between other, better, movies involving creatures of the night, which may work out quite well for those who are interested in curiosity pieces among the years of horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Crazies.

Review #1901: The Crazies.

Cast: 

Lane Carroll (Judy), Will McMillan (David), Harold Wayne Jones (Clank), Lloyd Hollar (Colonel Peckem), Lynn Lowry (Kathy), Richard Liberty (Artie), Richard France (Dr. Watts), Harry Spillman (Major Ryder), Will Disney (Dr. Brookmyre), and Edith Bell (Lab Technician) Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead (1968), #1155 - Dawn of the Dead (1978), and #1588 - Day of the Dead)

Review: 

If I gave you a couple of guesses as to what George A. Romero directed after Night of the Living Dead (1968), you probably would struggle a bit before giving up. Go figure, the two films that followed them were not horror films. There's Always Vanilla was released in 1971 as his only romantic comedy, and Season of the Witch was released in 1972 as a feminist film that got cut into a softcore porn film (never doubt the gall of independent releasers). And then of course this film followed those, a horror film that was shot for $275,000 in the towns of Evans City and Zelienople in Pennsylvania. The film is based on a screenplay called "The Mad People" that Paul McCollough had written. There was interest from both the producer and Romero to make the film, albeit with changes made by Romero. The screenplay did have a bioweapon released on accident in a small town with a coverup and revolt, but apparently the screenplay was more existential than horror, since it focused on the townspeople rather than the military. I can definitely see where the interest may lie better with trying to cut to the chase in chaos rather than focusing on implications. There was a mix of both professional and nonprofessional actors (such having the special effects technician play the husband acting against the kids of the cinematographer in the opening sequence) that did their own stunts while a good deal of the audio mixing was done in post-production. The movie was a failure at the box office, owing in part due to ineffective marketing (the movie was released as "Code Name: Trixie" in some markets). A remake was commissioned in 2010, released in the middle of other movies involving threats of sickness in Outbreak (1995) and Contagion (2011), and Romero served as an executive producer. Romero followed this film with the thriller The Amusement Park (premiered in 1975 to one festival and nothing else) and two horror films with Martin (1978) and Dawn of the Dead (1978). 

It is the raw immediacy of the film when it comes to mixing both social subtext and horror that makes it a curious cult classic, one that looks better and better for what it reaches for in the horror of chaos rather than something made with glossy or lofty ambition. It certainly helps that the ending doesn't play it particularly safe by the time it finishes its 103-minute runtime. In crisis, you really can't tell who the crazy one is, as one sees in a movie wrapped in paranoia and perhaps a bit of dark comedy, where people will either recess into their darkest desires or end up shooting at tons of folks in the name of order. One can look at it something quite relevant to now or look upon the possible comparisons to the Vietnam War, at least when you think about the fact that one of the characters is depicted lighting themselves on fire. It inspires flashes of debate over what side you find yourself on in perspective when it comes to people trying to do their job with plenty of resistance versus townspeople who are thrust into chaos with a lack of timing and everything (so yes, do you find favor with folks who get stabbed by old ladies or people who get shot if they resist and run?). In a nutshell: When things go to hell, they really can go to hell in a hurry. As with Living Dead, the acting is fairly suitable in mild expression when compared to the surrounding terror. McMillan, Carroll, and Jones make up the key trio that meet their task head on in frantic timing that works to the pacing of the movie rather than bog it down, where their drama does seem to matter. The beleaguered Hollar is one of the highlights, one that carries tension on his shoulders with righteous timing to make a quality tragic role. France (an occasional actor when not writing plays or reviews) generates the irritated confidence required here as the sane man in hell, while Liberty and Lowry close out the general focus decently. The climax is bittersweet and utterly dead-on with leaving things where they are for the audience to use their imagination (cynical or not) rather than play it easy. It does play a bit loose with its pacing at times, but the moments of horror (blood or not) do help to keep things with steam, and I think it qualifies as something that works the right angle in wry observation without pandering or cheap tricks. It may have been under-appreciated in its time, but a near half-century since the release of this film has only served to make it better and better to look upon in the documents of horror, imperfect or not. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.