Silver Bullet.

Review #2451: Silver Bullet.

Cast: 

Gary Busey (Uncle Red), Everett McGill (Reverend Lester Lowe), Corey Haim (Marty Coslaw), Megan Follows (Jane Coslaw), Terry O'Quinn (Sheriff Joe Haller), Bill Smitrovich (Andy Fairton), Robin Groves (Nan Coslaw), Leon Russom (Bob Coslaw), Lawrence Tierney (Owen Knopfler), Kent Broadhurst (Herb Kincaid), Heather Simmons (Tammy Sturmfuller), James A. Baffico (Milt Sturmfuller), James Gammon (Arnie Westrum), and Tovah Feldshuh (Narrator) Directed by Dan Attias.

Review:

It does seem prudent to cover a movie based on a Stephen King work for the holiday season. The movie is based on the horror novella Cycle of the Werewolf, which had been published in 1983 because the original intent of doing a calendar (as illustrated by Bernie Wrightston) with vignettes by King just didn't seem feasible. Making a movie apparently was a quick decision for none other than Dino De Laurentiis for Paramount distribution that was filmed in North Carolina over the span of a few months in late 1984; this was the second of two screenplays King wrote for adaptations of his work that were released in 1985, with Cat's Eye being the other one. Apparently, the design of the werewolf was contentious in production between King, who wanted it to be plain for Carlo Rambaldi (known for his award-winning work on King Kong [1976], Alien [1979], and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial [1982]) to design, and de Laurentiis, who wanted a change, apparently because it looked like a bear. Then they had debate over the performance of the stunts between the hired dance actor...and just having McGill do it. This was the first and so far, only film directed by Dan Attias, who apparently took over the film from a departing Don Coscarelli. He has continued to direct, however, doing episodes for countless TV shows ranging from Miami Vice to It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Released in October of 1985 with a budget of $7 million, the movie was not a big success at the time with audiences*.

Apparently, some people took the movie as a comedy (Roger Ebert called it "either the worst movie ever made from a Stephen King story, or the funniest"), because it apparently wasn't exactly a scary yarn. But I thought it was just a neat yarn anyway, engaging in the weird bits that come around in "ordinary" life, namely that really anybody can be a jerk. The movie is narrated by the older version of a sister (this takes place in 1976 so either the narrator [37-year old Feldshuh] is telling this from a very distant future or she aged really badly) that can't help but be annoyed at her brother (the title is two-fold: the silver bullet is both the weapon of choice at the end and the name of the high-powered wheelchair/motorcycle and no I'm not joking). Eventually, the movie gets interesting because of Gary Busey showing up, particularly when he makes an actual wheelchair/motorcycle (when your movie is 95 minutes long, damn the torpedoes, bring up the chair). Of course, this is after the townspeople get themselves into a mob to try and attack the creature that ends up with them being fogged out (including one guy who thought bringing a bat from his bar was going to be the problem-solver). Apparently, Busey was allowed to ad-lib his lines at times because the filmmakers liked what they heard from a guy who, well, was being played by Gary Busey (before the accident, and, well, yea). And he pretty much saves the movie from what could've easily been a family mush-fest because of his entertaining qualities that arise in eccentric nature built on love for the family he cares about the most that could've easily just have been an oaf (besides, I think we know alcoholics in real life that are just straight losers* as opposed to the lovable one presented here). He wants to do right by his nephew and niece and damn it, he makes me smile when he tries to play skeptic to the whole wolf thing. The eccentric-turned-reluctant hero could've easily been the whole movie at the hands of Busey, if you think about it. That's not to say that Haim and Follows aren't great, because they do at least sell the troubles that arise in being a youth in a world that looks stranger and stranger as the years get older, particularly when a wolf happens to be around (to say nothing of their first idea together in what to do about the wolf: send letters that basically say "sir, we know who you are, kill yourself!" - okay maybe that was meant to be funny on purpose). You don't exactly get the most prominent supporting cast beyond a scene or two, but they prove serviceable, mostly with McGill and his pained attempts to justify just who he is (okay maybe the movie could make it a little less obvious who the wolf is, but hey). I don't see the problem with the werewolf design. It's a mythological creature that goes around tearing people apart, the bar is not exactly that high for me to think "oh, a beast". Sure, there are better-looking wolves in other movies (An American Werewolf in London), but calling it a werebear doesn't really tell the whole story, and besides, I kind of like looking at it, particularly since a good chunk of the time is spent seeing it with one eye. Admittedly, the climax does stretch itself a bit to really justify everything that happens (i.e. housebound with, well, one bullet to use), but I think it works itself out in that strangely sweet type of way that reminds you that in the ordinary things of life, you can find weird things to box you in or find ways to connect with people to confront said thing. Or something, because this was a strange movie to ultimately see play out, but I was never bored with it, so I'd call it a win. Maybe it wasn't a scary movie, but older movies got away with the same amount of stuff anyway. As a whole, it is a goofy but earnest little film to seek out for those who like strange execution in family-bound stories or wolf movies beyond the usual suspects, and a movie that has just turned four decades old seems like a good place to start.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*At least Attias was willing to be interviewed about the movie. Didn't have the time to check it out, but I'm sure it has some insight - Silver Bullet! Interview with movie Director Dan Attias #stephenking #silverbullet

*There are alcoholics out there, I imagine, that are annoying as hell when not drunk.

The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Review #2450: The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Cast: 

Jon Hall (Robert Griffin / The Invisible Man), Leon Errol (Herbert Higgins), John Carradine (Dr. Peter Drury), Alan Curtis (Mark Foster), Evelyn Ankers (Julie Herrick), Gale Sondergaard (Lady Irene Herrick), Lester Matthews (Sir Jasper Herrick), Halliwell Hobbes (Cleghorn), Leyland Hodgson (Sir Frederick Travers), and Doris Lloyd (Maud) Produced and Directed by Ford Beebe. 

Review:

You may or may not remember that The Invisible Man wasn't exactly the Universal favorite. It took seven years from the release of The Invisible Man (1933) to merit a follow-up and, well, they never appeared in one of the Universal crossover movies, so you got The Invisible Man Returns (1940). Instead, you got stuff like The Invisible Woman (1940), a comedy feature (starring Virginia Bruce) and Invisible Agent (1942), a spy movie that happened to have Jon Hall play the title character. With this movie, Hall became the only actor to play an Invisible Man in multiple movies. The movie was directed and produced by Ford Beebe, a grab-bag man of directing various genres for cheap, whether as the Western with Overland Bound (1929), the serial such as Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938) or the adventure with Bomba, the Jungle Boy (1949-1955). The movie was written by Bertram Millhauser, who had written for several mysteries such as four Sherlock Holmes movies. Previously, Beebe had directed a horror movie for Universal with Night Monster (1942).  Universal did one other Invisible Man, albeit as a spoof, with Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951). There were movies abroad that cribbed from the H. G. Wells novel such as The Invisible Man Appears (1949) and The Invisible Avenger (1954), which each had effects work by Eiji Tsuburaya and there was also the Japanese feature The Invisible Man vs. The Human Fly (1957). And then of course there was some overrated Universal movie in 2020.

Now we are in the realm of pushing mad scientists to the sidelines for tired plots about revenge. To put it out of the way, this is the weakest of the three Invisible Man movies. You would think a movie that relies on draining blood from people to maybe become visible again would have an effect on you, but nope, the whole thing is just played for mild-mannered scare. The story (77 minutes long) isn't even that involving either, since the lead character is presented as just a weird guy trying to get revenge, so even if his motives were interesting beyond "maybe" being screwed over in safari, he does his stuff in the most complicated of ways, because it isn't enough to target two people, no, he wants to get their daughter married to him as well. He gets rescued by someone and decides, yes, I'm going to give them a bit of a boost and try to help them win a game of darts too. The ending is sheer audacity in ridiculous: the loyal dog of the guy the Invisible Man kills ends up being responsible for his demise, because he just happened to wander all the way through. Hall in general is too bland to really make this path of "revenge" that interesting. Carradine at least looks enthused to not be in a Universal movie with makeup (he played Count Dracula a few times) but he isn't even allowed to really go off for curiosity. Sure, his plan to help a guy gain visibility (dog gets drained of blood) sounds mad but he is quickly disposed of anyway. To say nothing of the bland triangle between Hall, Curtis, and Hendrick is the easiest thing, because really, getting money sounds more compelling than having to get visible just so you can "get" a girl. Everything is stacked in just doing things in the corniest of ways that don't even make for a great showcase of invisible effects this time, save for a scene or two. As a whole, for a studio that pumped out stuff such as House of Frankenstein the same year as this, you get basically the same amount of rushed ham-handedness for a pretty tired movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Wolfman (2010).

Review #2449: The Wolfman (2010).

Cast: 

Benicio del Toro (Lawrence Talbot / The Wolfman; Mario Marin-Borquez as Young Lawrence Talbot), Anthony Hopkins (Sir John Talbot / Wolfman), Emily Blunt (Gwen Conliffe), Hugo Weaving (Inspector Francis Aberline), Geraldine Chaplin (Maleva), Art Malik (Singh), Antony Sher (Dr. Hoenneger), David Schofield (Constable Nye), David Sterne (Kirk), and Simon Merrells (Ben Talbot; Asa Butterfield as Young Ben Talbot) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger and #322 - Jumanji, #2023 - Jurassic Park III)

Review:

"We wanted to make it period but we didn’t want to go back to the period of the original, 1941. I wanted it to be very much a vision of Edward Gorey’s London, which is Victorian London. There’s nothing more gothic and shadowy and horrifying than that. They had already decided on that when I came on so it wasn’t my choice, but I thought it was the perfect period to go to. It’s all about the darkness. "

Well, the remake comes for every horror movie at some point. You might remember that George Waggner's The Wolf Man (1941) had been written by Curt Siodmak to a general success at the hands of Lon Chaney Jr as a star. Sure, the follow-ups with Chaney weren't so much direct sequels as basically shuffling chairs, but it did at least take a few decades to try and revamp the werewolf for a Universal horror movie, at least if one doesn't count stuff like The Monster Squad (1987) or Van Helsing (2004). Plans were first announced in 2006, and at least they got the star they wanted with Benicio del Toro from the jump. Mark Romanek was tapped to direct the movie by 2007 that saw him involved with pre-production (such as hiring Rick Heinrichs for production design to go along with location scouting)..he was out by 2008. Joe Johnston was hired to direct the film in February 2008, a couple of weeks before the film was to be shot in England, and he stated later that he took the job due to having a "cash flow problem"*. Rick Baker and makeup effects supervisor Dave Elsey won the film's only notch of mainstream praise for the makeup, although they were locked out of doing the transformation sequences, which was done in CG. While Andrew Kevin Walker wrote the initial screenplay, Johnston hired David Self to provide re-writes. The movie was delayed over and over again for release, going from late 2008 to early 2009 to, well February 2010. Made for a budget of over $100 million, the movie was not a success at the time, with the then-president of Universal Studios (Ronald Meyer) calling the movie "crappy" and among the worst movies they ever made (of course he thought Babe: Pig in the City (1998) belonged in the same category, so take those words with a grain of salt). For the DVD release, an "unrated director's cut" was included by Johnston, which added 17 minutes to the runtime that had been deleted so audiences "would get to the first Wolfman transformation sooner", which most notably had Max von Sydow and the origins of the silver cane-sword. 15 years later, Universal did a "reboot" with Wolf Man (2025). For the purposes of this review, I covered the uncut movie.

There are varying story beats in each film, as in both movies the Talbots are reunited to bury a newly deceased brother and both movies involve a climax of father and son confronting one another. Of course the older film used fortune tellers and even a spell to get to where it is, but there you go. Honestly, I get why some wouldn't be particularly big on the movie, but...I kind of liked it. Sure, you get the Gothic sensibilities of murky colors and period stuff (set in the final years of the 19th century in jolly ol' Victorian England) to go with CG effects, but it is a neat little romp that gave me what I was hoping for: a charmer. You can't exactly top John Landis' An American Werewolf in London (1981) or even Joe Dante's The Howling (1981), but you can still have a bit of fun anyway. It is a bit cut and dry with what to expect from a werewolf movie, what with the big thing about full moons, having one's clothes still wearable even after being a wolf (okay that was in the 1940s movie too), and naturally: not really going too hard about a woman falling for a man with big fur (okay I don't care about the last part, but maybe there are werewolf movies where people care about romance). But, really, how much "tension" do you need in a movie where you know there's going to be R-rated wolf-tearing? Johnson may have done the movie strictly for the money, but I think he did fine with the situation presented in making a useful thrill ride. Del Toro does a reasonable job with the material provided, managing to balance the tightrope of man and monster for decent tragedy that isn't making one just think back to Chaney. Hopkins chews the scenery up in hearty conviction to make the family drama of the food chain (and who merits being on top) a fashionable one to watch. Sure, they might overshadow Blunt, who tries her best to sell why anyone would in fact cling around to the situation presented that is sometimes believable (I suppose anyone can fall for those stuck in a situation they can't control). Weaving plays a character with a name inspired by the actual chief inspector Frederick Abberline, a prominent figure in the investigation of Jack the Ripper in 1888. He doesn't get much to really do but is at least fashionable for the eventual climax. In general, the movie rests on building to hairy mayhem and a few fashionable Gothic sensibilities that I was generally on board with. It never really kicks into high gear, but it satisfies most of the boxes one would hope to see in wolves and action, complete with finding a way to have two wolves face each other in good ol' fashioned hokum. Quality wise, it probably is a smidge about The Curse of the Werewolf (1961) for wolf movies and in general is about on par in the "amp up old monsters" category with The Mummy (1999). As a whole, The Wolfman is a fine remake, doing most of what you would hope to accomplish with taking a familiar focus and giving it some fresh air that may be worth looking into beyond calling it a missed opportunity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently it was four/three weeks of prep time. Cinematographer Shelly Johnson stated that he had two weeks of prep time here: The American Society of Cinematographers | Bad Moon Rising: The…

The Manster.

Review #2448: The Manster.

Cast: 

Peter Dyneley (Larry Stanford), Jane Hylton (Linda Stanford), Tetsu Nakamura (Dr. Robert Suzuki), Terri Zimmern (Tara), Jerry Ito (Police Supt. Aida), Norman Van Hawley (Ian Matthews), Toyoko Takechi (Emiko Suzuki), Kenzo Kuroki (Genji Suzuki), Alan Tarlton (Dr. H. B. Jennsen), Shinpei Takagi (Temple Priest), and George Wyman (the Monster) Directed by George Breakston and Kenneth G. Crane.

Review: 

Sure, you might think the title is a bit of a tell that things are going to be a bit off for the movie. Appearances can be deceiving, but I imagine it probably won't seem true for this oddball movie. It seems oddly appropriate that a movie about two heads has two directors. George Breakston was originally an actor in his young days, having moved to Hollywood from his native France. He served in the US Army Signal Corps with the Officers Candidate School for photography. He became a director with Urubu (1948), which he happened to produce and co-star in. He was the producer and contributor to the story of Tokyo File 212 (1951), the first Hollywood feature to be made all in Japan. He directed a variety of movies overseas, whether that was Geisha Girl (1952) in Japan or Golden Ivory (1954) in Kenya. Breakston would produce and direct all the way until 1966, whether that involved African Patrol (1958-59) or The Boy Cried Murder (1966); he died in 1973 at the age of 53. The screenplay was written by Walter J. Sheldon as based on "an original story" by Breakston. The movie was co-directed by Kenneth G. Crane, who is also listed as "supervising editor" in the opening credits. He started out as an editor for such movies as The Iroquois Trail [1950] and added directing to his foray for a brief time with such works as Monster from Green Hell [1957] and When Hell Broke Loose [1958] (he also directed English-language scenes for the American edit of Ishiro Honda's Half Human in [1957]). The Manster was his last work as a director. Crane continued to be an editor in films all the way to Soul Hustler in 1973; he died in 1995 at the age of 87. The movie had a mix of American and Japanese people working on the film, which was done in Japan; Shinpei Takagi worked on the effects of the "manster" (get it, man, monster, man-monster?). For whatever reason, the movie opened first in Japan in 1959 before being released abroad starting in 1960. Apparently, in 1962, it was enough to justify being on a double feature with Eyes Without a Face (you might remember that it was called "The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus" in some places).

In a sea of head movies such as The Incredible 2-Headed Transplant (1971), The Thing with Two Heads (1972) and How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989), The Manster is probably not very high on the list. You might wonder what the significance of the movie being set in Japan with a handful of Japanese actors involved. Well, not much really, since the movie basically just cribs from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde while featuring the local scene for about two minutes before finding ways to cut around the terror and the fact that the monster isn't even seen that clearly (particularly in daylight). Sometimes it reminds one of a sack, but the effect beforehand where it is just an eye on the shoulder is at least interesting to look at. Dyneley was probably better known for his work on Thunderbirds (yes, really) than this film. But at least there is a semblance of an idea in basically doing a midlife crisis horror movie. But it doesn't feel tragic enough to be anything more than a goofy ham-handed performance that happens to share time with a guy playing the monster. This was the only movie for Zimmern, a Macau-born woman of varying Eurasian heritage that happened to marry Breakston in 1959. Interludes spent with her would be more interesting if you really felt a sense of doom or anything other than "oh, hey, a woman", and that goes doubly for the mostly forgettable Hylton (who actually was married to Dyneley at the time). You would think Nakamura would have something to do as the mad scientist. But no, he only mildly shows up from time to time, talking about evolution and things that one does when living around a volcano that at least has one interesting thing: he tries to knife himself off before getting disposed of. The climax, for a movie that runs at 72 minutes anyway, does have some silly execution (everybody's got to get to the volcano, ready to erupt) but at least you get to see a fight on a volcano between a man and his manster self that is as delusional as it sounds. As a whole, The Manster is pretty cheesy and pretty crappy but altogether there are a few chuckles and curious moments to be had in watching the two-headed spectacle play out. In the bottom of the barrel, being middle-of-the-road is not as bad as it could be.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Corpse Vanishes.

Review #2447: The Corpse Vanishes.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Dr. Lorenz), Luana Walters (Patricia Hunter), Tristram Coffin (Dr. Foster), Elizabeth Russell (Countess Lorenz), Minerva Urecal (Fagah), Angelo Rossitto (Toby), Frank Moran (Angel), Vince Barnett (Sandy), and Kenneth Harlan (Editor Keenan) Directed by Wallace Fox.

Review: 

Okay, sure, the 1940s had a few oddball movies that can be called "horror", at least the ones that aren't part of Universal (such as, in part, The Inner Sanctum Mysteries). But fret not, you have Monogram Pictures here to distribute a cheapie movie mystery horror, complete with finding the one actor they could corral for appearing when not busy with other things: Bela Lugosi. When Lugosi wasn't busy doing stuff like Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), he did a handful of movies for Monogram with Sam Katzman as a producer. Lugosi wanted to do movies that weren't horror (ironically his popularity had received a boost in 1938 because one man did a double feature involving Lugosi's Dracula) and yet here he was, complete with doing opiates to treat his chronic sciatica and doing stage appearances. The film was written three-fold: the screenplay was done by Harvey Gates (a veteran writer who apparently wrote around 200 movies before he died in 1948), while the story was done by Sam Robins and Gerald Schnitzer. The movie was directed by Wallace Fox, who did over 50 movies that started at the tail-end of the silent era to 1951. 

Okay, let's just say the plot of the movie straight out: a mad doctor aims to target the gland fluid of virgins to help his vain wife from straight up dying of old age. But, well, what's the "corpse"? Uh, well, when the doctor gets his orchid to unwitting brides on their wedding day, the flower knocks the lady out in a way that makes people think they are dead and therefore make the body a sitting duck to finagle out to his totally normal lab. Naturally the one investigative force that moves the plot is a reporter that gets directed to an orchid expert: the doctor, who happens to have a few folks in his cellar in a crazy woman and two sons in a dwarf and a strong half-wit. Needless to say, the movie isn't exactly good, but if you did films such as The Death Kiss (1932) with Lugosi around, you might find something curious in its lurid ideas, mainly because it is just 64 minutes long. Lugosi lumbers around a bit with the usual routine that he does with basically being aloof in saying or leering whatever he has to do, most notably when he talks about finding a coffin more comfortable than a bed. Otherwise the movie is mostly by-the-book in monotone nature, as if just showing a dwarf, a lumbering brute and saying a few weird things is going to be enough. It is ridiculous (particularly the fact that it is an orchid of all things), but you are basically chuckling at the film rather than being all into it such as say, Plan 9. The body count isn't even that lurid, since the only people that are shown to get it are just some of the villains (it occurs to me I didn't bother to think about if the brides were okay). The fake-out for the climax is at least funny because even the villain thought it was a goofy idea to try and do a bride-trap (seriously they try to lure the villain with a "bride" but then it goes to a quick climax because the bad guy takes out the reverend). The movie is too silly to really do anything too morbid about old people wanting to stay young, but so it goes. As a whole, The Corpse Vanishes is nothing particularly special, but it may have a strange lurid taste for those who like the plumb the depths of old movies from the way way back that has a few odd little moments to go along with the general Lugosi performance that comes with movies like this. It's a creaky movie but you can't blame the movie for being what it is.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Fright Night (1985).

Review #2446: Fright Night.

Cast: 

Chris Sarandon (Jerry Dandrige), William Ragsdale (Charley Brewster), Roddy McDowall (Peter Vincent), Amanda Bearse (Amy Peterson), Stephen Geoffreys (Edward "Evil Ed" Thompson), Jonathan Stark (Billy Cole), Dorothy Fielding (Judy Brewster), Art Evans (Detective Lennox), Stewart Stern (Cook), Robert Corff (Jonathan), and Pamela Brown (Miss Nina) Written and Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner, #1003 - Child's Play)

Review: 

“The story of Fright Night was very specific. It’s about a teenage horror movie fan who becomes convinced the neighbor next door is a vampire. OK? That was me. And I was writing about the movies that I loved when I was 15, 16, 17, and they were the AIP and Hammer Horror films, which starred Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price... that’s how you get Peter Vincent, the horror movie host. And so I was writing about myself and my growing up. And I thought the story was so strong and had such human values, especially in the person of Peter Vincent, the Roddy McDowall character... the story was strong, and the vampires were right for that.”

Sure, let's feature a Tom Holland movie. As one might wonder, the Poughkeepsie native attended Northwestern University for theater before going to and later graduating from UCLA. He wasn't too keen on acting but took the time to train at the Actors Studio and appeared in a handful of guest roles on TV and film. Around that time, he became friends with Stewart Stern, who influenced him to try writing. He went back to UCLA to study law but found the itch from writing to be too much to bear. His first screenwriting credit was the TV film "The Initiation of Sarah" in 1978 before becoming a film writer with the adaptation of The Beast Within in 1982. Other scripts followed, such as the story for Class of 1984 (1982), which was then followed with being hired to write Psycho II (1983), and lastly was Cloak & Dagger (1984)*. The premise that became Fright Night arose during the writer of Cloak that became tempting to direct himself when he saw the results of Michael Winner's direction for his script Scream for Help (1984). Despite not having a completely wide release from Columbia Pictures in August 1985, the movie was a qualified success with audiences. In total, Holland directed five further movies as a director, although because he was busy with Child's Play (1988), he could not be involved with Fright Night Part 2 (1988), which had Ragsdale and McDowall return to their roles. A remake of Fright Night (which relocated it to Las Vegas with a stage magician that may be an expert on vampires) came around in 2011.

There was a sea of vampire movies in its era that ranged from The Hunger (1983) to Lifeforce (1985) to, well, The Lost Boys (1987), but Fright Night does manage to stick out for itself pretty well because of its enthusiasm. Sure, the slasher was making the rounds for what audiences were going with in its time, but it didn't mean you were going to be lacking at least one movie to cut straight from the heart in playing to familiar comforts. The playful rendition of "Boy Who Played Wolf", combined with some worthwhile effects, does make for a pretty good time for those in the mood for it. You get vampires that can deal in wolf form and/or mist to go with the general tone of menace in baring fangs but in the suburbs to go along with having a vampire killer that actually isn't just the usual authority on the matter. It takes time for Ragsdale to get comfortable in the role, but he does spring a few bits of humor in what comes from actually being right in what his eyes see rather than just cloying, although it helps to have chuckles when paired with Bearse or Geoffreys. It is interesting that the part played by McDowell was basically a homage to the great Vincent Price, mostly because I would assume there was tiny bit of influence in Boris Karloff (okay well the character is also named after Peter Cushing, the vampire hunter actor for all time), who actually did host a TV show about horror (specifically, Thriller back in 1960-62)*. But McDowall aimed to played it as if the character was an old ham actor rather than just being a pastiche of Price (who while approached for the role was winding down from taking horror roles). He basically becomes the heart of the movie with the humor that comes from playing it to the ego required of flipping the usual authority with engaging conviction. Sarandon does make for a solid adversary though, managing to draw the power necessary in icy charm that could swoop in and out from sight in a suburb without becoming a hammy threat to wash away. The sequence near the climax involving him, Ragsdale and Bearse has a special curiosity to it in just seeing how seriously Holland wants to make the plight of someone being correct about vampires being among people and being powerless in that moment. The effects (as led by the team that had just done Ghostbusters [1984]) benefit the film particularly well in reminding one of just how entertaining it can be to look at vampires out in the open. As a whole, the movie eventually finds its footing by the time its 106-minute runtime is over due to its various charms that come off as affectionate rather than just being a failed homage. To put it mildly, it has the vibes worth watching for the spooky season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Incidentally, Cloak and Dagger was inspired by the short story "The Boy Cried Murder", which had been adapted into a film a few times over.

*I wonder if there is a tiny bit of inspiration that was cribbed from Targets (1968), a movie where Karloff plays a disillusioned horror actor who actually gets confronted with real terror and, well, strikes it down.

Black Phone 2.

Review #2445: Black Phone 2.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney Blake), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen Blake), Ethan Hawke (the Grabber), Demián Bichir (Armando), Jeremy Davies (Terrence Blake), Miguel Mora (Ernesto), Arianna Rivas (Mustang), Anna Lore (Hope Blake), Graham Abbey (Kenneth), and Maev Beaty (Barbara) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange, #1865 - The Black Phone, #1905 - Sinister)

Review: 

You might remember that The Black Phone was released just a few years ago, first premiering in the festival circuit back in 2021 before Universal Pictures eventually got on actually releasing the movie to theaters in 2022. Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill cultivated a story based on Joe Hill's short story of the same name with a good deal of inspiration from people Derrickson knew when he was younger, which differed from say, the "Spielberg Amblin suburban middle school life": there were obviously a handful of differences between story and movie, most notably that the sister was actually the older one along with having calls from just one person in the story (who actually does tell him to fill the phone with sand as a weapon) and, well, the story ends right as one is trying to escape the house all while the phone is ringing* In 2023, Derrickson and Cargill worked on "Dreamkill", a segment for the found footage horror anthology movie V/H/S/85 that dealt with a cousin of the Blake family with their own psychic ability. Derrickson and Cargill wrote the script just as they did for the previous film, although Hill apparently came up with an idea ("The Grabber calls Finn from hell") for the sequel.

It probably was spooky to watch a movie where you see people in a film just yanked out of the blue that won't come back and will stare at nothing for the rest of time. Sure, a good chunk of the last Black Phone movie was basically an escape room, but it had an interesting performance in Ethan Hawke to go along with a few unsettling moments with a person who clearly had the headspace of wanting to win his own game (whether that involves his brother or not) while wearing such a strange imposing mask. Sure, the movie didn't outright show much in terms of gore, but I think you get the creeping factor that could come in what might happen if one in fact can't just stay dead with a sequel. This is a lot of words for me saying I really wished that I liked the movie, because it is quite ridiculous, when you get down to it (I will try to not spoil anything too specific unless you scroll down below for notes). Let's start with some praise first. McGraw does manage to shine the best among the cast in terms of evoking interest in vulnerable. And I do like Thames reasonably well in his burrowing evolution from the point of "what next?", for the most part. Hawke does still have an unsettling presence here, even if a good chunk of it is really just a voice more than anything (the not-quite spoiler is that being dead means not being able to just take your mask off). The 114-minute runtime can only go so far when having ideas of trying to ape A Nightmare on Elm Street (as I recall, the climaxes for 3 and 4 dealt with resting bones and a soul revolt, respectively), although I imagine someone would argue it might have had a bit of inspiration from Friday the 13th with its camp scenario. But you can only do so many things involving dreams. To put it mildly, there are quite a few scenes now spent in Super 8-filmed dreamland that takes things to new levels convenience. Since the Grabber is basically only around in the dream world (or when he calls Finn because, obviously), it means a good chunk of time is spent in going from thing to thing because the movie can only maneuver itself forward within dreams, particularly when the movie doesn't have as much urgency as you wish it would have. For a movie that tries to be "Good vs. Evil", you can only go so far before you start to wonder if "Black Phone: Rocky Vacation" would've been a more apt title, complete with clunky dialogue all in its midst. I sometimes felt like I was back in It Chapter Two (2019) territory, for whatever reason.

Three ideas popped into my head about what the movie could've been: Finn trying to actually cope with his survivor's guilt, or lurking further with what the Grabber is beyond being a "bottomless pit" of sins, or maybe asking aloud if Gwen actually is going nuts (okay maybe everyone starts to believe something is up when being levitated in the air, but, well). Instead, it goes for lurking in dreams again and again and again until it eventually reveals the last card that comes with things that either could be thought of as a blessing or a curse*. It can only go so far when trying to make the Grabber a thing because you can only go so far in the first place* before it all becomes too goofy for words. You might say it isn't advisable to judge a movie on what you want it to be rather than what it actually is, but for me, there is a uneasy feeling of being underwhelmed by what I was watching by the time the film stumbles to the climax. It already felt sluggish for its first half, but it just doesn't stick the landing all the way through. You can say that it isn't a slasher movie and that it is supernatural and yea, okay, the first movie was about dead kids calling someone, but now we are talking about once-dead beings skating on ice as if they were the Invisible Man, so keep trying to say "atmosphere, atmosphere"- yadda yadda yadda. Some might find it spooky, other might just find it only mildly involving. In trying to justify its existence, it only ends up feeling like an epilogue. As a whole, I wanted to like the movie beyond tagging it as just mildly disappointing but didn't quite find what I was looking for. It's just too average to really love. The tough situation of having voices of the dead be the one point standing between a trapped person and a kidnapper seemingly turned on to playing a game with a stacked deck is now just a rocky mountain adventure. The movie accomplishes a good chunk of its goals but doesn't really pull the punches that were as apparent in the first film. You might think of it as a solid sequel, and that's fine with me. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Apparently, the short story (30 pages) is available on the Wayback Machine. To prove that, the first words of the story: "The fat man on the other side of the road was about to drop his groceries."

*Okay, one spoiler: Imagine, if even for a second, that Gwen was actually just going a bit crazy, rather than just being The Most Correct Person To Ever Live. But nah, she even gets to be the one who mom talks to on the phone at the end. Sucks to be you Finn! And don't tell me that is supposed to be an emotional hallmark, you already make it so the mom did not in fact kill herself (ITS ALL CONNECTED AHHHHHHH), do you need closure on closure too? I wanted to know if the religious parents died in the ice or not, by the way.

*Addendum: Technically, the movie has no actual body count. Sure, you are told about a few more dead kids from the 1950s, but really: is a movie spookier when you are told about something or when you actually see it? You can't introduce three new characters to join the proceedings and then basically not have any of them deal with mortality. And no, the mom doesn't count, that's just retconning/cheating.

Trick 'r Treat.

Review #2444: Trick 'r Treat.

Cast: 

Dylan Baker (Steven), Rochelle Aytes (Maria), Quinn Lord (Sam / Peeping Tommy), Lauren Lee Smith (Danielle), Moneca Delain (Janet), Tahmoh Penikett (Henry), Brett Kelly (Charlie), Britt McKillip (Macy), Isabelle Deluce (Sara), Jean-Luc Bilodeau (Schrader), Alberto Ghisi (Chip), Samm Todd (Rhonda), Anna Paquin (Laurie), Brian Cox (Mr. Kreeg; Gerald Paetz as young Kreeg), Leslie Bibb (Emma) Written and Directed by Michael Dougherty (#1227 - Godzilla: King of the Monsters, #1309 - Krampus)

Review: 

"Halloween is better than Christmas because it's all about self-expression. Everyone gets to dress up as a character. Even if they go to the store and buy one of those crappy pre-packaged costumes, they're still making a choice to dress up like an idiot, cut loose, and become something that they're not but is also indicative of their deeper personality. There's something so amazing in that. It's about purity, fun, and creativity."

Originally, Michael Dougherty created the character of Sam with his senior thesis film at New York University in "Season's Greetings" in 1996, doing so with hand-drawn animation over the course of seven months, specifically because he wanted to create a mascot for Halloween (a holiday he felt made life more magical than Christmas as a kid), noting that there was plenty of imagery but not "the one" - he landed on basically a small being with a sack. Eventually, the Columbus native wrote a first draft with Sam in 2001 but studios were not particularly interested in "old-fashioned" stuff like vampire, werewolves, and zombies (one thing that was different was that a graveyard was the setting for a story rather than a quarry). In the meantime, Dougherty devoted time to scriptwriting, contributing to X2 (2003) and Superman Returns (2006), which both were directed by Bryan Singer, who served as a producer on the film that started production in late 2006 and was shot over a few months. Doughtery aimed to get certain age groups for each story, whether that involves carving a pumpkin as a kid, heading out to trick-or-treat as a teenager, or being with hormones in your twenties...or being in your twilight years. Rather than having a traditional structure where the stories were separate, it was felt that the movie fit better when the stories were mixed in together, which is basically being inspired by Pulp Fiction. To put it mildly, Warner Bros. screwed this movie (one that was made for $12 million, mind you) over in every shape and form. It was first publicly screened on the festival circuit in 2007 but didn't get a real theatrical release, instead being released on DVD in 2009. Dougherty never got a straight answer as to why his movie was screwed over the way it was, but he had no bitter feelings over the making of the film, noting that because horror fans "don't like being told no", managed to boost the awareness of the film that apparently made it slip into the mainstream. Plans for a sequel have floated around for years but nothing has actively been in development.

Sure, it may not be Creepshow (1982) type of fun with spooky anthology fun, but it is at least enjoyable for most of what it aims for in the holiday spirit with some chuckles. Sure, it may not be the great Halloween thing ever (Halloween (1978) has won the argument year after year in quality, regardless of its gore because if you can't handle gore, you don't deserve it), but the enthusiasm for the holiday is clearly on display from Dougherty. So you get four (maybe five if you count the opening with Penikett/Bibb) stories that weave in with each other for varying effect. What comes first (as a whole story, technically) is Baker and the ever-lingering story of trying to deal with an unwilling captured body that probably feels the most macabre of the stories to come ahead; it helps that Baker can balance the line of chilling and amusing. You then get to see the next story involve a quartet of kids (McKillip/Ghisi/Bilodeau/Deluce and Todd) engage with a possible legend and dealing with the power of belief within legends and, well, fiction. The third one, and by that I mean one that has been here-and-there between Paquin and the trio of girls (Smith/Aytes/Delain) playing dressup while doing a Halloween shindig that has hang-ups more notable than being without a mate for the fire. Kinda funny, particularly with how the last story ended, anyway. The final segment involves Cox and directly seeing that mascot Sam and the mischief that arises in curmudgeons meeting the devoted, although I don't really know if Sam is really as much of a creature of mischief with the mix of whimsy and darkness as he is just kind of there. Maybe it is just me, but I do wish it was a tiny bit longer than the 82-minute runtime. It doesn't exactly take itself too seriously, but there is a part of me that believes the film doesn't bare enough fangs (despite having an R rating, it mostly cuts away in the body count) to really be as effective as it needs to be. As a whole, the quibbles I have with the movie don't detract from the fact that there is fun to be had in reminding oneself of the mischief that can be had on Halloween. It can be filled with candy, it could be filled with watching horror movies, it could be spent with friends*, or one of all/none of the above. It is a nice little movie that achieves most of what it wants to do, and I suppose that is more than enough for October.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Honestly, my one memory with a pumpkin is my dad putting some fireworks in one and exploding it on New Year's Eve 15+ years ago. Trick or treating was more of a thing I did with my mom with one exception in freshman year of high school. After that I pretty much gave up, but I argue horror movie marathons are just as fun.

The Giant Spider Invasion.

Review #2443: The Giant Spider Invasion.

Cast:

Steve Brodie (Dr. Vance), Barbara Hale (Dr. Jenny Langer), Robert Easton (Dan Kester), Leslie Parrish (Ev Kester), Alan Hale Jr (Sheriff Jones), Bill Williams (Dutch), Kevin Brodie (Dave Perkins), Dianne Lee Hart (Terry Kester), and Tain Bodkin (Preacher) Directed by Bill Rebane (#756 - Monster A Go-Go)

Review: 

"I call myself a dyed-in-the-wool Wisconsinte and I just believe this state has so much to offer other filmmakers, especially in locations."

I suppose it made sense to give a proper spotlight to Bill Rebane with his most talked about movie. Born in Latvia, he came to the States at age 15 and majored in drama at the Art Institute of Chicago. He worked a variety of jobs in media from WGN-TV to working in Germany involving Cinemascope and his own circular motion picture process. He also worked as an international studio representative with Bendestorf Studios for several years. He wanted to make a feature film in 1961 and began production on what was to be "Terror at Halfday" with June Travis. You might recognize that the movie did come out...as Monster A Go-Go, since Rebane sold his (not quite complete) footage to Herschell Gordon Lewis, who needed a movie to put on a double feature. Apparently, he felt that his real contribution to the industry was the "first 360-degree motion picture process created with one camera" (which had one projector on a seamless screen), brought over from Germany. Later in the decade, he bought a farm property in Gleason, Wisconsin that became "The Shooting Ranch", an actual feature film studio in the Midwest that could do commercials and small-scale films. Rebane used it to do his first true film with Invasion from Inner Earth (1974). Apparently, the Giant Spider Invasion was made for roughly $300,000 and was shot around the Wisconsin towns of Merrill, Tomahawk and Gleason. The movie apparently made millions of dollars (although it was apparently pirated many, many, many times) and Rebane continued to make horror movies for a time, with one even featuring Tiny Tim as a star. His career effectively ended when he had a stroke in 1988, as the farm soon was sold off and Rebane moved away from the town to Hurley. Did you know that Rebane actually ran for Governor of Wisconsin twice? (1978 and 2002, where he was quoted as not really caring about the results). Rebane has lived long enough to see a film festival (as hosted by people from Mystery Science Theater 3000, no less) held in his honor and even served as the focus of a documentary. Apparently, the movie will have an "enhanced version" to celebrate its 50th anniversary later in the month.

 

Admittedly, you probably have low expectations for a movie that dare to call itself "Giant Spider Invasion". And you would be right. This is a movie that has a Volkswagen beetle used to represent a giant spider (one spider was lifted by crane) to go along with "The Skipper" being cast as a goofy sheriff talking to scientists that are claiming the spiders have arisen from a mini-black hole to go along with a diamond plot, I swear. The movie was written by Richard L. Huff and Robert Easton. Easton is mostly known for his countless years of work as dialogue/accent coach (which led to Rebane motivating him the best way possible: locking him in a cabin to write multiple pages to get food) while Huff apparently never wrote for a movie again. The best thing to say is that at least the crowds that run from the spider at least looked like they had fun doing things. Well, that, and the fact that you need crap like this to remind you of what to appreciate when watching movies and saying they look like slop or find on a streaming service (pity). Honestly, while I get how some people call it one of those "cult following things, I just found it kind of boring and not really that interesting as a movie. Easton being in the movie to play a skeevy husband is at least semi-curious, but the movie clashes way too much with what it wants to be: either attempt to be a monster movie like the 1950s or go all out in humor, but pick one, man. The spiders (whether as a car or the actual tarantulas they used) are only moderately funny to see on screen. This might be one of those movies you watch with The Giant Claw (1957), but at least that movie wanted to try and actually follow procedure in monster mashing (okay that movie had a monster from an "antimatter galaxy"). This movie just meanders for 80 minutes with either skeevy weirdos, a preacher that randomly pops in (and doesn't even get eaten!), totally funny line-delivery or bland authorities. Sure, it is funny to look at the countless times where day-for-night shots are actually screwed up, and sure it is funny to look at the absurd juxtaposition of man and car-spider. That's about all you get. On the other hand: at least when you say the name Bill Rebane, you won't immediately think of worse stuff like Monster A Go-Go. There's a lesson to be had there...probably.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Jigoku.

Review #2442: Jigoku.

Cast: 

Shigeru Amachi (Shirō Shimizu), Yōichi Numata (Tamura), Utako Mitsuya (Yukiko Yajima and Sachiko Taniguchi), Hiroshi Izumida (Kyōichi "Tiger" Shiga), Kiyoko Tsuji (Kyōichi's mother), Akiko Ono (Yoko), Hiroshi Hayashi (Gōzō Shimizu), Kimie Tokudaij (Ito Shimizu), Jun Ōtomo (Ensai Taniguchi), Akiko Yamashita (Kinuko), Torahiko Nakamura (Professor Yajima), Fumiko Miyata (Mrs. Yajima), Tomohiko Ōtani (Dr. Kusama), Kōichi Miya (Journalist Akagawa), Hiroshi Shinguji (as Hiroshi Shingûji) (Detective Hariya), Sakutarō Yamakawa (the Fisherman), and Kanjūrō Arashi (Lord Enma, the King of Hell) Directed by Nobuo Nakagawa.

Review: 

It does sometimes help to pick a horror movie from a studio that just let things twist in the wind. This was actually the last film to be produced by the studio Shintoho. The studio had come around in the late 1940s because of defectors that came from a strike within Toho. They produced movies such as Akira Kurosawa's Stray Dog (1949) but could not exactly compete with the big studios. In the last years of their run before becoming bankrupt, they pumped out a good deal of cheap period ghost movies and sci-fi movies. One of the directors brought on to do a few of those movies was Nobuo Nakagawa. He actually had been directing movies since the 1930s, having risen from amateur film review writing to working in film production. He did comedies, war documentaries, thrillers, and a small amount of ghost/horror movies to go along with work for television, and he directed all the way until near his death in 1984 at the age of 79. The Ghost of Yotsuya (1959) is likely the other movie he is known for. For this film (also known as The Sinners from Hell), he wrote the screenplay with Ichirō Miyagawa. As Miyagawa explained in an interview years later, the two were engaged in a discussion about the "Plank of Carneades" thought experiment in which if one would be of guilty of murder if they pushed a person off a plank to save themselves that happened to coincide with hearing a TV report of a fisherman catching fish in the Tama River that he sold to people rather than eating it due to fears of it being poisoned. One thing leads to another in then talking about Faust and alter egos and having the question asked about having an idea in mind and boom, the two got to work (apparently, the one question the studio had is where the heaven was, since the original mandate was to make a script called "Heaven and Hell" so Miyagawa joked the sequel would be about heaven). The movie was remade in 1979 by Tatsumi Kumashiro and apparently a remake was done in 1999 with Jigoku: Japanese Hell by Teruo Ishii*.

Hell or no hell, you get a visually entertaining time watching this movie eventually unfold the deck of cards that arise in punishment for the wicked. Hell isn't just a realm of torture, it can also be the things that are seen every day on here itself. There are plenty of worthy shots to appreciate and examine in detail for a movie that might as well be a canvas of suffering. The hell sequences take up roughly 40 minutes of the 100-minute runtime, and you have to understand that the movie is basically a morality play, complete with how it is staged. You know how much the actors cared? In the scenes you see of actors in dirt (on a soundstage with no props but plenty of dirt to dig), the actors themselves dug the holes. Of course, when you have a cheap movie, you can do shots with a washtub, a mirror, a stirrer and some colors and make it look like, well, something you can believe in. This also goes for "Needle Hell", which just goes with plastic and lighting to, well, make a place look like a place. It is a disorientating movie to experience and honestly, it is darkly funny if you think about it. You have a guy who has one little thing (being the passenger to a car accident) spring consequence among consequence to the people he ends up encountering from that point on, whether that involves people that fall off bridges, folks getting poisoned from sake, double-strangulation, and people committing suicide. Sure, the people in the movie are, well, people that probably deserve hell, but screw it, I enjoy seeing the strange qualities that come with weird people all getting the curtain thrust upon them. It's like a soap opera but where everyone dies (with one consolation, anyway). 

And then of course there is the whole "hell" thing, presented with bits of gore in illustrating the type of punishment that takes inspiration from Buddhist ideas about hell. Technically speaking, Amachi and Numata are meant to be playing the sides of a coin, with the latter stating that Nakagawa told him that it was "about the outside and inside of a person" (like Faust). Numata was not entirely satisfied with his performance, but I find him to be a very curious presence in this film, since there are certain sequences where he just arises out of the blue like a dark cloud that can only lead to trouble that he handles with odd charm. He looms with a knowing presence of decay that we can see in all of us. Our temptations and the decisions that come from acting on (or not) those things make us who we are and, to those with the soul to do so, where we may end up. The movie sees a bunch of people who made a few choices for themselves rather than others and says, yep, you are all fit for down under. The filmmakers theorized that if it is hard to show psychological torment on screen, you might as well make it a graphic metaphor, although its mechanisms of plight do have an abrupt end in the closing. Sure, it is a crude film that probably won't win everyone over with its pacing at times, but it sure is a devilishly curious time to at least encounter once. It takes its time to really get the footing going, but if you buy into its little play before the showstopping pits of hell, the trip (not literally) will surely be worth it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Speaking of names that might merit consideration down the line. And, oddly enough, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, because I found a Criterion video about Jigoku that featured him talking about the movie. New Directors Month 2026?

Demon Knight.

Review #2441: Demon Knight.

Cast: 

Billy Zane (The Collector), William Sadler (Frank Brayker), Jada Pinkett (Jeryline), Thomas Haden Church (Roach), C. C. H. Pounder (Irene), John Kassir (voice of The Crypt Keeper; Brock Winkless as puppeteer), Brenda Bakke (Cordelia), Dick Miller (Uncle Willy), Gary Farmer (Deputy Bob), Ryan O'Donohue (Danny), Charles Fleischer (Wally), John Schuck (Sheriff Tupper), and Sherrie Rose (Wanda) Directed by Ernest Dickerson (#1641 - Juice) 

Review: 

"I’ve always enjoyed Demon Knight. I love horror films, and I had a lot of fun creating a horror mythology. It was a great cast. I was also happy to do the first film where an African American woman saves the world. That was a good project to be involved with."

Hey, remember Tales from the Crypt? In 1989, a television series was created based on the bi-monthly horror comic anthology series that was created by Bill Gaines and Al Feldstein. By the 1980s, one was long past whiny parents and even whinier doctors having fears that horror comics were making kids illiterate and/or juvenile delinquents*, now you could mine old stuff for movies and premium TV (complete with sex and violence, the hallmark of horror movies and probably America too). The show ran on HBO until 1996 and it probably makes sense that movies were coming. Plans for three of them, in fact. The other ones were tentatively called "Dead Easy" and "Body Count". The screenplay was credited to Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris, and Mark Bishop, although it should be noted that the script for the film had been languishing around for several years and at one point there was a version scripted around not having demons being shown but instead a legion of Bible salesman clad in suits and sunglasses that just happen to be revealed as demons later. Demon Knight, a movie released in January of 1995 because they pushed it back from Halloween 1994, was a mild success with audiences (not with critics, but do you trust mainstream critics about horror?), and a post-credits scene states the next film of the Crypt would be Dead E-nope, the second film "presented by Tales from the Crypt" was quickly retooled into Bordello of Blood in 1996 (funny enough, that was also a movie involving an old script being retooled). A hastily made segment with the Cryptkeper character was done for a movie called Ritual (2002), which remade I Walked With a Zombie of all movies (seriously?), although that movie barely had a release in theaters.

So, does it compare well to the 1972 Tales from the Crypt movie? Eh, sort of. If you accept the movie as a little ride through varied conversations about lore (well, something involving religion I guess) and familiar ground for a siege movie, you will be totally fine with what you get here. 92 minutes sounds like they could've just packaged a few episodes for video but it makes for a mostly paint-by-numbers movie, but...it is up the alley. If you thought the show could show promise when not just being a [name actor is here for 20 minutes]* episode, the movie will probably satisfy some of the expectations you may have in entertainment. Maybe it could have been more unsettling, but it at least makes up for it with a few solid moments, in particular because of the presence of Billy Zane, who is delightful in menace. He manages to be unsettling in the sequences of temptation because it ends up sounding pretty believable to walk along his path, which is a hard road when one scene has him drop the pretense of being a cop to just punch straight through a guy's head.  He just has an aura of energy and capability to make you want to listen to what the hell is coming up next that I almost wish would've made it all the way to the end. Sadler may be strapped with an understated type of hero role, but I see it more as an appropriately weary performance that is enjoyable to see play out, mainly because Sadler just seems reliable to take seriously. For a movie that invites you to the idea of a key filled with many, many people's blood (and Christ) in it, anyway. Pinkett makes a worthy participant to the proceedings around her, quirky yet eventually endearing enough to root for, at least when compared to the delightfully adversarial presence of Church* or the always on-time Pounder and Miller. In general, the movie sets its body count early and has a few fine moments with the effects and chuckles, although it definitely feels more a casual ride for those who've seen Assault on Precinct 13 (1980) a few too many times more than a truly original ride. But I like hokum like this when it is presented with likable people or a few little moments of gore to make me want to see it all the way to the ending, which might be a bit too cozy (even the lesser Crypt episodes tried sticking a twist in like a knife for the end). But as a whole, Demon Knight manages to have a few entertaining moments to ride through the obvious bumps that come with trying to turn 30-minute spine-tinglers into a full-edged movie for a moderate ride of success.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Why can't people focus their attention on asking aloud why certain people are weird like Taylor Swift superfans?

*Remember when Morton Downey Jr appeared in an episode about haunted ghosts on live TV? The one I probably remember best is the one with Joe Pantoliano about remembering just how many times he has died. Or the one about being trapped in one's own body.

*A Harlingen High School graduate, don't ya know?

Private Parts (1972).

Review #2440: Private Parts (1972).

Cast: 

Ayn Ruymen (Cheryl Stratton), Lucille Benson (Aunt Martha Atwood), John Ventantonio (George Atwood), Laurie Main (Reverend Moon), Stanley Livingston (Jeff), Charles Woolf (Jeff's dad), Ann Gibbs (Judy), Len Travis (Mike), Dorothy Neumann (Mrs. Quigley), Gene Simms (First policeman), John Lupton (Second policeman), and Patrick Strong (Artie) Directed by Paul Bartel (#955 - Eating Raoul, #2231 - Death Race 2000)

Review: 

"If you wish you hadn't seen it, it's bad bad taste. If you feel you were brought dangerously close to the edge, but at the end you were made to laugh or learn something, then it's good bad taste."

It really is a terrible thing to be called Private Parts, if you think about it, so imagine if that was your film debut. This was the case for one Paul Bartel. Born in Brooklyn but raised in Manhattan and New Jersey, Bartel had an interest in film from a young age and apparently spent time assisting cartoonists at UPA, as one does when fascinated with marionettes before they turn 10. He studied at UCLA and made short films that got him a scholarship to study film in Rome. The Secret Cinema (1966), a short detailing a woman being secretly filmed by manipulators around them, was his first prominent short film. Gene Corman served as producer of the movie, a cheapie meant to be for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The working title of the movie was "Blood Relations" before MGM president James Aubrey suggested the change. Go figure: local newspapers saw "Private Parts" and said, nope, too shocking to print, which defeats the whole purpose of a title (in some places, they just called it "Private Arts"). The movie was written by Philip Kearney and Les Rendelstein (screenwriters of this, Strange Invasion [1965], and nothing else), who apparently knew a few oddballs in the underworld of Los Angeles; they were UCLA guys around the same time as Bartel, who apparently did some re-writes to the script. Premier Productions was the distributor of the movie, but actually it was just a subsidiary of MGM, who apparently was embarrassed by the sex and violence but wouldn't just sell it to someone who actually cared. Well, given that they were in the business of doing a horror movie, what exactly were they expecting, Rosemary's Baby?* Bartel appeared in a variety of movies (cameo or supporting, as one expects from a character actor) while often appearing his own directorial efforts, of which he made a total of nine movies before he died in 2000 at the age of 61.

It's a neat little sleazy movie that happens to have a change in mood right around the climax that Bartel stated had an impact with why test audiences were not as big on it as you might expect. He once stated that you had to "be detached from the film and not take it seriously" in order to appreciate it, which may prove fascinating for a movie that does seem pretty relevant more than ever. Sure, some people probably know who their neighbors are (anonymity is the goal but not expected), but there are likely some secrets best not worth knowing everything about; basically, this is a movie for those who like to pair their movies with Psycho or Peeping Tom. It has a few moments of gore but is also just as amusing in the weird spaces that you see for 87 minutes. This is the first and only credited movie for Ruymen, who had done a handful of theater productions and even getting on Broadway with Neil Simon's The Gingerbread Lady*. She did a handful of television appearances over the next few years and has mostly spent time directing for the small stage. She pulls off an interesting performance here, mainly because she has the fascinating challenge of playing eager youth without just being a final target. She does pretty well in balancing that tightrope, doing so with a certain shaky type of charm to go with the foibles of youth that can make one chuckle just as much as grimace. Undeniably, Benson shines the best among the cast, proving to be unsettling without having to strain to make one get the idea as one might expect from a character depicted going to funeral to take photos. You know something is a bit up with her from the jump but you are entranced at the self confidence that comes in that type of belief of self-righteousness about the nature of men and women. It also happens to be the only movie for Ventantonio, who is fairly unsettling, albeit for a movie that relies plenty on having an unsettling feeling on what one is allowed to see. You get plenty to see in images and other things in the landscape two-fold: a person we first see observing someone having sex and a person we soon see observing others from their abode while you also get some side moments with eccentrics (one of them played by Bartel, naturally) to remind you that there can be just as much unease without bloodshed. Uneven or not, there is at least something for everyone even for a slasher film that likes to show a mirror at the world and chuckle a bit at what we see in malaise. Look, there are people who don't respect horror and then there are those who are willing to believe that comedy just doesn't work with horror. But Private Parts (1972) is a neat little movie that happens to dwell in the macabre with eccentric energy that might be right up your alley for a strange time in the horror season.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Hey, we don't hate Rosemary's Baby here, I just think it's funny to rag on it. Or Hereditary. Or people who call Sinners anything other than straight horror. No it isn't a musical, stop lying to yourself.

*The play actually lasted just five months on Broadway. The only other movie with Ruymen in it was Jaws, she played a nurse and didn't get screen credit.

*I do find a bit strange Wikipedia terms it as "LGBTQ-related film", since we are talking about a movie where someone injects blood into an inflatable sex doll full of water. Not exactly something you'd want to fly the flag for, you know?

The Bride (1985).

Review #2439: The Bride (1985)

Cast: 

Sting (Baron Charles Frankenstein), David Rappaport (Rinaldo), Jennifer Beals (Eva), Clancy Brown (Viktor, the Monster), Geraldine Page (Mrs. Baumann), Anthony Higgins (Clerval), Alexei Sayle (Magar), Veruschka von Lehndorff (Countess), Quentin Crisp (Dr. Zalhus), Cary Elwes (Captain Josef Schoden), Phil Daniels (Bela), and Timothy Spall (Paulus) Directed by Franc Roddam.

Review: 

Admittedly, this movie had been on the ledger for quite a few months, mostly because one can only look over a Frankenstein film once in a while. The 1980s though, were not exactly a great time for movies with Frankenstein being an inspiration, as evidenced by Frankenstein Island (1981), The Vindicator (1986), or, well, The Monster Squad (1987). And then you have The Bride. The movie was directed by Franc Roddam, who went from London Film School to film directing with Quadrophenia (1979). Sting, best known at the time for his work with, well, The Police, had made his debut as an actor with the Quadrophenia film. Beals was best known for Flashdance (1983), which she filmed as a student at Yale University (The Bride was done on summer break and she graduated in 1987).  The movie was written by Lloyd Fonvielle, who had co-written the adaptation of The Lords of Discipline (1983), which Roddam directed. Interestingly, Roddam later created the worldwide sensation MasterChef. No, really.

The movie practically nosedives once you realize that yes, it is going to keep jumping between the narratives of Beals/Sting and Rappaport/Brown. Yes, the movie called "The Bride" really could've just been called "Frankenstein and the Circus", particularly since it becomes apparent that Beals is playing the title character but barely moves forward in terms of "interesting developments". Sure, you can say there is supposed to be something interesting in viewing what happens when you try to tell the story of a woman who learns to think for herself beyond just being groomed by a man to be in his image (remember that he tells folks she got found after an accident). Instead, it just comes off as something to chuckle at when you see a scene of her trying to be in respectable company and she starts hissing at a cat. The "psychic connection" that is suggested to be with Beals/Brown doesn't exactly help matters, coming off as someone having a bit too many shots of whiskey. If the Beals scenes are a drywall version of Pygmalion, the Brown sequences might as well have come from the land of Dumbo. At any rate, there is just something about Sting's performance that seems to desire a more experienced actor despite his decent attempt at playing a grand old hypocrite (or basically, an Internet "male feminist"). Even when one knows he is playing "Henry" Frankenstein, it still feels like one is chasing down Peter Cushing in a futile effort (incidentally, Frankenstein Created Woman (1967), the only one of the Hammer films involving creatures and women, was better). It is a hell of a thing to look like you are about to do a music video when trying to aim for "strange genius". There is an odd feeling one gets when watching Beals because you almost feel there is something really worthwhile to say about a woman created from lightning that finds more to life than what a "creator" says. Instead, she just gets lost in the shuffle, she doesn't really get her own highlight to be anything other than the lady who hisses at cats and gets cut off for the circus (don't even get me started on the brief sequence of nudity, what the hell is that all about?). This was one of the early roles for Elwes, and he just wanders in and out of the film with little damage to credibility (seriously, he wanders out of the movie just...because). 

Rappaport* does have a smarmy charm to make what probably could've been its own interesting tragedy or something else when you consider the bond that comes with misfits of all shapes and sizes. Brown gets a bit lost in the makeup, but he makes a quality imposing presence that you almost wish he was the one getting key billing. You wish there was a movie of Beals and Brown there, because the damn movie just ends abruptly (complete with a voiceover about following one's heart, as if this was an advertisement for coffee). There are a few supporting names that might be familiar, such as a 76-year-old "raconteur" in Crisp or a youthful Spall, who naturally are killed off in the opening lab sequence, which at least seemed like a scene worth highlighting for having lights and lightning that seem cool to think about before the inevitable. There just isn't passion to be found, it all feels like dinner theater Gothic horror, particularly when you grimace at the fact that 119 minutes can in fact feel like nothing has actually happened in the film beyond reminding you that even a scene throwing a dude off a building can make you roll your eyes. I'm not mad at the movie, just disappointed even with such low expectations (imagine how it must have felt in 1985, and this was for a movie that made less than $4 million*). A 6/10 implies a nearly-there experience, a 5/10 is the proper rating for a middle-of-the-road movie that is too lame to be a near-miss. As a whole, the movie is a failure in the parts that matter most: sure, it looks nice at times and it has a few interesting chuckles with Rappaport and Brown, but the film never has conviction in making you care about Beals or where the movie will end up and it has the tone of a Hallmark greeting card rather than actual Gothic horror. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*It was made for roughly $14 million. God, could you imagine if The Bride! (made for reportedly $80 million scheduled for release 2026) is bad? If it is good, sure, cool. The trailer did not do many favors but I would desire a tiny trainwreck if possible.

*This actually was Rappaport's penultimate film appearance, having appeared in ten total movies from 1973 to 1989, most notably with Time Bandits (1981). He committed suicide in 1990, dying at the age of 38.