The Lords of Salem.

Review #2311: The Lords of Salem.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Heidi LaRoc / Adelaide Hawthorne), Bruce Davison (Francis Matthias), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman "Whitey" Salvador), Judy Geeson (Lacy Doyle), Meg Foster (Margaret Morgan), Patricia Quinn (Megan), Dee Wallace (Sonny), Ken Foree (Herman "Munster" Jackson), María Conchita Alonso (Alice Matthias), Andrew Prine (Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne), Richard Fancy (A.J. Kennedy), Camille Keaton (Doris Von Fux), Bonita Friedericy (Abigail Hennessey), and Nancy Linehan Charles (Clovis Hales) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell, #2090 - The Munsters)

Review: 

"50% of you will think this is the greatest thing ever, and 50% will hate it...I think I wanted to let everyone there know that it's OK to feel that way about a film like Lords. It's meant to make you unsure about what you just saw. That's the way the things that I like are—they're not for everybody. People have this delusion that everything has to be for everybody at all times. Every album must be liked by everybody, and every TV show must be liked by everybody, and every movie must be liked by everybody. Everything then becomes bland."

Those with a familiarity with history involving witches or Salem might know that people accused of being witches were not actually burned at the stake. In fact, of the hundreds accused of doing witchcraft in 1692-1693, the thirty that were found guilty suffered the hands of hanging or for the small few, torture (one was pressed until they succumbed to their wounds...and was an 81-year-old man) or death by filthy prisons. Naturally, there have been dozens of books and films that have used the trials as a key topic, whether that involves comedy such as I Married a Witch (1942) or allegories such as The Crucible (play or film). But I suppose it makes sense that one would go and make a film that plays around with the idea that yes, witches really could just be as real as you or me through the old tricks. It was reported in 2010 that Zombie, fresh off the debacle of Halloween II (2009) would get around to writing and directing this film while on his concert tour circuit for shooting in 2011. He apparently had came up with the premise a few years beforehand, but it eventually was tinkered with by Zombie in order to make a "strange, dreamlike movie" (as noted in interviews here, he took inspiration more so from European trials of witches than Salem, which he was misinformed about). He did the film in collaboration with Haunted Movies (so basically, Blumhouse), which at the time had done Insidious and The Bay, particularly because he had total control over the script and casting for a fairly low budget movie. The next Zombie production would come across with 31 (2016), which would go through crowdfunding for certain financing.

I sometimes wonder if I give Zombie a bit too much slack as a filmmaker for all of the fairly average stuff he does. What we have here is a slow burn movie that shows fascination with what Zombie finds interesting about both witchcraft and in "Satanic Panic" that is grim and unforgiving. It may be disjointed; it may not be all that one might think when it comes to the previous Zombie films in terms of stark strangeness in the unfinished cycle of violence but "mixed bag" seems aptly appropriate to try out once if you know what you are getting into. Some might find it basically cribbing from Rosemary's Baby (1968), but given how "fine" that movie was, sometimes you really can just crib from fine movies as long as you don't insult my patience with attempts at simplicity. As before, S.Zombie headlines a R.Zombie film. This time around, there is a passive nature to a character with such a strange and stunted job (it's a radio gig where they hang out about the same level as a couple of inebriated folks) before one eventually sees the logical conclusion of a downward withdrawn spiral. She handles the affair with subdued grace that is probably her most compelling performance for the films I've seen of her. Geeson, Wallace, Quinn play along in weird neighborly charm that is fun to see play out from scene to scene that has fun with self-help in the name of a certain kind of worship. Interestingly, Davison had previously been featured in The Crucible (1996); he was cast when Bruce Dern dropped out of this film due to scheduling conflicts. His curiosity (which went from being a shill for himself to actual curiosity) in the face of impending dread is entertaining to see play out, needless to say. Rounding out the cast is folks such as an unnerving Quinn along with understated presences in Phillips and Foree, who work out fine. The movie has some interesting imagery eventually play out through its trek of dread (such as strange visions or priests) that at least looks like the kind of movie Zombie wanted to just go out and do in having cruelty and uncertainty (for the audience) be the point. As a whole, it might not play well for everyone, but there is promise shown by Zombie in terms of odd duck dread that has a worthy enough cast to carry the waters for a cruel experience that might just work for those that know where to go with a director interested in making a movie to leave you unsure of what you just saw. I ended up going with it enough to say it is fine for one patient viewing, which is more than enough when trying to branch out for horror movies down the road.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: We close out our sixth week after Halloween with John Carpenter's The Fog.

The Munsters (2022).

Review #2090: The Munsters.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Lily; Donna Doomley), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Herman; Shecky Von Rathbone; Zombo), Daniel Roebuck (The Count; Ezra Mosher), Richard Brake (Dr. Wolfgang; Orlock), Jorge Garcia (Floop), Sylvester McCoy (Igor), Catherine Schell (Zoya Krupp), Cassandra Peterson (Barbara Carr), and Tomas Boykin (Lester) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), #1756 - The Devil's Rejects, #1920 - 3 from Hell)

Review: 

“The Munsters’ was exhausting. That was an exhausting movie to make. It took almost five years of non-stop pushing. And then, being in a foreign country during the height of COVID was not as much fun as you would think! So the whole experience was very draining.”

As surely mentioned at least one person familiar from old television in your life, The Munsters was the show to go when it came to horror makeup on a sitcom as created by Allan Burns and Chris Hayward (with development by Norm Liebman and Ed Haas). Well, when you come from folks that had been involved with The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (while being produced by the duo that had created Leave It to Beaver), I'm sure you can understand what the show generally felt like, and, well, yes, it was fine for the time. And yes, it is the kind of show that once had a quote about the only thing that "matters is the size of your heart and the strength of your character." Anyway, here we are with a Universal film with Rob Zombie...well, I take that back. It isn't so much a Universal Pictures project as it is a co-roject of Universal 1440 Entertainment (known for such vaunted films as Bobbleheads: The Movie) and Spookshow International Films, complete with select filming in Budapest that had a release of both Netflix (you know the reaction I have) and on video, but it falls just over the line from the direct-to-video stuff you'd see in the 2000s...barely. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised Rob Zombie directed the film, because he once did a song called "Dragula" (as named for the dragster car in the show) that had a music video mimicking a car ride by the Munsters. It is the first theatrical film involving the show since Munster, Go Home! (1966), after a handful of television movies and one TV remake. The story of the film, if you didn't already guess, is really more a prequel than an adaptation of the series, since, well, there's no child Munster involved here. The film was mandated to be filmed in color rather than black-and-white like the show (aside from the closing sequence), so Zombie elected to shoot in vibrant color, citing it as seeming like a "live action cartoon". Zombie has stated his plan to not make another Munsters film, citing the rough production. 

Honestly, the film isn't even as good as Munster, Go Home!, which I'm sure you remember as the only other time that the Munsters have been featured in a theatrical format. If the original series was like a piece of candy corn that was sweet if not just a tad bit light, the film is essentially that same corn but made with cotton candy to hide the fact that there is less of the candy to go around. It is a strange film to mark in Zombie's line of work because it is the only one as of now that you could show to your children, because the rest of his stuff is, well, not PG-rated fluff. I can see the energy present in why he would want to make a movie based on a show that he seems to really love, but I also see that the film exists as an example for people to hold against him as something he either shouldn't have undertaken or wrote by himself. It seems to be a case where the cast and crew seem to be having more fun than the person watching it. Simply put: for a film full of corny jokes and a bit of spiffy makeup, you would think there was an actual body full of life in there, and yet it all comes out stiff. I understand the desire for having it focus on the core three members (Phillips, S.Zombie, Roebuck), but the general story around them doesn't make for a whole film when the jokes are not as funny as the source material that it tries to play tribute to. Of those three, it is only Roebuck that seems to get a grasp at the character as originally played by Al Lewis. He has that conniving but warm spirit that inspires a good deal of the actual chuckles generated from the film. You might wonder the fairness of trying to compare actors playing a role once inhabited by people from a half-century ago, but, well, Yvonne De Carlo and Fred Gwynne were solid picks in 1966 but Phillips and S.Zombie probably wouldn't have made for good second choices in 1966. Simply put, they don't make great presences in roles that should feel familiar and they don't really make a solid presence for a newcomer to see for laughs anyway. Phillips plays it too much like a ham, chomping at the bit to raise the voice for what ends up seeming like a video parody while S.Zombie somehow seems anywhere other than where she should be. It is that kind of bland haughty spirit that seems ripe for (wait for it) parody rather than an interpretation of familiar ground. Lewis and Gwynne were just so good together in comedic chemistry back then, and Phillips and Roebuck here don't even get to attempt to try and be funny together. The fact that McCoy may be the most interesting supporting presence before being turned into a bat is probably the punchline said on the burial of this coffin. I can't even fathom why the film has a whole plot about a castle takeover, unless they were so confident that scenes in Translyvania were more interesting than actually getting along to the familiar looking mansion from the show (spoiler: if you can cut the fat, why not do so?). Brake and Garcia seem like fine folk, but you could cut them and Schell and possibly not lose much in the way of chuckles for what seems too long at 110 minutes already. The film at least does use its color choices for useful effect to make amusement in tacky quality (again, the overall film is tacky, but the look is better than the jokes).

How is it that you can't make a more compelling adaptation of an show than the two Addams Family films (1991, 1993)? Not to veer too off-topic, but those films took a subject (neat little family looks strange to outsiders) already familiar to audiences with them from a decades-old show and newcomers to make for interesting entertainment. Here I just find a middling film that doesn't seem to really have a grasp of what the show really seems to be about. Yes, it was a sitcom, and yes, it had a few (?) corny jokes, but it also had a strong core cast and also a strong grasp of fun for family entertainment that emphasized just how cool it was to be around these cheerful folks despite the odd things that came from the folks who reacted around them. The film may be bright and it may look nice at times, but it doesn't gel well to justify anything other than a rental for those who need to fill time with something light. I can't give it a positive recommendation, because simply watching the show would be the best way to start one's autumn than doing so with a movie not worth your time.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

3 from Hell.

Review #1920: 3 from Hell.

Cast: 

Sheri Moon Zombie (Vera-Ellen 'Baby' Firefly), Bill Moseley (Otis B. Driftwood), Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Richard Brake (Winslow Foxworth 'Foxy' Coltrane), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Warden Virgil Dallas Harper), Danny Trejo (Rondo), Dee Wallace (Greta), Daniel Roebuck (Morris Green), Pancho Moler (Sebastian), Steven Michael Quezada (Diego), Jackie S. Garcia (Princesa), Bill Oberst Jr. (Tony Commando), Lucinda Jenney (Nebraska), Austin Stoker (Earl Gibson), Emilio Rivera ('Aquarius'), and Clint Howard (Mr. Baggy Britches) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), and #1756 - The Devil's Rejects)

Review: 

If you remember, Rob Zombie had directed two features involving a family of deranged weirdo killers in House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005). The 2003 movie is certainly a mixed bag if there ever was one, liked by folks who probably dug a musician and horror fan like Zombie making a pastiche of things he liked growing up. Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, and Sid Haig made a quality trio, albeit on a small scale due to the variety of folks that were in that film. But I dug that movie as an average little ride of drive-in ghoulishness. The Devil's Rejects was a pretty good movie to those who admired the deranged sensibility that came from a trio of actors that were allowed to breathe a bit more with a couple of notable lines and sequences. It was even more of a drive-in movie, but it does so with such blood-soaked enthusiasm. The ending is a pretty good one when it comes to just going nuts with finding a way to run into oblivion. So yes, 14 years later, here is another Zombie film involving a killer trio, with this being the third of the "Firefly" trilogy. Sid Haig was meant to return alongside Zombie and Moseley for a big role. However, Haig was recovering from surgery that had him lose a considerable amount of weight that would make Zombie have to modify his plans. As such, he has one little scene in the beginning before he is given a sendoff; his one scene is nice, at least. Sadly, Haig died a couple of days after the release of this film at the age of 80. As such, it is Richard Brake who is the new part of the trio of Zombie and Mosley. The film had a special three-night showing in September 2019 before release on home video. This was the 7th feature film from Zombie, with his previous effort having been 31 (2016), a movie he has compared to the aforementioned Rejects film.

I would say that this movie is decent enough to justify being made, which I suppose means that Zombie has managed to make a movie that will be hit-or-miss depending on one's patience for his habits as a filmmaker in trying to aim for the drive-in throwback with his personal favorites of music and actors to go along with a few familiar story beats. It does repeat a few things from the previous feature, for better or worse, which means that one will find that Zombie's comfort zone lies within seeing the nature of chaos in a weary world where killers are more fun than folks interested in revenge or in authority (i.e., if one is big on Zombie, the chaos comes off as renewed rather than repetitive). Of course, the opening sequence is a key distinction, touching upon the family as akin to the Manson family with its public curiosity. Eh, only the explanation to how the trio survived a cadre of bullets is probably the only interest (personally, if the trio responded to the praise with mayhem, it might've been a darkly amusing payoff) before the movie gets a grip and pulls its location of Mexico. For 115 minutes, it also is a bit of a tight demand for some audiences, but I did end up finding it an appropriately grisly time that shows the main three in comfortable chemistry to appreciate. S. Zombie proves effective in showing the growing delusion of the character without needing to rely on hammy tricks, and since we have seen here in two previous films, the lingering characteristics that jump from film to film make it all the more captivating in mayhem. Moseley is just as effective in his marked servitude in the work of the devil that has charm just as before without copying every little schtick moment from before. Brake does just fine here, managing to hold his own in terms of charisma (you know, for a killer) that blends right in with the others that doesn't aim for a Haig impersonation while making for useful chemistry between him and Moseley in film sibling form. The others are merely just puppets for the trio to play around with, such as Phillips being held in captive terror or a mild adversary with Rivera or a wide progression of one-shot wonders (Howard playing a clown, Danny Trejo having the bare minimum to do, a smarmy Edson), you get the idea. It works to a point, although it probably makes the overall climax just a mild display of drive-in horror enjoyment. 

As a whole, it is firmly in the middle in quality when compared to the other two films, which means that those who like it and those who don't like it have equally compelling cases if asked by a curious horror fan what seems best to watch on a late night. I veer on the side of support, as long as one liked what they saw before. Regardless of if this is the final one of these films or if we see Zombie do further films involving drive-in horror ambitions, you will have some sort of curiosity with this film in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 28 films (and one redux) that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's 12th season for concentrated writing about horror. Suggestions are always welcome as we move on to other films, and it is almost time for another Thanksgiving celebration, if you know what I mean.