X (2022).

Review #2133: X.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine / Pearl), Jenna Ortega (Lorraine Day), Brittany Snow (Bobby-Lynne Parker), Scott Mescudi (Jackson Hole), Martin Henderson (Wayne Gilroy), Owen Campbell (RJ Nichols), Stephen Ure (Howard), Simon Prast (the televangelist), and James Gaylyn (Sheriff Dentler) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl)

Review: 

It's the damndest thing. I found myself not having enough time to pick out this film when it came out in the month of March in 2022, but when it came to Pearl, billed as "An X-traordinary Origin Story" (as filmed on the same sets in New Zealand as this film) released in the latter days of September of that same year, I had all of the curiosity necessary to use it as a good way to start a month of horror. So, here I am basically trying to quantify my blunder in not just watching this film when it was new and wondering just how dumb I was in not picking it earlier. If you didn't already know, West had made a name for himself with a steady collection of horror features that started with The Roost (2005). This is his eighth feature film and just like the rest of them, he also wrote and edited the film himself. Sometime in the near future will be a sequel called MaXXXine, as already mentioned for those who were lucky enough to have seen Pearl, which will feature West and Goth again as one would hope makes a proper horror trilogy. 

Spoiler: well, I'm an idiot, I should've watched X back then. What better way to touch upon both a look into the world of X-ratedness that comes in porn and horror than a film like this? Sure, you might find something a bit familiar here with, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Both were at a crossroads as the 1970s were about to end, and the advent of video (with stuff such as Debbie Does Dallas, released in 1978) was a big reason for that, because now one could find a market interest in something that wanted to see flesh in their own homes. In other words, one could get away with doing something for themselves for others without having to go with Hollywood or through those proper channels, which could be places such as say, a farm in Houston. It has an amusing pace to it beyond the grisly elements that come in both the bloodshed along with the cries for being past one's youth that make for a really enjoyable time. It is craftsmanship of the best kind when it comes to the fear that comes in both delusional visitors and in becoming old, complete with prosthetics used to make a film that isn't just riding on CG-mush. When it comes to showcase, it goes doubly for Goth, who plays two roles that work in the view of people who desire a life for themselves filled with what they look like on the inside and out (whether that is a cocaine-sniffing actress or someone who obviously saw plenty in the 1920s when it comes to youth). This desperation makes for some curious scenes, such as their first scene together (after one is seen watching the other skinny-dipping in a pool that narrowly misses an alligator, anyway) that is uncomfortable in dreary enjoyment for one looking upon a younger one. The filming of the nudie scenes is particularly interesting when it comes to trying to construct something both pleasing and fitting to what looks and sounds right for both cameraman and cast undergoing it all that works for Parker and Mescudi (best known as Kid Cudi) for timing in performances. Henderson makes a worthy minor note in would-be film huckster, which compares pretty well when you think about Campbell and Ortega reacting to the idea of being involved more than just behind the camera (consider that reaction from the former in the aftermath carefully). It is the dynamic of Ure and Goth, however, that drives the film to where it must go, because even love must go hand in hand with sadism when it comes to helping others realize their desires, which is probably more unsettling than anything, at least when compared to the blood and gore (or the televangelist that occasionally appears on television, for those who don't care to hear of hucksters of the religious kind). One could actually feel bad for this character in the basic sense of aging, because, well, no one can be as young and free as they want to be forever, no matter what they may pretend to think (whether with others or by themselves, although the lonely usually die faster anyway). I especially like the ending for the subversion of the usual final person tropes when it comes to just wanting what they want, an ideal representation of "F you, got mine" if there ever was one. As a ballad of sex and violence with lingering degrees of uncomfortable styling, it makes for a highly interesting start to a horror series I really did not see coming (X and Pearl may actually be neck-and-neck with each other when it comes to how each do their own pastiche of a certain genre). Far from just a tribute or just an excuse to show skin and gore, this is the kind of film fit for its era when it comes to delivering unsettling entertainment with little to no false notes detected in the best of ways possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

I hope you folks have enjoyed this procession of October in Horror films (with one exception) in this historic month. I wanted to do a month packed with a handful of the usual names you might expect from horror, whether that meant a Vincent Price film or a John Carpenter effort and put them all together. There were plenty of films considered that didn't make the cut that I'm sure could be covered next October...or with Halloween The Week After, Year Five.

Crimes of the Future (2022).

Review #2132: Crimes of the Future.

Cast: 

Viggo Mortensen (Saul Tenser), Léa Seydoux (Caprice), Kristen Stewart (Timlin), Scott Speedman (Lang Dotrice), Welket Bungué (Detective Cope), Don McKellar (Wippet), Yorgos Pirpassopoulos (Dr. Nasatir), and Tanaya Beatty (Berst) Written and Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future, #1127 - eXistenZ, #1220 - A History of Violence, #1239 - Stereo, #1624 - Shivers, #1712 - The Fly [1986])

Review: 

"Crimes of the Future is a meditation on human evolution. Specifically - the ways in which we have had to take control of the process because we have created such powerful environments that did not exist previously."

It was reported that David Cronenberg was considering retirement from filmmaking because of the difficulty in funding his films. Imagine a world where Maps to the Stars (2014) was thought to be his last directorial effort, and it happened that 2014 was also the same year he published his first novel. But here we are anyway with a film done by him that apparently had been in development once upon a time earlier in the 2000s that never got off the ground now and back again. It was reported in 2002 that he would do a film called "Painkillers", which involved a high pain threshold artist that was offered to infiltrate a subversive group. This inspiration came from a fellow student that attended the University of Toronto with him that had wrote a story about a man who cut off his own hand, to the shocked impressment of Cronenberg. Four years of development in script led to ideas of casting (maybe Nicolas Cage for the lead?), but, well, that film never came to be. So yes, to him, the idea of the body being reality could lead to ideas of a changed world because of how one changes that body (with its perceptions coming through said body (he had cited Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation). Producer Robert Lantos asked him to re-consider that old script he had done, which after a couple of years wrangling funds ended up being made as what you see. Now, at 79, here he was with a new film that wasn't exactly an audience hit but it's always good to say one is back (Cronenberg is apparently in development of a new film already), particularly since this is the first film of his involving horror of any kind since eXistenZ (1999); he stated that key references to other scenes and moments from select films of his would be seen here, because it would serve as some sort of "continuity of my understanding of technology as connected to the human body."

To this film, surgery is thought to be the new sex. It makes for a relaxed 107 minutes of weird horror (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, it's horror) that won't be ideal for everyone, but it makes for a curious experience to sit through at least once. It is the kind of film that looks as dreary as the future it likes to depict, right down to an opening that would be unsettling for anyone to think about: a kid depicted eating plastics who is then smothered by their mother in quick fashion. That's just one of the crimes committed by oneself against the body. Anyway, the film involves a duo of performance artists that do live surgery to remove newly grown organs that arise in one of them while they deal with constant pain. Mortensen and Seydoux do make an elegant pair when it comes to that refined showmanship pair one would hope for in a film that engages more in glances at the body rather than straight stabs, especially when it comes to scenes such as looking at a new thing done to the body, such as say, small horns or a zipper on the waist. I guess there is supposed to be something quite interesting about weird bureaucracy with McKellar and Stewart, but all I can focus on is the latter's whispery voice for seemingly 95% of the time she is on screen that makes me wonder if I was meant to be taking it as a joke. I do like Speedman's pathetic desperation when it comes to trying to make a point about the new type of evolution with what the film is presenting (are you ready for this): people wanting to adapt with a digestive system fit to eat toxic waste. There is something fascinating about watching people's eyes look upon this surgery involving tattooed organs that makes you wish the eventual conclusion reached some sort of meaningful point beyond that mild sort of peace that comes about with the final sequence. It just doesn't feel as confrontational or as pulsating bizarreness as it wishes to be (at least with some of these fools of wavering degeneracy, which even shows a man with many ears at one point), but I did find something worth looking into with the overall experience to appreciate in the long run. Cronenberg may not have had a profound return to form here, but it is still a curious one to watch within the long arm of his general interest of the body and horror regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

We did it! Well, I did it, but you readers got to see 40 reviews in a month, a new record of quality and quantity. Oh, but I have a surprise, one more horror film later tonight...with X.

Possessor.

Review #2131: Possessor.

Cast: 

Andrea Riseborough (Tasya Vos), Christopher Abbott (Colin Tate), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Girder), Sean Bean (John Parse), Rossif Sutherland (Michael Vos), Tuppence Middleton (Ava Parse), Kaniehtiio Horn (Reeta), Raoul Bhaneja (Eddie), Gage Graham-Arbuthnot (Ira Vos), Rachael Crawford (Dr. Melis), and Gabrielle Graham (Holly Bergman) Written and Directed by Brandon Cronenberg.

Review: 

“I never made a conscious decision to embrace horror specifically. It’s just where my instincts are right now. I’m making films that are honest and creative impulses. One of the things that I like about horror is that it explores parts of the spectrum of human emotion in a way that other genres don’t. That’s satisfying to me. I don’t want comfort food when I’m sitting down to watch a film. I want to be pushed into a different headspace."

Okay, to get it out of the way: like father, like son. Brandon Cronenberg was actually interested in books growing up in Toronto as the first-born son of David Cronenberg and Carolyn Zeifman. He thought about being a writer, painter, or a musician, but he soon found that film was his real interest in terms of study. As such, he studied it at Toronto Metropolitan University. He made his first feature with Antiviral (2012), a Canadian/French production that came out of his 2008 short Broken Tulips involving injecting viruses harvested from celebrities that was inspired by an infection he had when in film school. The time between that film and this one saw time spent developing the script to the latter along with doing a short film with Please Speak Continuously and Describe Your Experiences as They Come to You (2019). The idea for the film essentially came from his experiences in promoting his first film in public (and a few other things) that had him think about personal identity within public personas in the media self with its own life without oneself. 

Oh sure, you could probably say that you've seen films before that engage with acting in someone else's body, such as say, Being John Malkovich (1999). But it is a fascinating subject when in the hands of someone who clearly is interested in showing a horror far beyond just being wrapped in someone else's body: the reality that is to befall the one who ends up actually keeping control of said body when all is said and done. You have an assassin with an interesting relationship with violence (specifically when it comes to methods of choice or in general) to go with a wandering grip on reality. Oh, and there is a handful of practical effects utilized for wonderful execution. The opening sequence isn't the big highlight of the film, but it gets the film on the right foot as a testing ground for what is next to come in terms of clinical effectiveness of possession in the ideal sense of chills on the inside (complete with a tear right before a suicide by cop). It is a grisly and bleak film set in a distinct type of setting where the best assassins are left to their devices to basically serve as actors for a time in the most cynical and clinical way imaginable for the clean kill. Just like in life, the best type of actor really does endure the longest above all, I suppose. In that sense, Riseborough and Abbott have the best type of challenge possible for a film like this, since by the time we are introduced to the latter (not particularly too long into the 104-minute runtime), one is seeing a mesh of puppeteer and puppet that jumps in definition depending on who looks in control. It might feel like a bad case of phantasmagoria, but it is a very apparent nightmare for our lead focus. The most interesting sequence to show this challenge might be the "data mining" sequence involving Abbott's character that is trying to do descriptions involving drapes in the background of certain videos, which at one point involves zooming past sex. The assassins and data miners are more alike than they wish to admit when it comes to paring people down to simple data points. I also particularly like the sequence involving Riseborough trying to practice the dip back into mother and wife for a couple of (on-screen) minutes that is full of great artifice. One can only be playing with fire when it comes to how long they spend acting as someone else right before they violently kill that part off, especially when they undergo evaluation each and every time when one finishes a job (in this case to see if they still regret killing and mounting a butterfly when they were young). Leigh makes a suitable logical master of puppets, if you think about it, since one never sees a veneer of grimace at the very nature of the character besides wanting the best in a certain type of labor. Bean isn't exactly in the movie too long, but he makes the kind of craven type that would find someone to kill off as a threat just as much as he would be a target of himself. Of course, the sequence involving the melting of one's face to reveal the other when it comes to that fateful possession is a damn great one in squirm-inducing curiosity that throws you in the right loop. Regardless of what you would expect for its ending, it makes for a suitably satisfying note to close such great horror in terms of identity that has managed to find just one thing at the end of confronting attachments and logic: death. Possessor is the kind of body horror film that makes you wonder aloud just what you possess about yourself as a person and the people that you associate with in labor and beyond. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: Cronenberg-Cronenberg for the big 40. 

Vampires (1998).

Review #2130: Vampires.

Cast: 

James Woods (Jack Crow), Daniel Baldwin (Tony Montoya), Sheryl Lee (Katrina), Tim Guinee (Father Adam Guiteau), Thomas Ian Griffith (Jan Valek), Maximilian Schell (Cardinal Alba), Mark Boone Junior (Catlin), Gregory Sierra (Father Giovanni), and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (David Deyo) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween (1978), #634 - Escape from New York, #712 - The Thing (1982), #732 - Escape from L.A., #1221 - Dark Star, #1298 - They Live, #1479 - Big Trouble in Little China, #1605 - Starman, #1874 - Assault on Precinct 13)

Review: 

"I got into this business to make Westerns. I didn't get into it to make horror movies. I got typecast. But once I got over that, I realized it's like John Wayne. I wrote one script for him back in the '70s. He always wanted to play heavies. He was tired of playing the good guy, but he said, 'Oh, they like me that way.' I'm like a good whore; I go where I'm pushed."

On October 30, 1998, John Carpenter's Vampires was released to the general public. The film is based on the novel Vampire$, as written by John Steakley in 1990. Years had been spent in development by Largo Development, who recruited Russell Mulcahy (most notably the director of the first two Highlander films) to try and develop it as director with apparent ideas to have Dolph Lungren serve as the star. This did not come to pass, and Carpenter was approached to do the film right as he was on the idea of retiring after production of Escape from L.A. (1996) had been less than fun to make. The writing credit for the film is lent to Don Jakoby, although there were clear re-writes by Carpenter, who had been approached of the idea to do the film to look over two screenplays - one by Jakoby and one by Dan Mazur (evidently one script involved a part set in France with a church battleground and the other involved a mall with teenagers turning into vampires). Carpenter apparently liked both and thus utilized select elements from each to go with parts from the book before having to modify it again when the budget was suddenly slashed from $80 million to $20 million at the last minute. 25 years later, it probably seems apt to look back on what Carpenter was saying when it came to being asked about the film back then, and one quote certainly could stick with you. He mused that films nowadays (read: 1998), particularly with horror films starting with stuff such as Scream (1996) seemed to have a "postmodern style" when it came to winking at the audience and that his film tried to do the opposite. In case you were wondering, Blade (1998), a film also dealing with a vampire hunter dealing having to stop some sort of ritual from being done by an evildoer vampire, was released just a few months earlier in August (to be technical, Vampires was really released a bit earlier than October in France, but do you really care about France?). As one might expect, Carpenter also composed the music for the film. Two direct-to-video sequels followed in the next couple of years, but they had no involvement from Carpenter, so nope.

Carpenter obviously thought his vampires were savage enough to seem different from those ones that seemed to brood at times. The strange thing isn't so much that Woods is the lead actor here as it is the fact that Carpenter went through a row of names and somehow thought about R. Lee Ermey (the studio felt he lacked the star power and declined the idea). Oh hell, I was fine with the film, what can I say? Granted, it obviously isn't one of Carpenter's best films (of the five features he did in the 1990s, this was apparently his only successful one with audiences, but there are folks who will tell you about giving In the Mouth of Madness (1994) or the aforementioned Escape a second look). But I like Carpenter (thank goodness we live in an age where people remember The Thing as being great rather than the rubes that hated it back then), and I like his ideas in trying to do a Western with vampires that seems more familiar with Sam Peckinpah than his general influence in Howard Hawks. In the 108-minute runtime, you might say the best way to judge the film is how one rides with the opening action sequence, because it is the one big moment with the entire cast before basically doing a rendition of The Wild Bunch. Of course, this bunch involves vampire hunters sanctioned by the Catholic Church (they are pretty good at dragging folks into the sun, so they get leeway for drinking and screwing around at night) that deal with the general rules of vampires: stakes and the sun are the one to deal with vampires that don't care for crosses or turning into bats. Where else would vampires be around but in New Mexico? At the helm is Woods, who is actually pretty amusing in overblown macho-ness. His flippant energy is entertaining to me for that element of curiosity of just who would be more dangerous, the vampire beast or being in the same room with him. Carpenter apparently let him ad-lib for a take before doing one that adhered to the script and evidently the off-color stuff was left in at times. Sure, it isn't the timeliest of off-color stuff (oh hey, never check out an actor's Twitter account), but, well, his crudity suits the film like a glove rather than coming off as schtick (if it was really schtick, he wouldn't be wearing blue jeans the whole time). His intensity is fun, what can I say? Baldwin and Lee don't exactly have as much to do in deference to the hunt besides an attempt at chemistry that is shaky (particularly since the only reason the latter is there is because of a temporary psychic link formed to the villain...by a bite on the inside thigh). Griffith doesn't have as much to say as the general threat, but he makes a fair ferocious threat in feral desires, one who sees the night every time but with the lust for more that is, well, accurate (at least to a night owl like me, anyway). Schell may have the most inevitable of all paths for the film next to Guinee, but they both do fine in varying tones against Woods in "Catholic patience". In general, the film is a road film, one that dwells a bit in conversation of where to go in weary doggedness that can only be done the same way one has seen in a Western where a man brings his folks along for the ride to possible certain death because damn it, it's their ride (of course, there is the horror stuff one thinks they will see such as a handful of vampiric terror like severed limbs, so...). It even ends on a variation, because who else could tell doomed folks to go with God before giving them a head start on an inevitable chase to death? I think, at the end, I ended up liking the film a bit more when I processed it, even if I can acknowledge that it won't be everyone's cup of tea of weary Western-soaked vampire guns-in-the-sun. If you respect Carpenter as that director of human nature in worthy entertainment, well, the film (now 25 years old) will be just right up one's alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Cronenberg-mania.

Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Review #2129: Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Cast: 

Wraparound segment: Deborah Harry (Betty) and Matthew Lawrence (Timmy)

"Lot 249" segment: Steve Buscemi (Edward Bellingham), Julianne Moore (Susan Smith), Christian Slater (Andy Smith), Robert Sedgwick (Lee), Donald Van Horn (Moving Man), and Michael Deak (The Mummy)

"Cat from Hell" segment: William Hickey (Drogan), David Johansen (Halston), Paul Greeno (The Cabbie), Alice Drummond (Carolyn), and Dolores Sutton (Amanda)

"Lover's Vow" segment: James Remar (Preston), Rae Dawn Chong (Carola), Robert Klein (Wyatt), Ashton Wise (Jer), and Philip Lenkowsky (Maddox) Directed by John Harrison.

Review: 

Well, when you have a good film going for you, why not do a television series? The success of Creepshow in 1982 led to the creation of Tales from the Darkside with a pilot (as written by show creator George A. Romero) in 1983 and a syndication run that started the following year, which ran until 1988 in displaying stories of sci-fi or fantasy that adapted various authors such as Stephen King or Harlan Ellison to go with narration, that, well, "Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But ... there is, unseen by most, an underworld ... a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit. A darkside." I went on a lark and watched the DVD boxset of the series roughly four years ago. It was...decent if not very wavering in quality, but somehow, I found myself comparing it to the other show that followed the lead of EC Comics in Tales from the Crypt, which started its run on television almost immediately after the end of Darkside. Perhaps it makes perfect sense that the show's success would inspire a feature film in 1990. This was the feature film debut for director John Harrison, who had started in film as a first assistant director on Creepshow (1982), which he also composed the music for. He also wrote and directed a handful of episodes on Darkside. Richard P. Rubinstein (who also produced Creepshow) and Mitchell Galin (who produced with Rubinstein the Darkside spinoff Monsters) produced the film.

Oh, but what anthology isn't worth mentioning unless it has a framing device? The wraparound (taking up eleven of the 93 minute film) is a suburban housewife...and modern-day witch preparing a dish made of a kid she has locked up in her house, but the kid tries to stall by reading three stories from, well, "Tales from the Darkside". Needless to say that the story goes better than it does for the main characters of the real three stories, although I could do without the 4th wall moment at the end. "Lot 249" (28 minutes) is based on a short story by Arthur Conan Doyle first published in 1892 that saw Michael McDowell (a novellist and also most notably the writer of Beetlejuice) serve as screenwriter. The ending of the story is the most changed from the original and likely for the better, since it involves more than just being on the run. Besides, the story wisely lets the one we like the most mostly off without a hitch. Buscemi makes a suitable presence to strike revenge upon such confident jerks that come with Slater (a moderately convincing goof), Moore (this was her film debut), and Sedgwick. The mummy stuff is decent for a yarn, but yeah, go with gore. "Cat from Hell" (23 minutes) is based on a 1977 short story of the same name by Stephen King with Romero as screenwriter. The premise is as such: a man hires a hitman to kill a cat that apparently led to the deaths of three people. A good chunk is spent on telling said story of the cat, but it is at least spent with a darkly amusing Hickey, talking about a cat that seems like an assassin due to the nature of his work (drugs affecting poor little black cats). Besides, the conclusion of what happens when cat meets the mouth is a nice and grisly conclusion to see play out. "Lover's Vow" (29 minutes) is based on the Japanese folk story "Yuki-Onna", as originated by Lafcadio Hearn, which you may recognize because that story was adapted into Kwaidan; McDowell wrote this story with gargoyles taking the helm, in this case one that happens to strike on a bunch of drunks that have an artist survive and swear his life on not telling what happened. Remar is at least where on expects him to be when it comes to being good for middle material, which contrasts against the bare minimum of mystery provided by Chong for a story that, well, can only go one way, I guess. It's a decent story but somehow it feels lacking in that build to the inevitable, although the final moment is at least somewhat poignant. As a whole, the film is basically about on par with the show that it arose from: halfway entertaining if not exactly a great successor to Creepshow. It is basically a notch above Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), to put it bluntly. The stories are decently handled with a few recognizable names, but one would be hard-pressed to say just which story is the real showstopper when it comes to such varying tones. It has a few fun moments for being an ordinary anthology that would probably fit just fine in the latter recommendations for any October, so take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: A John Carpenter film - 25 years later!

Creepshow.

Review #2128: Creepshow.

Cast: 

Wraparound story: Joe King (Billy Hopkins), Tom Atkins (Stan Hopkins), Iva Jean Saraceni (Mrs. Hopkins), Marty Schiff (Garbageman #1), and Tom Savini (Garbageman #2) 

"Father's Day" segment: Carrie Nye (Sylvia Grantham), Viveca Lindfors (Bedelia Grantham), Ed Harris (Hank Blaine), Warner Shook (Richard Grantham), Elizabeth Regan (Cass Blaine), and Jon Lormer (Nathan Grantham)

"The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" segment: Stephen King (Jordy Verrill) and Bingo O'Malley (Jordy's Father/Doctor)

"Something to Tide You Over" segment: Leslie Nielsen (Richard Vickers), Ted Danson (Harry Wentworth), and Gaylen Ross (Becky Vickers)

"The Crate" segment: Hal Holbrook (Henry Northup), Adrienne Barbeau (Wilma "Billie" Northup), Fritz Weaver (Dexter Stanley), Robert Harper (Charlie Gereson), and Don Keefer (Mike the Janitor)

"They're Creeping Up on You" segment: E. G. Marshall (Upson Pratt) and David Early (Mr. White) Directed by George A. Romero (#738 - Night of the Living Dead (1968), #1155 - Dawn of the Dead (1978), #1588 - Day of the Dead, #1901 - The Crazies)

Review: 

To put it lightly, hell yes, I was ready to do this film for quite a while. What better combination could one have for an anthology film than a director as damn good as George A. Romero and a writer in Stephen King? What better way to do it than to have five stories and a runtime of two hours too? Three of the stories were done by King straight for the film while the other two are based on short stories King had previously done before. It is made as a homage to those EC Comics of yesteryear such as Tales from the Crypt, complete with animation utilized to depict it as a comic book (Jack Kamen, who did story art on a handful of Crypt stories, contributed the comic book artwork). It came out in the middle between Knightriders (1981) and Day of the Dead (1985) for Romero, which one would say is a good place to cite for a director as dedicated to delivering enduring films. Two sequels followed, albeit with less fanfare. The second film (released in 1987) had Michael Gornick (cinematographer of the first film) serve as director while Romero wrote the screenplay based on three stories as done by King, while the third film (released in 2006) had none of these aspects. In 1983, Romero and Richard P. Rubinstein went to work on an anthology TV series that was loosely based on the film (of course since Warner Bros. released Creepshow, one couldn't just keep the framing device from before): the result was Tales from the Darkside, which ran for four years and even had two King stories serve as episodes while Romero also wrote a few episodes. In 2019, Shudder (a streaming service) premiered a show based on the film,  which has run for four seasons.

Anthologies are hard to do right, particularly for horror, as demonstrated by ones given general praise such as Dead of Night (1945) or the ones with even better quality such as Kwaidan (1964). Creepshow is a damn good showing of the macabre with clear enthusiasm shown for each and every story that makes a good effort in capturing the feeling of reading something cribbed from a book or someone with a really amusing sense of dark amusement in the campfire. The frame device is what else but a dad giving his son crap for reading a weird-looking book of horror that can only go one way when you've got a kid that believes those paper ads really are helpful. Interestingly, Joe King (Stephen King's son and actor here) really did become a horror writer as an adult. The first story in "Father's Day" (17 minutes) is fine. It involves a family awaiting a relative coming for cake on (what else?) Father's day, which is ironic since no fathers are actually there to eat it. Most of it is actually a yarn told about this relative who may or may not have offed her old father after he had apparently killed her lover. The folks here all get a surprise when somebody else shows up for cake...yeah, it's a decent story to get you started with eventual grisly conclusions (and one fun effects moment involving critters). Next up is "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill", which runs  the shortest (next to the wrapround anyway) at 14 minutes. This is the one with Stephen King overacting a bit while playing a yokel that touches and waters a meteorite that lands on his farm. Daydreams and all, some sort alien vegetation starts growing all certain places...it makes for a decent story, even if King is probably an unusual choice to headline a story alone (for the most part). The ending is a good one in the allure of terror brought on already when it comes to things that latch onto you at night.

"Something to Tide You Over" (25 minutes) is probably the highlight of the film, if you think about it.  It has Nielsen (who I should remind you had dabbled in serious roles on TV and film for decades before Airplane! (1980) gave him his calling in comedy) in an interesting role as a man bent on letting a guy dig himself into a hole on the beach with the tide coming in. There's something enchanting about the cold energy he brings to such a deluded role, and amusingly it is being played off against Danson for that weird mix of cold blooded humor. Of course, it's the ending that makes it count, and I enjoyed seeing it from the perspective of Nielsen when it comes to what you see and can't see even with camera all around. "The Crate" (39 minutes) runs the longest for some odd reason. All it involves is something that apparently has resided in a crate for over a century that comes to the attention of Weaver and later Holbrook, who finds it a good way to interact with his onscreen wife Barbeau. It's more an offbeat amusing story than anything, complete with fantasies of offing an annoying wife, but it makes for a good tale of curiosity over just what happens with a hairy beast and open spaces. "They're Creeping Up on You" (16 minutes) closes out the proceedings with a good ol' shock story time. Marshall plays a real s.o.b. who is really obsessed with cleanliness in his place, complete with taking calls and saying as such even when they are trying to talk to him about other things (you know, business, probably leading to a guy's death...). Things just get weird when, well, something really does creep up on him to a massive extent. Not ideal for those who just ate food they know didn't have anything on it before they swallowed.  The visual stylization that occurs for each story is a neat touch, and in general the film works at giving you useful payoff without just being a starstudded mishmash. As a whole, Creepshow is a horror fan's dream when it comes to giving you a couple of good little stories that give you good payoffs to go with spirited filmmaking from Romero and company that justifies its two-hour runtime with worthy entertainment value that holds well in its time by a hard margin.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.

Re-Animator.

Review #2127: Re-Animator.

Cast: 

Jeffrey Combs (Herbert West), Bruce Abbott (Daniel Cain), Barbara Crampton (Megan Halsey), David Gale (Dr. Carl Hill), Robert Sampson (Dean Alan Halsey), Al Berry (Dr. Hans Gruber), Carolyn Purdy-Gordon (Dr. Harrod), and Ian Patrick Williams (the Swiss Professor) Directed by Stuart Gordon.

Review: 

"We all knew that this was the scene. Because, before we started making the movie, we said among ourselves: look, there are all these horror movies that have been made in the last few years—we have to find a way to set Re-Animator apart. And if we wanted to get people’s attention, we had to show them something that they hadn’t seen before. This was that scene."

Oh sure, there are so many films that could be thought of as "cult classic" that it almost seems useful to have skepticism over it just as much as for films that the general folks think are just classics (like, say, The Rocky Horror Picture Show). The film is based on the short story "Herbert West-Reanimator" by H.P. Lovecraft, which was originally serialized in Home Brew magazine from February to July 1922 (there were six parts, one of which involved a boxer with the arm of a child in their mouth). Lovecraft was reported to have disliked the experience of writing Reanimator, since not only did it require him to write a cliffhanger at the end of every part, it also was one he did solely for the money ($5 for each part!) for what was basically a parody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; in general, Lovecraft would not be the well-known name as an author for decades after his death, but the aforementioned West story is thought to be one of his worst. Relating to this, Stuart Gordon had a discussion over how many Dracula films there was compared to the seemingly small count of Frankenstein films. Gordon was a Chicago native and a graduate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison that majored in theater. He started doing productions in the late 1960s that went all the way to the 1980s in directing and producing plays, such as a naked stage version of Peter Pan (which saw him face charges of obscenity) and Warp!, a 1973 sci-fi play. Spurred to read the Lovecraft story, Gordon got the idea to do an adaptation, which would have Dennis Paoli and William J. Norris serve as co-writers. They first thought to do it for the stage and then to do it for television before a suggestion led them to try and do a feature film, which led them to producer Brian Yuzna. It was only during production that the script gained comedic elements, with the result being one that Gordon stated had influence from films such as The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958). Gordon would direct another Lovecraft story with From Beyond (1986). Two sequels to Re-Animator followed: Bride of Re-Animator (released in 1990 that retained Combs, Abbott, and Gale) and Beyond Re-Animator (released in 2003 that retained Combs), with Yuzna serving as director for both films. A Re-Animator: The Musical would come about in 2011, with Gordon having served as a producer; Gordon died in 2020 at the age of 72.

There exists a number of versions: The R-rated version lasted 93 minutes, while the unrated version lasts 86 minutes. The R-rated version is an edit done because originally, the filmmakers opted to not submit the film to the MPAA for a rating because they thought it would get an X. At any rate, this R-rated version just cuts a good chunk of the gore and replaces it with scenes cut for pacing (such as hypnotism from Hill). Okay, I wasn't actually worried this was going to be just "good" rather than a cult classic, but, well, going into it with as less knowledge is part of the fun. It is a delightfully gooey little film, one that proves worthy in its elements of gore with conviction and dark humor that is well-paced to go with being an interesting riff on Frankenstein in the Hammer method of the best way, complete with action of re-animated corpses coming around and around. This was the first big film role for Combs, who had done a number of stage plays and hadn't known of Lovecraft when he was approached for the role (he also didn't expect it to break through the way it did). His manic energy is hypnotically captivating from the very first time we see him in the opening, where he is frantically attempting to deal with a screaming man thrust with life. Of course, his interactions with Gale when it comes to just who knows what about science (complete with snapping pencils) or with Abbott & Crampton with living conditions is the real attraction. He just has a way of communicating this amorality that comes in obsession and arrogance in the most delectably entertaining of ways (those familiar with Star Trek: Deep Space Nine already know how good he is already, naturally). Abbott and Crampton make suitable straights getting sucked into such strange times without being played as just the folks to ignore or counter Combs in some sort of "do-gooder"-ness. With that in mind, Gale is ideal in odious qualities for the best of results, which is likely exemplified by a sequence involving a leering head interacting with a naked body. Trust me, it's a pretty good disturbing sequence in a film that has a steady chunk of body gore effects already present in buckets of blood - yes, it really is one fit for the non-squeamish. The closing delivers a good little stake in the grave in the best way possible for both a show in effects along with a note on just how far one could go in desperation. Bottom line, this is the kind of films fit for viewer of mad scientist films or body gore flicks in the best way possible. It is easy to see how the film became a cult favorite in all of the best ways possible. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: George A. Romero becomes part of a double-header to start the backstretch of closing out October in the right way.

The Mummy Returns.

Review #2126: The Mummy Returns.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn O'Connell / Nefertiri), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Patricia Velásquez (Meela Nais / Anck-su-namun), Freddie Boath (Alex O'Connell), Dwayne Johnson (Mathayus of Akkad / The Scorpion King), Alun Armstrong (Baltus Hafez), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lock-Nah), and Shaun Parkes (Izzy Buttons) Written and Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and #1748 - The Mummy [1999])

Review: 

I did enjoy the 1999 Mummy film, albeit as a neat little romp. It did not exactly improve on previous films under that same title that had been released in 1932 or 1959, but as an action/effects feature with that general dose of horror, well, it worked out well. Sommers apparently was hesitant about doing a sequel, even if it was basically inevitable with the resulting success of that first film, which he had a hand in writing. In fact, he had described the original script of said film as "a bit reckless" before eventually getting to an "okay" result. Aside from an enlarged budget (which stems from a few raises to actors), not much has changed here, since over half-a-dozen actors from the first return here to go with a script done by Sommers. The film was a general success with audiences on the level of the original. The Scorpion King (2002), a spinoff film featuring, well, Dwayne Johnson reprising his role as the character of the same name, came out the year after this film and inspired its own run of films. Sommers did exactly one further horror-ish film with Van Helsing in 2004, which went pretty much where you would expect. A third Mummy film would come in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which retained Fraser and Hannah only in cast while Sommers served only as a producer.

Well, sometimes you just can't win them all. 129 minutes somehow seems pretty disposable for a film that is just a bit short in comparison to the first film when it comes to holding itself together for overall cohesion. It is a bit too familiar to go with being bereft of effective pacing. Granted, Fraser and Weisz do still have a good deal of charm together, and in general one will be just fine with watching the film when it comes to looking for just spectacle (okay, maybe some of those effects don't help). They seem to enjoy the strangeness that comes with being in a sequel with less to do in quick charm, which is more than one can say for most middling sequels. At least the kid actor that comes for the film makes for a few chuckles, but if I am drawing straws by saying this for a film released in the new millennium, what is it saying about the parts as a whole? One sees folks like Hannah seem to be having some sort of fun being around here again (relief or otherwise), but the stakes don't seem as presentable here. One senses their attention start to drift even before a dirigible makes an appearance and boy do I wish I felt some sort of presence of terror in seeing the return of said mummy from before (complete with creating big water). It trots out pygmy mummies and past lives to go with utilizing wrestler-turned-actor Johnson mostly for spectacle sequences in the start and end (one to explain just what he has to do with anything and the other for effects that look as rushed as one could expect). Even the one sequence of a character getting killed seems destined to be undone for the climax, and, well, it is funny being right for the dumbest and shallow of things. As a whole, it just isn't as freshly interesting as its predecessor, managing to be as average as one painfully can see in countless other features that is merely just okay rather than fully satisfying in fun. It is a mild disappointment that pleases a few requirements but doesn't make for a great sequel in enough categories to recommend it more than once. The fluff just isn't enough here to be as good fluff as before.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Re-Animator.

Blackenstein.

Review #2125: Blackenstein.

Cast: 

John Hart (Dr. Stein), Ivory Stone (Dr. Winifred Walker), Joe De Sue (Eddie Turner), Roosevelt Jackson (Malcomb), Andrea King (Eleanor), Nick Bolin (Bruno Stragor), Karin Lind (Hospital Supervisor), Yvonne Robinson (Hospital Receptionist), Liz Renay (Blonde Murder Victim), and Don Brodie (Police Lieutenant) Directed by William A. Levey.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is bad, you know. But you really need to appreciate the interesting and good films by taking in some truly crappy fare from time to time, and if there ever was a genre that delivers such "palette cleansers", horror is the one to do it, especially because 500 words of saying a film sucks is better than 20. But at least there are some interesting stories to talk about when it comes to films that inspire, uh, nothing. The film was written and produced by criminal lawyer Frank R. Saletri in the only film he is credited with, although apparently, he had others in mind (lawyers getting into film, oh my). In 1982, Saletri was murdered at his residence in a crime that has apparently never been close to being solved. This was the film debut of director William A. Levey. Going from a film like this to something like Skatetown, U.S.A. (1979) is, well, a thing. As I'm sure you can guess, this was a film made to capitalize on the success of films such as Blacula (1972), although it is funny to mention that it managed to come out just a few weeks after the release of Scream Blacula Scream (1973) but this wasn't a particular box office hit. God only knows what kind of further films Saletri would have come up with. You might recognize that the electrical set from the original Frankenstein (1931), as designed by Kenneth Strickfaden, is present here. The film title actually goes by "Blackenstein the Black Frankenstein", while the film poster went with "Black Frankenstein". The fact that the film credits are run from bottom to top is the icing on the cake for amateur stuff.

Somehow, in an attempt to cash in on the success of such films like Blacula (1972), the filmmakers managed to make a film that would make a great pairing with Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter (1966) or Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)...to snooze with. It makes you appreciate the filmmaking methods of AIP, because at least they know the dangers of lingering on scenes for way longer than they need to be. The gobbleygook sci-fi stuff can't even make me catch my eyes from dozing, because it is coming in such a bland project that is telegraphed in painstaking fashion. Levey apparently served as editor and made a 78-minute film that might as well feel like 98, and the home video release apparently has an 87-minute version (only the theatrical version is the cleanly restored one, amusingly). Terrific. To make sense of the plot is simple: "Blackenstein" (a guy who had his limbs blown off but got the one VA attendant that gives him crap for going to Vietnam before getting this treatment) goes around killing people in the night while receiving injections in the day that takes as long for the doctors to figure out something is up (oh gee who could've switched the stuff out) as you think it would. Despite the lead doctor being a "Nobel Prize winner" in DNA genetic codes, he is either really foolish in his hiring practices or really, really, oblivious. Somewhere in all of this is a guy with a tiger-striped leg and an old woman receiving treatment to try and be younger. Did I mention our title character has a big fro and a black turtleneck to go with a lumpy head that looks like someone drunkenly drawing the Karloff makeup? Reportedly, Sue was cast because he was a client of the producer once and wanted to get into films. With a thankless role that might as well have been played with a burlap sack on his head, you might call it the least definable Frankenstein monster ever, and the fact that the only thing he does is kill folks (either related to revenge or not) seems apt for a film dedicated to make money. Even sleaze films with gore have the semblance of ideas, this one is just lousy as both a Frankenstein hack and as a cheapie. Now don't get me wrong, the cash grab can make some good entertainment, but one would have the same result in spending money to make this film by instead renting a bus to drive around the country while having your head stuck out the window yelling obscenities at nuns. On that note, that's a good place to say to avoid this one.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next: The Mummy Returns.

Blacula.

Review #2124: Blacula.

Cast: 

William Marshall (Prince Mamuwalde / Blacula), Denise Nicholas (Michelle Williams), Vonetta McGee (Tina Williams / Luva), Gordon Pinsent (Lieutenant Jack Peters), Thalmus Rasulala (Dr. Gordon Thomas), Emily Yancy (Nancy, The Nightclub Photographer), Lance Taylor Sr. (Swenson, The Funeral Director), Logan Field (Sergeant Barnes), Ted Harris (Bobby McCoy), Rick Metzler (Billy Schaffer), Ketty Lester (Juanita Jones / Taxi Cabbie), Charles Macaulay (Count Dracula), Ji-Tu Cumbuka ("Skillet"), and Elisha Cook, Jr. (Sam, The Morgue Attendant) Directed by William Crain.

Review: 

The story of Dracula or stuff with vampires can go anywhere, particularly if the hands of American International Pictures had anything to say about it. Samuel Z. Arkoff obviously had a motivation, to, well, make money, so why not do a black vampire movie? AIP had already started with 70s stuff such as Count Yorga, Vampire (1970), so it only makes sense to make a different turn. Probably the only notable horror film with black actors before this one was Son of Ingagi (1940), three decades prior. This was the debut feature for William Crain, who had directed a bit of television along with serving as an apprentice director on Brother John (1972) before being selected to direct this film. The Columbus native (and UCLA graduate) would go on to direct exactly one more feature with Dr. Black, Mr. Hyde (1978). The film was written by Joan Torres, Raymond Koenig, and Richard Glouner, although when it comes to the title character, Marshall went to great lengths to make sure his character had some sort of dignity, complete with having a backstory involving being an African prince converted into a vampire (as opposed to the original proposal by AIP of "Count Brown’s in Town", according to Crain). Evidently, Crain was not too big on the idea of filming the final scene of the film to go along with having conflict with Bob Kelljan (director of the aforementioned Yorga films), who ended up directing the sequel Scream Blacula Scream (1973), which retained only Marshall from the original cast. The name really does stick like calling the film part of blaxploitation, even if Crain has stated being "a little embrassed about it". AIP would do a handful of black horror films in the following years, such as 1974's Abby (dealing with possession that had Marshall as one of the stars), Sugar Hill (dealing with zombies), or J. D.'s Revenge (1976; a restless spirit film).

Well, someone was going to be first as the first black vampire movie, because Ganja & Hess (1973) would come out just a year after this. The actors in support of Marshall are all pretty standard stuff when it comes to ones to setup for death or do exposition (minus the interracial gay couple in the beginning who play the stumbling device that starts a good deal of these films). McGee at least makes a suitable doomed lady of love in that same manner that follows the tradition laid in certain other horror films about similar looking ladies falling with creatures. The film can either be taken seriously or ham-handedly, I'm fine with it either way. Who better to act out the main role than William Marshall? The Indiana native had done a handful of Shakespearean plays on the stage across the world to go with steady work in television along with time spent teaching acting in universities. If anyone looked and sounded the part of a devastating man of the night, Marshall would be a good choice. He is the one who lifts the film to the heights that it goes to, because he dominates the screen in charisma and calm patience that never seems to treat the material as just "Black Dracula". The very first scene even has him confront Dracula on the idea of trying to be an advocate against the slave trade only to find the exact opposite of what he desired. In effect, he is an ideal tragic anti-hero, wandering the earth forever that basically becomes just like Dracula with his intent of, well, turning people into vampires. It is ferocity that works far more for our interests of watching him that folks probably found with Shaft [1971] (hell, can you think of anything the authorities do in either film?). The fright levels are moderate, although the production value is okay at best in that certain type of AIP way. Whether taken as a pioneer for black horror or as an AIP showcase, one will find something interesting with what they see here in terms of one vibrant performance in Marshall that gives the film all the dignity and bloody resolve that one would ever need.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Oh hell. Blackenstein.

Anaconda .

Review #2123: Anaconda.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Terri Flores), Ice Cube (Danny Rich), Jon Voight (Paul Serone), Eric Stoltz (Dr. Steven Cale), Jonathan Hyde (Warren Westridge), Owen Wilson (Gary Dixon), Kari Wuhrer (Denise Kalberg), Vincent Castellanos (Mateo), with Frank Welker (Anaconda snake) and Danny Trejo (Poacherck) Directed by Luis Llosa.

Review:

Look, you know what you are getting into with a film like this, especially one released in the late 1990s. The film utilizes a mix of computer-generated imagery and animatronics for its title creature (apparently, one can see an animatronic from the film at the California Academy of Sciences). Hans Bauer, Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr wrote the screenplay, although it has been stated that Mark Haskell Smith provided a "production draft". The film was directed by Luis Llosa, a Peruvian film critic-turned-director (of course, being a cousin of noted novelist Mario Vargas Llosa is something to note). He got his start as director with Peruvian television shows such as Gamboa and Carmin before becoming a feature director with (where else?) Roger Corman productions such as Hour of the Assassin (1987) and Crime Zone (1989). Perhaps to the surprise of no one, there were follow ups; only Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004) was released theatrically, although it retained no original cast members from the first film. Plans to make a reboot film are apparently in motion, which I'm sure is interesting news to those who are familiar with recent creature features such as The Meg (I still can't get over that title). 

Honestly, the film almost overrode my low expectations. You have Ice Cube making a reference to his own songs for a line. You have Jon Voight putting on a Paraguayan accent because, well, okay, sure. You have a snake that reminds me of a gummy worm when it comes to the CG moments to go with an amusingly long snake (with sound effects by Frank Welker). Top it all off, you have a character swallowed up and regurgitated that shows a shot of them blinking right before they are shown dead. Imagine all of this coming in a film about a National Geographic crew looking for an obscure tribe in the Amazon. It sure isn't Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), but it is the kind of goofy film that would fit just right from one of Corman's old features such as Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957). It probably goes without saying that a handful of sea creature features all seem to owe something to Jaws (1975), whether that involves POV shots or making creatures out to seem more dangerous than they are in the actual wild. Granted, the idea of going out in the jungle is a bit spooky, so having to deal with the idea of a snake that may eat or bite you is at least an idea I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. But this is about as scary as, well, looking at a snake in a picture book. It is cheesy in every way you would expect that I can only cite as a light negative assessment. Lopez doesn't exactly have much to really do when overshadowed by obvious presences in Cube or Voight, because even being a screamer would be part of a personality. The cardboard "PG-13" folks are there just to come and go, which seems hollow when compared to other cheesy movies. Stoltz is probably given the most thankless role of the whole film, since he is basically put out of commission for half of it, which makes him pale in comparison to the ones that at least get to act in fear of the gummi snake. Undeniably, Voight seems to be the only one giving it his all when it comes to ridiculous mannerisms, a preening cliche if there ever was one to the very end that I'm sure Vincent Price would've blushed at. Hyde probably is the only one of the body-count to make an impression, even if it is a mild laugh. I do appreciate the time taken to build up a killer snake only to have one victim of the film fall at the hands of a guy who chokes a person out with their legs while tied to a board. One can do better or worse with creature features, and this is not exactly a winner, but with its evident qualities of being exactly what you expect from a 90s product that stands more of its time than older-aged films of its ilk (for better or worse), well, you get what you think you get. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: you might be wondering why Thursdays this month featured Dracula and Frankenstein films. Hell, why not? For the fourth and final time, let's get a doubleheader, starting with Blacula.

Two Thousand Maniacs!

Review #2122: Two Thousand Maniacs!

Cast: 

William Kerwin (Tom White), Connie Mason (Terry Adams), Taalkeus Blank (Mayor Buckman), Ben Moore (Lester MacDonald), Gary Bakeman (Rufus Tate), Jerome Eden (John Miller), Shelby Livingston (Bea Miller), Michael Korb (David Wells), and Yvonne Gilbert (Beverly Wells) Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis (#752 - Blood Feast and #756 - Monster A-Go-Go)

Review: 

Okay, so it might seem weird that a filmmaker from Pittsburgh ended up making an exploitation film involving the South that might as well seem like a precursor to future southern-fried horror films in the next decade. Born in Pittsburgh but raised mostly in Chicago, Herschell Gordon Lewis actually had studied in journalism at Northwestern University before teaching communications at Mississippi State University. Of course, he was lured into working radio managing and subsequently in advertising. In the late 1950s, he worked as director on a couple of advertisements and eventually bought a share with the company he was making them for. He became a director in 1961 with exploitation feature Living Venus, which would lead to expanded fare of what some call "nude cuties". By 1963, Lewis and producing partner David F. Friedman wanted to tap into a market that was not declining like the nude market, and they landed upon blood and splatter with what became Blood Feast (1963), Two Thousand Maniacs! (1964) and Color Me Blood Red (1965) are considered a trilogy of sorts when it comes to the splatter film pioneers. He made a variety of films using his funds he made in advertising that covered a few topics for exploitation, such as birth control, or, well comedy splatter. After retiring for three decades in 1972, Lewis returned for two more films in the new millennium before his death in 2016 at age 90.

The Pleasant Valley Boys make an appearance in the film, because no film could make sense unless you have a banjo playing group here to give you a song that seems quite literal when they mean "The South Shall Rise Again". The plot was apparently influenced by the musical Brigadoon, which seems insane enough to make rational sense. If you've seen any film that plays on the stereotypes of traveling in the Deep South, well, here's one that leans in on bits of gore and goofy sadistic weirdos for the pile. Set in 1965 as a centennial "celebration" of a small Georgia town (remember what happened in 1865) is this odd little film. I actually kind of liked this film, probably because I found it amusing when it came to such a half-baked plot of revenge that could only come from the idea of having targets that aren't even that more sympathetic than the oddballs that show a variation of the loser flag (read: Confederate flag, and I say that as a Texan). It plays on prejudices with a useful underdog and, well, effects that had their standing point of credibility if one allows it for 1964. One might have a weird time figuring what is the best of the attempts at gore when it comes to unsettling thoughts about being wrapped up for death, and that probably falls to the one where a person is tied down while a dunk tank modified with a giant rock is right by them. Probably the standout is a man named Taalkeus "Talky" Blank, an Illinois stage actor who went by "Jeffrey Allen" in the features he made with Lewis because his lack of membership in the Screen Actors Guild. Lewis liked his Southern impersonation enough to use him for a handful of films. It's good ol' boy conniving stuff that works to the film's advantage, although Kerwin and Mason (familiar in a few other Lewis films) do just fine as the resident Northern underdogs. It's a strange film that goes on the cliché of weird dwellers that might just have a prejudice or bitterness up their sleeve to go with a favoring of gore that might have a familiarity with the viewer more than they like to admit. In that sense, Lewis has made a curious gory winner that attracts my approval to my pleasurable surprise.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next: Anaconda.

Island of Lost Souls.

Review #2121: Island of Lost Souls.

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Dr. Moreau), Richard Arlen (Edward Parker), Leila Hyams (Ruth Thomas), Bela Lugosi (Sayer of the Law), Kathleen Burke (Lota, The Panther Woman), Arthur Hohl (Montgomery), Stanley Fields (Captain Davies), Paul Hurst (Donahue), Hans Steinke (Ouran), and Tetsu Komai (M'Ling) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein, #847 - House of Frankenstein, #849 - House of Dracula)

Review: 

 "They give us a chance to let our imagination run wild. The art department can go to town on creep sets. Prop men have fun with cobwebs. The cameraman has fun with trick lighting and shadows. The director has fun. We have more fun making a horror picture than a comedy."

I'm sure you are familiar with the scenario: a 1930s horror film loosely based on a novel. This time around, it is a Paramount production based on the H. G. Wells novel The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) (describing it as "an exercise in youthful blasphemy"), since the studio managed to do well enough with the release of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the previous year. The film was written by Waldemar Young (writer on countless productions for over a decade such as London After Midnight) and Philip Wylie (more known for his stories such as When Worlds Collide as opposed to his screenplays, which started with this). Norman Taurog was apparently meant to be the director but was replaced by Erle C. Kenton, who had broken into film in the 1920s after forays into teaching, animal exhibiting, and vaudeville.  In a career of B films of comedy and horror, it is likely Kenton's best remembered film. Apparently, Wells (still living at the time) disliked the resulting movie, once calling it a "complete lack of imagination." In the years since, there have been a handful of subsequent adaptations, such as Terror Is a Man (1959) and The Twilight People (1972), each directed by Filipino filmmaker Eddie Romero (each of which did their own thing). 1977 saw an adaptation by American International Pictures with Don Taylor directing before John Frankenheimer tried his hand in 1996. The irony is that both directors maligned the original film as terrible and then they ended up making adaptations that nobody remembers now. A limited array of home video releases made the film a weird one to see for years, since the lost camera negative of Island of Lost Souls meant one had to combine a bunch of varying prints to make just one that worked until Criterion restored the film at considerable challenge in 2011.

It's funny, Wells intended for Moreau to be a well intentioned mad scientist when it came to doing vivisection on animals in an attempt to make them more human, and here he is getting mad at a movie that manages to show Moreau for what really makes sense: the man is a reasoned nut that made a nightmare when he thought he was making a creation fit for mankind. The terror is present quite effectively in its 70 minute runtime in disturbing qualities, one that has a tremendous performance to lead it off to go with a handful of nice shots from cinematographer Karl Struss that sometimes deal with the creature effects by Wally Westmore. It is that certain kind of chilling thar makes one look between the lines when it comes looking at human nature, whether that involves foolish curiosity or the unraveling of all that matters in group structures. Laughton dominates the film when it comes to understanding the mad scientist role as one that perfectly knows themselves to be doing their actions as a sane man rather than a blustering doubter. One believes right away that this is a man who senses only in his own brilliance of creating something great for man, whether that means serving as a sort of God for his creations or in trying to bring man and beast together. Arlen does fine with the material as the general normal focus in that way you would think for a reasoned man trying to survive in unreasonable times. Believe it or not, Burke was actually marketed as "The Panther Woman" because of a talent contest. Paramount held one for the film that saw the then fashion model and Chicago radio actress win from a pool of thousands of people. By 1938, she had done a handful more films but left Hollywood. She makes more of an impression than Hyams in terms of mystery and interest, but that's about that. Those who know Lugosi and his voice will see him right from the go even with makeup, but I enjoy seeing his presence in the attempt to assert order and reason even among fur. By the time the film has built its disturbing mannerisms of creation to a chaotic end, the experience has been a worthy one for consistent atmospheric creeps that shows there was more than one horror studio who could try their hand at horror, even if the forthcoming Production Code would try to neuter some of the ideas in later films. As a whole, it is a pretty good film worth it for Laughton and all that comes with it in disturbing quality.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Two Thousand Maniacs!, y'all.

The Vault of Horror.

Review #2120: The Vault of Horror.

Cast: 

"Midnight Mess" segment: Daniel Massey (Harold Rogers), Anna Massey (Donna Rogers), Michael Pratt (Clive), Erik Chitty (Old Waiter), and Jerold Wells (Waiter)

"The Neat Job" segment: Terry-Thomas (Arthur Critchit), Glynis Johns (Eleanor Critchit), Marianne Stone (Jane), and John Forbes-Robertson (Wilson)

"This Trick’ll Kill You" segment: Curd Jürgens (Sebastian), Dawn Addams (Inez), Jasmina Hilton (Indian Girl), and Ishaq Bux (Fakir)

"Bargain in Death" segment: Michael Craig (Maitland), Edward Judd (Alex), Robin Nedwell (Tom),

Geoffrey Davies (Jerry), and Arthur Mullard (Gravedigger)

"Drawn and Quartered" segment: Tom Baker (Moore), Denholm Elliott (Diltant), Terence Alexander (Fenton Breedley), and John Witty (Arthur Gaskill) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and #2106 - Scars of Dracula)

Review: 

You might remember that EC Comics was behind the Tales from the Crypt series of horror anthology comics. As created by Al Feldstein and Bill Gaines (with a good deal of art by Johnny Craig), it ran from 1950 to 1955. But there were two other horror comics that ran alongside it with The Haunt of Fear and The Vault of Horror. Of course, the comic book industry was the target of certain people thinking about the harmful effects of children (read: losers) that saw the eventual demise of the horror comics, but the legacy lived on with film anthologies that shared the name of the comics. Milton Subotsky of Amicus Productions had gotten his partner Max Rosenberg to get the rights to Crypt because he was a big fan of the comics, and this soon led to Tales from the Crypt (1972), which cribbed from two Crypt stories, two Haunt stories, and one Vault story ("...And All Through the House"). It was the fourth of seven anthology horror films made by Amicus, which they did first in Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965); Vault, released as the penultimate one (From Beyond the Grave [1974] closed it out), is the only of the group without Peter Cushing in it. Funny enough, with this film that shares the name of Vault, all but one story is cribbed from stories originally seen in Crypt (with the exception of "The Neat Job", which came from Shock SuspenStories). Keen eyes will note a shot is seen of a character reading a book that shows a cover of the Crypt film (well, what film wouldn't be complete without a novelization). Subotsky co-produced the film and also wrote for it. 

I would say that the film is probably on par with Crypt, which has its own degree of recognizable faces to go with quick wonky ideas for horror (which may or may not be a bit more amusing when compared to the previous effort) that may or may not be up your alley. Each of the stories, when one considers the moments spent after each story that set the next one up (the main setup of all is five characters meeting in a sub-basement), each last for varying lengths. The first story is "Midnight Mess", runs for roughly 17 minutes. The fact that it features two actual siblings for actors to go with a reveal of just what goes on with a weird town...oh hell, it is full of vampires, complete with the use of a jugular vein for a specific purpose. I was fine with it, but obviously it is the climax that makes a pretty decent punchline more than anything in particular. One wishes for four longer stories rather than five short ones. "The Neat Job" is about 15 minutes long that goes with a setup of cleanups and neurosis that, well, I think you can see where it could go when you have a specific comedic type in Terry-Thomas. It is very, uh, predictable. "This Trick’ll Kill You" is about 15 minutes and involves magicians trying to get that one great trick in their sleeves, even if it involves murder. I enjoyed it just fine, mostly because Jurgens makes a quality cad to make the pursuit and result all the more involving, particularly with that final moment in a ceiling. "Bargain in Death" is the shortest story at roughly 11 minutes, which namely involves a mostly quiet Craig awaiting the chance to rise from the grave after coming up with an insurance fraud scheme, but things go awry with the setup of arising from the dig. Easily the least memorable. "Drawn and Quartered", combined with the denouement, is the longest story at 25 minutes. This is the fun one, although it is probably the most obvious because it sees a man get the power of voodoo in his painting hand. Baker (a year away from being most famous with his role as The Doctor on Doctor Who) has a strange quality to him that is unnerving in the ideal sense, and the revenge aspect of the story is at its most obvious and amusing. Of course, the ending is as contrived as one can think when you need to protect a painting of yourself, but, well, you get the idea, they are short stories with macabre ends for each lead actor because obviously the ending has to be similar to the one from the previous film about storytellers and the dead. As a whole, it is a step down from before in Amicus, lacking great star power or a real spine tingler story to really make the results worth it. Folks who like to complete their run through anthology or 70s Brit stuff might find something useful here, but it would only be as filler rather than as a classic. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Island of Lost Souls.